Serious charge … to us!

The ACPO policy which is due to be implemented on January 1has now been finalised and circulated to the 43 police constabularies and services for their version to be printed and circulated to the industry … no more than six weeks before its implementation.

Once again ACPO have proved their total disregard for the security industry by not providing sufficient time for us to view the policy and prepare both our customers and the police themselves for these far-reaching implications.

The industry has a duty of care to its clients which cannot be discharged without the full facts being provided by the constabularies and suitable lead time being given for for implementation.

ACPO hide behind the fact that industry representatives 'participate' in policy changes. This is not the case. The truth is that ACPO hold a meeting with industry representatives, ask their views then hold a separate meeting … and in the majority of cases, disregard the points raised by industry representatives.

Is this is democracy at work?
While the industry has succeeded in reducing false alarms, greater false alarm reduction can be better achieved by the police working with the industry, not using their current approach.

The Metropolitan Police are also implementing this policy on January 1 which, as stated by Inspector Kevin Mann, will not be a retrospective policy.

All systems which stand at five false activations at February 1 will be given 14 days notification of police withdrawal, making February 15 "crime day" in the Metropolitan Police Service area. Written representations, however will be "viewed sympathetically". The MPS should follow the lead from other constabularies by zeroing the false alarm counter, and thus fall in line with the European Human Rights Act.

Personal attack activations are also of great concern. It appears to me that the police consider that a PA should only be used after a personal attack – if you survive it – despite the fact that the official line is that it should be used if someone is in fear of being personally attacked.

ACPO are condoning a policy that will see people with money being protected and the less fortunate left to fend for themselves.

ACPO in their infinite wisdom have decided to avoid clearly defining when a call is false by proposing to delegate the responsibility for confirming PA activations – and any litigation which may follow – to alarm receiving centres. I feel sure that most of us would not wish to even try to confirm the status of a PA activation by telephone. The requirement for site health and safety information is a necessity. However, Inspector Mann has stated that letters will be sent to existing sites requesting the information required by recorded delivery. Any returned letters or failure to respond within 28 days will result in the site URN being deleted … Obviously a money making exercise. Recorded delivery items are returned if not collected within several days. There are a large number of vacant shops, offices, warehouses, homes and clients who work away from home who will not be able to respond within the time limit being imposed. In such cases the alarm company should be informed to follow up the information required before this aggressive and unreasonable action is taken. The police crime statistics following this unpopular and draconian policy will prove interesting reading. As I stated, the industry as a whole wants to reduce false alarms, and has done so. But going the route of "confirmed" alarms is not the way. This will, without doubt, exclude a large number of clients from obtaining police response – which I believe is a fundamental right – on the basis of cost. It appears to me that ACPO are condoning a policy that will see people with money being protected and the less fortunate left to fend for themselves. As we all know, there are devices, such as dual detection, which can provide considerable reduction in false alarms. Why are they not more widely used? I believe it is because it would not be commercially viable to quote for dual detection devices when your competitor is quoting for PIR detection.

The Police Service Plc
While dual detection does cost more at the moment, this would not be as cost prohibitive as a requirement for confirmed systems. This subject has been discussed with members of the police being present but, as usual, it was ignored. It is apparent that the police are slowly driving towards delegating the responsibility of 'first to attend' to the private sector at the expense of the public and businesses alike. So what does happen to the money paid to the police from our rates and taxes?

Over recent years the police force has changed to a service. I believe that this fundamental change was implemented to make the public aware that the police provide a service. While we all want the expenses incurred by the police to be carefully scrutinised, I do not believe, as a tax and rate payer, that the police should focus on the additional monies that can be extracted from the public and businesses.In the past all fines imposed by the courts went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer … now the Police Service Plc receives a 'bonus' for all camera-related speeding fines which is supposed to cover the additional costs incurred in administration. I hear that's why most traffic divisions are on overtime.

Regarding the ACPO proposal to charge for URNs (unique reference numbers), when I first heard that the 2001 policy was to include charging I knew this was the thin end of the wedge. The Metropolitan Police intend to introduce charging not only for new installations but also change of name, confirmation, and reinstatement after withdrawal. We will have to wait for their notification which will probably arrive two days before implementation.

Indications are that the maximum will be applied by the Met, that is £30 including VAT, which equates to an income of £25.54.

At a recent NACOSS regional meeting Inspector Mann stated that during 1999 the Met issued 30,000 URNs. Assuming the same level excluding charges for the other categories stated above, the Met will have a windfall of £766,200 to fund a department of 12 people … capitalism at its best. The other source of revenue, which will obviously be passed on to our clients via ourselves in due course, is the practice of nominating premium rate lines for the transmission of calls to the police, which ACPO have also adopted.