back to article Called 999 recently? They've got your number

Millions of people who reported crimes have had their details stored on police databases. The revelation has emerged from information provided in response to a freedom of information request from the Press Association. It shows that police forces in England and Wales have kept data about people who call 999 or non-emergency …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Danny 14 Silver badge
    WTF?

    not really surprising

    And the police wonder why noone wants to help

    "senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation"

    What a joke.

  2. mt1
    Thumb Down

    Story?

    Wheres the story here?

    Seems like is i reported something i would expect the poilce to have a record of it if i called back 6 months later

    1. Just Thinking

      No, not really surprising

      It would be utterly bizarre if the police didn't keep records of 999 calls.

      The fact that you called and the fact of what you said are ... facts. Liable to be used as evidence, most likely to prosecute the person who committed the crime you are reporting, but potentially against the person making the report.

      If someone was continuously harrassing you by making false allegations to the police, would you prefer the police to tell you each time that they had no record of the previosu calls? Or that they couldn't use that as evidence? If someone reports discovering a body are they to be automatically excluded as a murder suspect?

      1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

        You are missing the point.

        The length of time that calls are being held is beyond reasonable. Simply logging the call, and the recording of the call, for a short while (six months would be ideal) unless something else indicates that it needs to kept longer (perhaps it is a a call from someone being involved in an actual incident) is fine. Beyond that, perhaps a simple log of numbers called from can be kept for a while longer to identify false callers, but the requirement of reasonableness still applies, so let's say two or three years.

        Hanging on to anything and everything because it *may* be useful later is contrary to Data Protection rules, and is distinctly creepy. This sort of action by the police is why I don't trust them as a body any more, and would not go out of my way to assist any individual member.

        1. Ammaross Danan
          Black Helicopters

          Audio

          Perhaps it would be best not to mention how long they retain the audio recording of your 999 call.... you know, with voice recognition, voiceprint analysis and such these days.

    2. Tigra 07 Silver badge
      Coat

      RE: mt1

      You mean when you phone to ask why the police never turned up when you phoned them 6 months ago?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      FAIL

      Re:Story?

      Personal Data should only be retained as long as necesisary.

      6 months would be a reasonable retention.

      12 years is the implementation of a police state

      I would personally suggest that information on callers for closed cases more than 3 years ago, should not be held

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Police state ?

        My arse.

        Check out (for example) Amnesty International's website or read (amongst others) Koestler or Solzhenitsyn to get a clue as to what a real police state is like. There's plenty of other examples from the last century to draw on (and no, squawking "Godwin" establishes nothing, apart from your lack of intellect.).

        AC because it's only in Police states that you have to prove your identity at every turn.

  3. Alan 6

    If they didn't log calls

    They'd have no way of catching dickheads who repeatedly dial 999 for no reason, like this one

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12009613

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Level of trust

    I just looked at the Policing Pledge from my local force (Surrey). Interestingly I couldn't find a snigle instance of the word "trust".

    I think that says it all.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Black Helicopters

    Is anyone really surprised?

    For once, I feel the copper spokesperson at the end is right - most people would expect police to hold this type of data. I've called my local non-emergency number a few times to report the odd thing here and there, and now I think about it, I would expect this information to be recorded. Why else would they ask for your name and address if they were just going to forget it?

    However, I'm a little disconcerted to hear that the information could be used against people during future investigations, though in my case I struggle to see how reporting broken traffic lights or dangerously parked cars will come back to bite me!

    I hope I've not jinxed it now - anonymous for that reason!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      WTF?

      999 is for emergencies

      "However, I'm a little disconcerted to hear that the information could be used against people during future investigations, though in my case I struggle to see how reporting broken traffic lights or dangerously parked cars will come back to bite me!"

      Maybe traffic is worse where you live than where I live, but I would have great difficulty justifying a 999 call for a broken traffic light or badly parked car.

      If those examples really reflect your usage of the 999 service I am amazed you haven't been bitten already

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Title Required

        He did say he used the non emergency number and not the 999 number...although parking on corners opposite junctions and the like is now the only way of getting parked around where I live... However I have used the non emergency number to report dangerous (IMO) driving and the like.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Mea Culpa

          Thank you to you and all those people below who pointed out my lapse of attention when (mis)reading the original post.

