Direct Response Security On Rogue Traders

[Cubit]

cubit it maybe but again afaik an installer cant use those words. as im assuming this is a setup etc its probably from our website is it? if it is its still wrong and it needs changing.

No, it wasn't/isn't a setup.

It was to highlight the problems, assumptions, interpretions and misinterpretations that can be made from perfectly valid statements.

If it is the case that the Bizzies WILL respond/attend (assuming systems qualify with relevant force rules in play at time), then both statements are true.

If it is NOT the case the bizzies WILL attend, then both statements are wrong.

[PeterJames]

Qualify = Meet the criteria

Guarantee = Promise,assurance,pledge

The trick is in the words the first suggesting you will get Police response, the second is suggesting you will qualify for Police response all the while you meet the criteria.

If you lose Police response because of False calls you no longer qualify, so therefore Police response cannot be guaranteed

[IAS]

Qualify = Meet the criteria

Guarantee = Promise,assurance,pledge

The trick is in the words the first suggesting you will get Police response, the second is suggesting you will qualify for Police response all the while you meet the criteria.

If you lose Police response because of False calls you no longer qualify, so therefore Police response cannot be guaranteed

that point IS made in both statements

[PeterJames]

that point IS made in both statements

Its made but it doesnt suggest the same thing, I think im losing

[Cubit]

Full police response alarm system £50

T&Cs

bollox bollox bollox, failure to comply with any clause or getou we can think of to avoid us compensating poor sucker of a customer cancels our commitment to honour said agreement. bollox bollox bollox

You get the gist.

[james.wilson]

damn thats one of my contracts

[Cubit]

Its made but it doesnt suggest the same thing, I think im losing

Fraid so Pete.

With the added statement underneath, both headlines are factually correct. - in terms of the headline.

I'll leave it to you masons or accredited companies to decide whether the actual statements themselves are factually correct.

[PeterJames]

Fraid so Pete.

With the added statement underneath, both headlines are factually correct. - in terms of the headline.

I'll leave it to you masons or accredited companies to decide whether the actual statements themselves are factually correct.

Where did the qualify statement come from though Andrew?

[IAS]

Where did the qualify statement come from though Andrew?

this one

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.

However if you have a bell-only alarm system you are relying on your neighbours to quickly come to your aid, which may put them at risk, and you cannot be sure that they will always be there to respond.

http://www.directresponsesecurity.co.uk/the-benefits-of-monitoring.asp

or

The Police may 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.

However if you have a bell-only alarm system you are relying on your neighbours to quickly come to your aid, which may put them at risk, and you cannot be sure that they will always be there to respond

second ones via a link on this forum

edit - add link.

[Cubit]

Where did the qualify statement come from though Andrew?

Both statements came from websites with NSI/SSAIB badges on them.

In terms of the statements themselves, you could substitute alarm/police for say, car/breakdown recovery.