Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85

[guest2181]

That's the one, well done. 

But maybe I've got it mixed up with The Beguiled with Clint Eastwood. 

[Caroline]

It's been said by many that Neville couldn't have phoned the police because of his injuries. He could still have just dialled 999,without speaking as that call would have appeared on a digitalised screen showing the area/address rather than having the loud distracting buzzer. The address of the caller would have been recorded and filtered to the police as being the emergency needed if " suspicious sounds " had been heard in the background.
This occurs if a line has been dialled then abandoned and left open for the emergency services.

Really Lookout? And how would  digitalised call manifest itself? 

[Caroline]

But maybe I've got it mixed up with The Beguiled with Clint Eastwood. 

I did think of that one two, but he was Union soldier who turned up at some kind of school for women. He did get poisoned with mushrooms though - after having his leg amputated 

[lookout]

Really Lookout? And how would  digitalised call manifest itself? 

Ask your BT friend.

[Caroline]

Ask your BT friend.

My BT friend didn't make the suggestion (and never would) - you did, so I'm asking you

[lookout]

My BT friend didn't make the suggestion (and never would) - you did, so I'm asking you

He would explain it in such a way that you'd believe him if you ask him. Even though it's true,but it wouldn't be believed of me,so as far as you're concerned you'd rather believe others.
It is also on the internet too,somewhere.

[Caroline]

He would explain it in such a way that you'd believe him if you ask him. Even though it's true,but it wouldn't be believed of me,so as far as you're concerned you'd rather believe others.
It is also on the internet too,somewhere.

They didn't have the technology back then to have address's appear on computer screens. And even now when you call 999, you don't get straight through to a police officer, you get through to a call centre (back then an operator) who asks which service you require.

[lookout]

They didn't have the technology back then to have address's appear on computer screens. And even now when you call 999, you don't get straight through to a police officer, you get through to a call centre (back then an operator) who asks which service you require.

This was before computers when things were digital. It was in 1985 that the " new " digital speaking clock replaced the voices of previous speaking clocks.
Southend-on-sea was the first place where a BT shop sold a wide-range of digital equipment after it had joined up with Cellnet,so the digitised maps would have been an asset to all areas of the emergency services-----an old version of todays GPS system.

[Jane]

This was before computers when things were digital. It was in 1985 that the " new " digital speaking clock replaced the voices of previous speaking clocks.
Southend-on-sea was the first place where a BT shop sold a wide-range of digital equipment after it had joined up with Cellnet,so the digitised maps would have been an asset to all areas of the emergency services-----an old version of todays GPS system.

But there seems to be nothing to indicate such was in action at the time Nevill didn't make a 999 call. I believe I'm correct in saying that emergency calls necessarily go through -or did, then- an operator who asked which service was required. Therefore, evidence of such a call couldn't have been squirreled away in an attempt to frame an -at that time, unknown- 'innocent'.

[Caroline]

This was before computers when things were digital. It was in 1985 that the " new " digital speaking clock replaced the voices of previous speaking clocks.
Southend-on-sea was the first place where a BT shop sold a wide-range of digital equipment after it had joined up with Cellnet,so the digitised maps would have been an asset to all areas of the emergency services-----an old version of todays GPS system.

Not sure what any of that has to do with what you originally claimed. The only way to have found out an address from a phone number would have been to call the GPO(BT) and ask them to look it up. You also ignored the fact that when you dial 999, you don't get straight through to the police.

[Caroline]

Take a look at question 7, the answer to it is just below the question 

http://www.glosfire.gov.uk/cd_res/KS3/downloads/l3_activity1_and_2_quiz.pdf

[lookout]

But there seems to be nothing to indicate such was in action at the time Nevill didn't make a 999 call. I believe I'm correct in saying that emergency calls necessarily go through -or did, then- an operator who asked which service was required. Therefore, evidence of such a call couldn't have been squirreled away in an attempt to frame an -at that time, unknown- 'innocent'.

Well in your world,there wouldn't have been anything to indicate if you don't believe he rang-------so what's the use of me explaining anything ? You just poo poo everything I post anyway so I'm wasting my time.

[Jane]

Well in your world,there wouldn't have been anything to indicate if you don't believe he rang-------so what's the use of me explaining anything ? You just poo poo everything I post anyway so I'm wasting my time.

Well, naturally, one can't prove a negative. You haven't exactly said anything to make me wonder if, just perhaps..................? All you appear to have said is that such and such MAY have happened/supposing such and such had happened/such and such DID happen but it's been concealed/continue to say that  EVERYONE connected to the case has lied/continued to admit when you're wrong. Such provides neither proof of Jeremy's innocence nor confidence in your belief in it.

[Caroline]

Well in your world,there wouldn't have been anything to indicate if you don't believe he rang-------so what's the use of me explaining anything ? You just poo poo everything I post anyway so I'm wasting my time.

Actually Lookout that's not true, the only things I 'poo poo' are the things that aren't fact. But when you start a sentence with 'they would have had' (or something similar), you're posting it as a piece of factual information. However, if what comes after is incorrect, then what do you expect?

[Caroline]

Well, naturally, one can't prove a negative. You haven't exactly said anything to make me wonder if, just perhaps..................? All you appear to have said is that such and such MAY have happened/supposing such and such had happened/such and such DID happen but it's been concealed/continue to say that  EVERYONE connected to the case has lied/continued to admit when you're wrong. Such provides neither proof of Jeremy's innocence nor confidence in your belief in it.

There is no 'may' about the following quote. And you can't dial 999 without speaking because the operator woud have asked which service you require.

It's been said by many that Neville couldn't have phoned the police because of his injuries. He could still have just dialled 999,without speaking as that call would have appeared on a digitalised screen showing the area/address rather than having the loud distracting buzzer. The address of the caller would have been recorded and filtered to the police as being the emergency needed if " suspicious sounds " had been heard in the background.
This occurs if a line has been dialled then abandoned and left open for the emergency services.