          It came as a great relief - I saw a ton of downthumbs and no replies before I left my computer and was seriously wondering if the Reg readership was composed of busybodies with too much time on their hands.

          Probably the first and only time I have been glad to be flamed.

      2. Nick 10

        But the non-emergency number isn't

        If you'd read a bit further up on the post you quoted, you'd have noticed the:

        "I've called my local non-emergency number a few times to report the odd thing here and there"

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Grenade

        An explanation of the downvotes for the hard of thinking

        Referring to the original post:

        > I've called my local non-emergency number a few times

        Why won't you read it properly?

      4. Velv Silver badge
        Headmaster

        Ooops FAIL

        Suggest you read the original comment again. Or at least :

        "I've called my local NON-EMERGENCY number a few times..."

        Of course the 999 service should be recording the callers details. As previously stated they are facts related to a potentially life-threatening incident.

        And since 999 uses Automatic Number Identification instead of Caller ID, they always have the source telephone number. ANI cannot be blocked.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        Note the words "local non-emergency number"

        As title

      6. Anonymous Coward
        FAIL

        and text is for reading!

        Notice that the original AC was talking about the non-emergency number, as evidenced by the usage of the words "I've called my local non-emergency number a few times".

    2. Matt Newton

      how it could be used in the future?

      Well, for one, if I report there's someone who's left their car door open on the non emergency line, and the next day the car was stolen, I'd fully expect them to connect the dots and say "oh hey, yeah, we got a report about that last night".

      Or if I reported someone breaking in to a house who fit a certain profile and then they catch someone 2 weeks later breaking into another house who was wearing the same clothes / eye patch / tatoos etc, again I'd expect them to say "oh hay, so and so reported this guy last week, let's look at the evidence and see if we can charge them for that crime as well".

      wtf?

    3. Haku
      FAIL

      Sometimes I despair at the human race

      Especially when reading stories like this:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-11908583

      Calling 999 because someone stole your snowman? using teaspoons for arms and pound coins for the eyes?

      Please El Reg Webmaster, can we have an Idiocracy icon, maybe the Brawndo logo (it's got electrolytes!)

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Err...

      Not really, it depends what all the other words said.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Their words

        http://www.surrey.police.uk/2859_Police_Pledge.pdf

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Boffin

      Guess data is stored in SAP systems

      I took them three years to get the guy who was rapping and chanting ... guess the data is stored in SAP systems, so we are all safe - no worries!

    6. Hans 1 Silver badge

      Reporting dangerously parked cars

      Dangerous if you do not know who the owner is ... if it is a copper, you are in deep ...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    Could be some reason for keeping details

    It could be useful for police forces to keep details, like in the case of the woman who committed suicide due to bullying. If the police kept details that she has called them a few times, then it should have triggered something on their systems, meaning they will have to carry out full proper checks. However, the problem is that the police cannot be trusted, especially in London. They have used the details against someone, which is a major problem.

    If they don't keep the name, then at least keep details of the area that crime is occurring. So, I am undecided, hence the wtf.

    1. DrunkJunkie

      It wont even help...

      I live in the same village where Fiona Pilkington lived and she repeatedly phoned the police to tell them what was going on.

      The data capture side is already there, we have been doing it for years. At some point these system will need to be joined up to offer a coherent glance at a full case/supporting evidence.

      However, with the state of our governement getting the go ahead to join these systems whilst still keeping public confidence would be very difficult.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    And from now on...

    Anyone needing me to call the police in an emergency, had better hope the nearest payphone hasn't been vandalized.

  8. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Ian Readhead, director of information.

    Some people's names perfectly describe their job.

    I know a guy called Web who manages Internet sites...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    unsurprising

    The alternative being.

    "Hello Police? my neighbour's on a rampage with a hammer. I phoned an hour ago.....My name is Smith... yes an hour ago.....Floral Avenue.....yes, I called just after 3:30..... you don't keep records!"" etc .

    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Paranoia

      You're really saying you'd put your own privacy ahead of someone else' well being or the protection of their property?

