Joe Harris Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I agree with Anguscanplay, if you dont have a URN there is no priorty at all. Most alarms are confirmed these days, what should the police priortise, blokey on the bech watching something on his mobile, or the confirmed, URN'ed system? I can understand and emphasise with this point of view. In reality the police would indeed prefer to respond to a confirmed intruder from a certified install and compliant monitoring centre. However, the flip side is that the guy on the beach knows for a fact that the masked guys entering his house are burglars. The arc could be passing a confirmed intruder alarm caused by mavis the cleaner forgetting to swipe her keyfob and carrrrying on with the hoovering. Difficult one isn't it? I still think the right approach is being taken already for the record and I would hope the police would try to be practical in their response. 'J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPAlarms Posted May 14, 2008 Author Share Posted May 14, 2008 if they allowed one instance of a non-compliant centre passing alarms (even where the false alarm rate was 0%) then they would have to allow others. By a member of the public informing the police of a visually verified intrusion - how is that "Non-compliant" ? - there is nothing to comply with. The tax deduction from their payslip at the end of each month makes them exempt from any form of compliance. To a member of the public who could not care less about the ACPO policy and wants to protect their home and family for an amount within their budget, taking this one step further and having a monitoring company help them just seems like common sense. However, the mere thought of a "Non-compliant" company making the call instead of the homeowner themselves is enough to send a shudder down the spine of the whole security industry. In reality the police would indeed prefer to respond to a confirmed intruder from a certified install and compliant monitoring centre. ROFL. You really think they care ? Of course they put this over at the security industry meetings you attend, but talk to the bobby on the street and ask his opinion. However, the flip side is that the guy on the beach knows for a fact that the masked guys entering his house are burglars. The arc could be passing a confirmed intruder alarm caused by mavis the cleaner forgetting to swipe her keyfob and carrrrying on with the hoovering.Difficult one isn't it? BINGO !!! I still think the right approach is being taken already for the record and I would hope the police would try to be practical in their response. It is the right approach for the people employed in the security industry. Now explain to the frightened young, single parent girl why she and her child are not entitled to a police response because the money she earns does not allow her to "Comply". Free Alarm Monitoring over the Internet from IP Alarms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anguscanplay Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 Now explain to the frightened young, single parent girl why she and her child are not entitled to a police response because the money she earns does not allow her to "Comply". just when your starting to make sense you always blow it - okay explain to me why I cant have a police outrider when I`m popping down to the shops like Mr. Brown? you cant because I cant, but however much you shout on here you aint going to change police policy - indeed you may even make the rules tighter ( and i`m rather hoping it does) its just another example of your "robin hood ..." business plan IMO nothing personal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 So just so I understand, your saying that for normal domestic alarm owners that the whole theory and practice of DD243 etc should be used... or an ip signalling device with video confirmation. As there would be no compliance, so no maintanace and service just a free for all? Would you say that systems would need to be installed to have 1 camera per detection area, or would the design of the system be left to the person installing it? There used to be a system called a 'Police List' where anyone could get a urn.... This system was scrapped by the police because it didnt work. Going back to it wouldnt work either. Also whats to stop this monitoring company or client lying, cos the cameras broke, covered over, crashed, havnt got my laptop with me.... The URN system prevents is due to tracability and Loss of response, with no URN i could call the police to your house...right now and say ive seen on my laptop someone breaking in. securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPAlarms Posted May 14, 2008 Author Share Posted May 14, 2008 So just so I understand, your saying that for normal domestic alarm owners that the whole theory and practice of DD243 etc should be used... or an ip signalling device with video confirmation. As there would be no compliance, so no maintanace and service just a free for all? What I am saying is that homeowners have the right to a police response. Neither you, me, the security industry or even the police have the authority to dictate what equipment, if any, can be used as an aid to achieve this. Would you say that systems would need to be installed to have 1 camera per detection area, or would the design of the system be left to the person installing it? You are thinking like an alarm installer. Just for one moment imagine that you are the