Jump to content
Security Installer Community

Direct Response Security On Rogue Traders


Recommended Posts

Posted

Getting back on track then, well, an attempt to.

Can anyone tell me the significant difference between these two statements?

A Guaranteed Police Response to your Monitored Alarm

The Police will no longer respond to a bell-only alarm, unless there is additional evidence of a crime being committed. The Police will respond to a monitored alarm which qualifies for Police response.

Qualifying for Police Response

Many police forces will not attend alarms from non-monitored systems unless there's also first hand evidence of a crime. The police will attend an alarm signal routed via an Alarm Receiving Centre, from a monitored alarm that qualifies for Police Response.

Posted

Getting back on track then, well, an attempt to.

Can anyone tell me the significant difference between these two statements?

A Guaranteed Police Response to your Monitored Alarm

The Police will no longer respond to a bell-only alarm, unless there is additional evidence of a crime being committed. The Police will respond to a monitored alarm which qualifies for Police response.

Qualifying for Police Response

Many police forces will not attend alarms from non-monitored systems unless there's also first hand evidence of a crime. The police will attend an alarm signal routed via an Alarm Receiving Centre, from a monitored alarm that qualifies for Police Response.

Interesting first statement, is that via Direct Response?

Posted

afaik you cant guarantee the police will respond

Id guess the first quote was from dr, the second from an acpo policy?

But in short i dont think acpo aloow anyone to infer or guarantee a police response or approval etc by the police. Again pete will know that reg etc better than me

securitywarehouse Security Supplies from Security Warehouse

Trade Members please contact us for your TSI vetted trade discount.

Posted

afaik you cant guarantee the police will respond

Id guess the first quote was from dr, the second from an acpo policy?

But in short i dont think acpo aloow anyone to infer or guarantee a police response or approval etc by the police. Again pete will know that reg etc better than me

The operative word is WILL.

That is a definitive, a given. non optional. In essence, a guarantee.

Posted

Getting back on track then, well, an attempt to.

Can anyone tell me the significant difference between these two statements?

A Guaranteed Police Response to your Monitored Alarm

The Police will no longer respond to a bell-only alarm, unless there is additional evidence of a crime being committed. The Police will respond to a monitored alarm which qualifies for Police response.

Qualifying for Police Response

Many police forces will not attend alarms from non-monitored systems unless there's also first hand evidence of a crime. The police will attend an alarm signal routed via an Alarm Receiving Centre, from a monitored alarm that qualifies for Police Response.

Guaranteed Police response insinuates that the Police have to respond, Qualifying for Police response is saying that The Police have no reason not to. Qualifying is right there is no guarantee the Police will attend

Posted

The operative word is WILL.

That is a definitive, a given. non optional. In essence, a guarantee.

Yes but the missing word in the 1st statement is qualifies, there is no guarantee

Posted

Yes but the missing word in the 1st statement is qualifies, there is no guarantee

Nope, 'qualifies' is clearly stated.

as is 'will'.

in both.

Posted

It does say qualify Peter or are you referring elsewhere?

You miss my point, once Police response is lost you have no Police response anymore this is why the Qualify statement is correct, guaranteed insinuates that it is guaranteed regardless of whether you still qualify

Posted

You miss my point, once Police response is lost you have no Police response anymore this is why the Qualify statement is correct, guaranteed insinuates that it is guaranteed regardless of whether you still qualify

No, i disagree Pete. You have introduced conditions that are not relevant to the statements in their current form.

You are looking at it from a trade insiders pov.

Look at both statements from a member of public perspective.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.