      With an attitude like that I'm not surprised you want to keep your life private.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Yes

        I value my privacy over your property, just as I value my property over your privacy.

        If you still haven't quite grasped the point yet ... I value my property over your property.

    2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge
      Badgers

      Given that...

      ... if I don't call the police for someone else in an emergency, nothing happens to me (inaction is not punishable - at least not yet), but if I do call, there is a finite risk that it will come back to bite me on the arse, then yes, I agree with that sentiment. However, I would like someone else to call the police if I am in an emergency situation, and so, following the Golden Rule, I must put myself at risk for someone else's sake. However, in putting myself at risk, I am also putting people I know at risk, since the top of most suspect lists is the caller followed by those around them. Do I have the right to do this?

      The problem is that the police in this country have lost all the good-will they had up to not that long ago by acting as if they are separate from the society they should serve, not control. Successive governments have been complicit in this, and now there is effectively no way to retrieve the situation. Society is, as a result, more dangerous, and less effective at protecting those that need protection, which is a disgrace.

  10. Tony Green

    One way they use it against you

    A publican friend of mine recently rang the plods to report a drunk who was staggering past his boozer, wandering on and off the road and generally causing mayhem.

    He was not a little pissed off at a subsequent pubwatch meeting to be told that because he'd reported it, the incident had been recorded as trouble caused by his pub. Oddly enough, his inclination to report problems that are nothing to do with his pub has somewhat diminished.

  11. Jacqui
    FAIL

    complainants == crims

    It would not be the first time a force has mixed up a complainant, accused and the guilty and ruined someones life.

    FWIU if you *ever* make a complaint to the police, it will appear (probably negatively) on your CRB check, so being a witness to an assault means you can kiss goodbye to your teaching career.

    And the police wonder why people go blind when a crime is committed.

    Do not even provide a witness statement without first getting legal advice!

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Dead Vulture

    Quiet news day?

    Has someone seriously written an article saying that the police keep a record of phone emergency calls? You can tell people are just returning to work after Christmas.

    "senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation" — And where does this say that 'people' necessarily implies the person who made the call? This just means that having a record of a 999 call is another piece in the puzzle when it comes to prosecuting criminals. What I've quoted is weasel words written by someone trying to make out the police said something specific that should put fear into anyone thinking about reporting a crime to the police, when in fact the police officer's wording was a generic reference to police record keeping.

    This 'piece' might as well have been a new thread on Digital Spy by a commentard. No doubt the same commentard would be the first to complain if they phoned a bank, ISP or utility company who had no record of a previous call relevant to the current matter.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    Shock News: Kable needs to get a life

    Of course they keep the number - how else are they going to see if you've reported the same thing recently.

    Haven't you read the news in the last few days? (Anti-social crime and the tragic case of Fiona Pilkington comes to mind).

    1. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      @ Jacqui

      I'm sure, somewhere there is a (made up) statistic which proves that emergency number callers are more likely to commit a crime in the future. And if not, they are definitely some kind of troublemaker. Lock 'em up!

    2. Jimbo 6
      Thumb Down

      Eh ???

      "if you ever make a complaint...it will appear on your CRB check"

      I'm not a lawyer, but that smells like bullshit to me. I've never needed a CRB check myself, but I've seen various friends' records (as they have to work in schools occasionally) and they don't include details like "in 1998 he dialled 999 to report..."

      1. Martin H Watson

        CRB checks

        Total nonsense. I've reported many crimes and I amd CRB-cleared.

        It would be utterly bizarre if the police didn't keep permanent records of 999 calls.

        1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

          No, Martin...

          ... it is utterly bizarre that they do. There is no need for permanent records of any calls.

    3. Alan 6

      WTF

      "if you *ever* make a complaint to the police, it will appear (probably negatively) on your CRB check, so being a witness to an assault means you can kiss goodbye to your teaching career."

      Did you read that in the Dail Heil? - oh it must be true then...

    4. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      The Fiona Pilkington case...

      ... is as a result of the police not doing what they were supposed to do in the first place. The call records, for once, are biting the police on the arse.

  14. Ally J
    FAIL

    What AC at 10:29 said....