parent and grandparent of the young girl and baby I mentioned earlier. All you care about is their safety. Do you think it is possible to explain how the "theory and practice of DD243" is going to help them ? I'm talking about the real world here - not a fancy invitation only meeting at IFSEC. There used to be a system called a 'Police List' where anyone could get a urn.... This system was scrapped by the police because it didnt work. I was on that list 20 years ago. It was scrapped because we wanted to turn the party into a private one and stop undesirables from gaining entry. Also whats to stop this monitoring company or client lying, cos the cameras broke, covered over, crashed, havnt got my laptop with me.... This may indeed happen now and again. It is not a valid reason to punish the majority who won't do it. ..with no URN i could call the police to your house...right now and say ive seen on my laptop someone breaking in. You could also call them and say you had left a bomb in a bin outside MacDonalds. Shall we ignore such calls too because they are also open to abuse ? Free Alarm Monitoring over the Internet from IP Alarms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpye Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 ..................... In reality the police would indeed prefer to respond to a confirmed intruder from a certified install and compliant monitoring centre. .........at 2:15 in the morning to a report (with a running commentary) of cars being broken into. The person on the phone was inside their house watching and could hear the police siren a good 4mins before they arrived, and where was the chap 'doing' the cars, that's right, long gone. "In reality the police would indeed prefer to respond to a confirmed intruder from a certified install and compliant monitoring centre" ....... with their sirens sounding Someone told me I was ignorant and apathetic, I don't know what that means, nor do I care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 You could also call them and say you had left a bomb in a bin outside MacDonalds. Shall we ignore such calls too because they are also open to abuse ? If they were all genuine id agree, but if 98% were false id assume the police would impliment some rules to lower this figure. I agree that every taxpayer deserves a police response, but i feel the system is too open to abuse. Unfortunatly there are rules, your ip system has to follow certain rules, they may restrict you from what you would ideally like your system but either way you operate within those rules. Its the same with everything, there are rules and these must be followed. Maybe you would have an argument for Grade 1's to be allowed to have a police response with their lower servicing costs i dont know. You have also got to think about the litigation side of this 'common sense' approach. Who do i sue when my diy alarm/cctv records images of burglar bill smashing his way into my house and no police are informed? securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPAlarms Posted May 14, 2008 Author Share Posted May 14, 2008 I agree that every taxpayer deserves a police response, but i feel the system is too open to abuse. Unfortunatly there are rules, your ip system has to follow certain rules, they may restrict you from what you would ideally like your system but either way you operate within those rules. Its the same with everything, there are rules and these must be followed. Hey - Thanks for the debate. Some good answers. I don't for one minute think I can change anything and I certainly don't have the time to try. Let's see how it goes ;-) Free Alarm Monitoring over the Internet from IP Alarms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billythebellbox Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 There used to be a system called a 'Police List' where anyone could get a urn.... This system was scrapped by the police because it didnt work. Going back to it wouldnt work either. you got a trade back ground? "anyone" could a police URN by applying to each force which they wanted URN's from & the police own alarm technician would go with you & inspect a no. of systems installed & your premsies & documentation don't forget ABC APCO gave us a "unified" police policy & 3rd party inspection What I am saying is that homeowners have the right to a police response. I agree providing they comply with the requirements of a type A system Why does every topic you post in turn into a QVC type presentation for police turn out w/o having a proper cctv / intruder / pa urn? BTW fire urn are coming soon(ish) you going to preach agaist them as well? De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da. De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.wilson Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 I didnt read it as that billy and yes i do have a trade background. I think that there will be an explosion of diy installed systems sold on the belief that if i call the police they will attend. Unfortunatly the single mum with 3 adorable children wont find out that the police arnt going till it happens as she needs em. I can also see Virtuals POV that in theory if everyone played by the rules of this no rule system (bear with me lol) then it should be fine. Unfortunatly as the post says, in the real world, ir doesnt happen like that and I dont think it will work. But there will be thousands installed mind securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.