    If Plod stores this information, why don't they use it properly? If someone is repeatedly calling the police because of problems, why do the forces concerned seem to know nothing when it all subsequently goes wrong?

    I'm very concerned about this idea that the information may be used against you, though.

    "I'm surprised you're not being helpful, sir. Our records show you're normally great assistance to the police...." and so on.

  15. Code Monkey

    Not that surprising really

    I'm no fan of plod retaining needlessly retaining data but there is a definite need here.

    Whether you're dialling 999 to report a genuine crime or to, say, ask for an emergency soapy tit-wank (as an old boss claimed someone had done from his house one Christmas) they do need those details.

  16. Mike Cardwell

    SO?

    The sort of kooks who write articles like this give a bad name to people who have legitimate concerns about data being stored which shouldn't be stored.

    Of course the emergency services keep a record of who calls them! What the hell is wrong with that? I'm surprised they've kept the data for as long as 12 years, but still, it's not that big a deal...

    1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      It is a big deal

      Seriously, it is. Proportionality is vital in maintaining trust.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Me and my mate...

    ...used to ring the local constabulary and sing (in a sing-song voice) "We're high on cann-a-bis!" though we did use a phone box and didn't give our names.

    (Actually, come to that, we once walked into the Police display tent at the local show and stood in front of the mock up of 'junkie in a public toilet' and smoked a joint of black, passing it back and forth, while half a dozen senior officers stood around talking to various dignitaries. I was quite sure we only got away with it because it would have been a PR disaster to draw attention to us. Also, I'll admit I was near shitting myself. But christ I'd love to do it again!)

  18. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Hmmmm

      "I was near shitting myself."

      Now that would have got their attention...

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  19. Matt Newton
    FAIL

    Erm...

    Erm... so like... yeah? When I've called the emergency services (maybe 3-4 times in the last 5 years) they've always asked for my details (police, this is) and they say it's so they can keep it on file in case they need to follow up on anything etc.

    I don't understand this "news" story. I'm usually one of the first to be ITS NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR RIGHT NOW but this article seems to be trying to create some kind of controversy where none would exist.

    Of course they keep the details. I'd fully expect them to. I'd be surprised if they didn't and would be confused as to why not.

    jesus christ.

  20. peter 5 Silver badge
    Flame

    Expiration of data?

    The issue here is that the police have kept records for 12 years. I only have to keep my tax records for seven.

  21. william henderson 1

    witness

    reporting to the police automaticaly lines you up as a potential witness, ready made, for their convenience.

    refusing to testify could get your 'nads handed to you in an evidence bag, by plod.

    but how else can they at least attempt to weed out bogus or malicious callers?

  22. jonathanb Silver badge

    Not surprised

    Suppose I reported some strange goings on in the Bristol area on 17th December. I would expect them to look back at these as part of their murder investigation, and possibly get back to me to ask for more information or to appear in court as a witness.

    In some cases, they find that the person they caught has committed lots of other unsolved murders in the past, possibly even going back 30 or 40 years. So the time limit for keeping this sort of information might not necessarily be just a few months.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Crime Stoppers

    I would never report crime direct to police, best to use Crime Stoppers as they anonymise reports.

  24. Sam Liddicott
    Thumb Down

    999 is not the police

    999 can be police, fire service, ambulance or coast-guard.

    Who expects the police who holds the data of who has called? Not me.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    An excuse to have pop at coppers again?

    12 years is potentially too long, however you look at some murder/missing persons cases and they can take decades to catch and convict someone.

    If I call 999 I full expect my details to be retained until the crime is solved, the felon "banged up the slammer" ( ooer! ) and I can go on my merry way knowing I did right. If I reported something dodgy and after 4 years the Police are still looking for a nick in relation and my call might still be useful, then fair enough keep my details on file just in case they want to contact me over it.

    Has anyone asked the coppers if they're 100% certain that some information is useless, it has been purged from the system? If so, then where's the problem with all this?

    1. Stuart Gepp
      Coat

      you forgot...

      ...mountain rescue

      1. Ejit
        Big Brother

        What title?

        ...he didn't actually. In the UK, the Police have primacy over all rescue situations and any requests for mountain or cave rescue are routed to plod.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Unhappy

      Seriously?

      >4 years [...] just in case they want to contact me over it.

      And how much additional detail do you reckon you could give them after 4 years? After a couple month you probably couldn't remember fully what you told them, let alone additional stuff. After 4 years you would probably vaguely remember calling the cops for some thing or other but your recollection would significantly differ from what you initially reported, to the point of being useless or even dangerous (unless you kept written notes of stuff that you didn tell them to begin with, for some reason).

      Be serious, they keep the caller info for that long just in case they can use it against the caller himself, that's the only possible use.

  26. Is it me?
    Stop

    Come on guys think sensibly about this.

    If you really want to know how the Police manage information there is a set of standards called MOPI, it's public information. You might also take a peek at BIP0008 which defines how evidential information has to be managed. If you provide information that convicts someone, that information must be held on file until there is no possibility of an appeal.

    Not all information is held for twelve years, some less, some longer, that's just a default. When you call the non-emergency number, or 999, the details will be recorded just like calling a utility, on a CRM system. Some of that information may be passed on to the intelligence system, or other systems for actioning, just as you would expect. Because the Police are human beings, some of it gets misused or misfiled, deliberately or accidentally, just like any other organisations, but in the vast majority of cases it is managed correctly, and used correctly according to the processes the Police have in place, which again, may be wrong.

    A lot of "detective work" is built up on pictures of events, which used to be done through a person called a collator who acted as the long term memory, now they also have intelligence systems which look at events reported by the public to determine patterns of criminal behaviour and so on, do you really want them to stop doing that. Remember that Tesco probably knows more about you that the Police do.

    If you want to be anonymous, ring crime stoppers, they don't have to record your name, oh and 999really is for things that the Emergency Services can do something about now, if you see someone driving off in your car dial 999, if it's nicked from the station car park, it's not an emergency. Mind you it would help if there was a single non-emergency number, as how many of us actually know the non-emergency numbers for your areas, home, work....

  27. Graham Marsden

    They've got your number...?

    Well, yes, when I've had to phone the Emergency Services in the past I've heard the operator say to the Police/ Ambulance/ Fire Service "Connecting you with 023 92..." so this is hardly news.

    And why would they *not* keep the details? "Err, guv, someone phoned up reporting hearing a woman screaming in Clifton, Bristol just before Xmas, but we didn't keep their number"??

    As for "senior officers admitted the information could be used against people as part of any future police investigation" that sounds like someone asked a typical Daily Mail weasel worded question "So, Mr Senior Officer, would you say that this information could be used against people...?" (Senior Officer shrugs) "Well, yes". "AHA! Hack scribbles down 'Senior Officer admits...''"

    Whilst I'm all in favour of authorities not keeping excessive amounts of data for longer than is necessary, unless there's any evidence of this information being data mined to innocent people's detriment, this seems a total non-story.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Necessary to fight crime"

    My conclusion? They're mostly useless anyway, so I'm no longer going to risk telling the plod anything at all over the phone. Is that what the plod want? Well, they got it. "Necessary" indeed.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    peopel are talking of retaining data

    like it is some kind of conscious act. Much more likely is that they simply have no policy (or inclination) to remove old data.

    So rather than malicious data hoarding it is simply a mixture of laziness, incompetence and apathy.

  30. Britt Johnston
    Happy

    times change

    This was all true before there were computers (and after telephones). What has changed is the [REG?] public sensibility to records policy, potential misuse, and ability to correct wrong or disputed information - probably as a reaction to Labour and Civil Service insensitivity.

    It sounds like a worthy pilot case to bring up to date - it is clearly of value, should be easy to realign, and there are currently no other teacups with storms in.

  31. A. Lewis

    Why would anyone object to this?

    The police are there to help the public. If having my number on record as having reported something helps, I'm happy. It's not like they're some dodgy company who're going to sell numbers to telemarketers!

    1. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

      They *were* there to help the public...

      ... there is very little evidence of that now, unfortunately.

      I want to trust the police, honestly, but they just don't give me the chance.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Police records

    >>>>

    "if you ever make a complaint...it will appear on your CRB check"

    I'm not a lawyer, but that smells like bullshit to me. I've never needed a CRB check myself, but I've seen various friends' records (as they have to work in schools occasionally) and they don't include details like "in 1998 he dialled 999 to report..."

    <<<<

    Possibly depends on how it gets reported as the person reviewing the report for the CRB check is not likely to know what really happened .... so if its written down as "xxx was interviewed in connection with an assault" rather than "xxx reported an assault to us" then that could cause problems. Remember reading of a case years ago of someone who failed a security check at defence company and since her dad was head of Scotland Yard fingerprint squad he looked into this and found that a couple of years earlier she + boyfriend arrived a a channel port after driving couple of days across Europe - just happened there'd been a Baader-Meinhof bomb that day and someone reported them to local police as looking "suspicious" - local police phone through car reg to UK police, checked it up and realized they weren't the bombers - however on UK system it was recorded as her car as having been linked to a terrorist investigation ... hence failed security check.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      reference?

      regarding the story?

    2. Code Monkey

      CRB Check

      I do have to be CRB checked for work. That I dialled 999 (for a genuine crime) in recent years isn't recorded.

  33. RW
    Grenade

    @ Is it me?

    "Police are human beings"

    Piffle. On the evidence of the news I read, British cops are, to coin a phrase, Highly Self-important Assholes. (Be thankful that I did not resort to strong language in coining that phrase.) Our Canajun cops are no paragons of virtue, but seem to be a little more nearly human.

    The SF author Jack Vance made the following relevant observation in one of his novels:

    "As soon as the police slip out from under the firm thumb of a suspicious local tribune, they become arbitrary, merciless, a law unto themselves. They think no more of justice, but only of establishing themselves as a privileged and envied elite. They mistake the attitude of natural caution and uncertainty by the civilian population as admiration and respect, and presently they start to swagger back and forth, jingling their weapons in megalomaniac euphoria. People thereupon become not masters, but servants. Such a police force becomes merely an aggregate of uniformed criminals, the more baneful in that their position is unchallenged and sanctioned by law. The police mentality cannot regard a human being in terms other than as an item to be processed as expeditiously as possible. Public convenience or dignity means nothing; police prerogatives assume the status of divine law. Submissiveness is demanded. If a police officer kills a civilian, it is a regrettable circumstance: the officer was possibly overzealous. If a civilian kills a police officer all hell breaks loose. The police foam at the mouth. All other business comes to a standstill until the perpetrator of this most dastardly act is found out. Inevitably, when apprehended, he is beaten or otherwise tortured for his intolerable presumption. The police complain that they cannot function efficiently, that criminals escape them. Better a hundred unchecked criminals than that despotism of one unbridled police force."

    This has always seemed to me to be exactly on point, even though it was originally written some forty years ago.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      the title is too long

      "They think no more of justice, but only of establishing themselves as a privileged and ENVIED elite."

      (emphasis added)

      they've screwed up there quite badly then, haven't they?

      despised seems to fit much better

    2. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Brilliant quote ...

      ... and it says it all about the current situation, unfortunately.

  34. Aaron Kempf
    Gates Halo

    wow you guys are STILL soooo paranoid

    what's the big deal about someone keeping information in a database? seriously-- run away, run away.. the databases are coming!~

    what is wrong with you guys?

    this isn't newsworthy!!!

  35. Alan Firminger

    Factual record

    Some decades back one evening there was a knock on the door. It was a young Police Constable on his own. He said there had been a 999 call for help. I told him not us and it was probably a local address with a similar sounding road name. He walked away talking into his RT . Three minutes later he was back - no, definitely us. So I assured him that we had not called and he left.

    Next night at the same time there was a knock on the door. This time it was a Police Inspector with PC in tow. Had we called the police ? No. I called out the rest of my family and a visitor who with expressions of surprise said that they had not called the police.

    So we sat down and talked about it.

    The two calls had been received from a nearby public call box. Had I enemies ? No. Pity. Chat away, cup of tea and the coppers left.

    So do not underestimate your neighbours capacity for mischief.

    And if you take any action then be prepared to accept all the consequences.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019