Telephone issue - Extravaganza...

[Jane]

That's right. All the more reason why I'd have installed an alarm system with a bell outside the size of Big Ben so that those a mile away could hear it.

Presumably they -or perhaps the police- didn't consider it to be a significant enough threat.............that's even if it actually happened, although I AM inclined to think it probably did.

[lookout]

Presumably they -or perhaps the police- didn't consider it to be a significant enough threat.............that's even if it actually happened, although I AM inclined to think it probably did.

Yes,it probably did,but knowing Neville,he wouldn't have cracked on. Saying that,somebody must have known for us to know.

[Alias]

Ooooh, it is so funny to watch when the panic alarms come up on the forum from time to time..... Can´t help laughing a little bit. I am evil like that. 

[Caroline]

Ooooh, it is so funny to watch when the panic alarms come up on the forum from time to time..... Can´t help laughing a little bit. I am evil like that. 

Mark the date on the calender because it will no doubt be back this time next year!!

[Alias]

Mark the date on the calender because it will no doubt be back this time next year!!

It will, it will no doubt! 

[Jane]

Yes,it probably did,but knowing Neville,he wouldn't have cracked on. Saying that,somebody must have known for us to know.

Thing is, Lookout, we DON'T know Neville.

[Jan]

I have a feeling , may be wrong  that the story came from a poster who lived in the vicinity of WHf and  knew the family and the fact that he was a magistrate. That's how I read it when I saw the story for the first time.

[scipio_usmc]

They didn't "require" a separate line. Yes, a burglar could disable the alarm, but that's possible even with a separate line by simply cutting the line externally!

In 1985 they would not install an alarm that was monitored except by installing an additional phoneline.

This is what existed in 1985:

"Digital Communicator

Also known as digicoms, these systems were among the first digitally monitored systems to be launched.

Digicoms use their own dedicated phone line, which must have incoming calls barred. This is to prevent a cunning intruder calling the line to engage it, so that the system can't call out. 
The digicom is mounted in the alarm control panel. When the alarm is activated, it dials out to the ARC and sends packets of data in a secure encrypted format that's decrypted by software at the ARC. The ARC will then take appropriate action by notifying key-holders or calling the police.

Pro's

Alarm activations are securely sent to a 24/7 monitored Alarm Receiving Centre that will always respond
It's relatively cheap to buy the digital communicator and it can be moved with you if you move house

Con's
You have to pay line rental on the dedicated "incoming calls only" phone line

You have to pay an annual subscription to the monitoring station (ARC)

You will need an annual maintenance contract with the alarm installation company
 
If the telephone line is cut, then the system will not be able to call out "

https://securityalarms.co.uk/monitored-alarms/#digital-communicator

In the 1990s Redcare was created and they are able to use the regular phone line for it.  An additional line is not necessary.

"Single Path Signalling

A single path signalling system can dial out using either the GSM mobile network, GPRS mobile data network or a fixed phone line. It can also send more sophisticated information to the ARC. For example, it might report the type of breach, such as a personal attack or standard alarm activation, including the zone triggered within the property.

The biggest advantage is that the signalling path itself is monitored.

That means that if the phone line is cut or the GSM or GPRS signal fails, the monitoring station will know about it and will treat it as intruder activation.

Pro's
 Alarm activations are securely sent to a 24/7 monitored ARC that will always respond

The signal path is monitored, so any attempt to tamper with it will be notified to the ARC

It can send out more detailed information than a digital communicator, so keyholders or police are better informed and ready to deal with the situation when they arrive on site

You can use an existing fixed telephone line, with a cable extending it to the alarm panel

Con's
 
You have to pay an annual subscription to the ARC

If installed on an existing line, you may need to add an ADSL filter which separates digital data transfer from voice
 
You need to pay for a monthly SIM card subscription if you choose this communications path"

https://securityalarms.co.uk/monitored-alarms/#single-path-signalling
 

[Reader]

In 1985 they would not install an alarm that was monitored except by installing an additional phoneline.

Who is (or are) 'they' and what is your evidence for this? It certainly isn't true now. For example, a quick web search finds the information below.

Digital Communicator
This is a cost effective single path signalling method and probably the most widely used. This unit can be connected to an existing telephone line or, for more security, a dedicated telephone line.
Upon an activation of the alarm it will send signals to the ARC. The operator at the ARC will take the appropriate action depending on the type of signal received . Subject to the system meeting the required standards, the ARC can call the police and designated key-holders.

The above makes it quite clear that a dedicated line is not essential, just an option for added security (but at extra expense for the extra line).

[scipio_usmc]

Who is (or are) 'they' and what is your evidence for this? It certainly isn't true now. For example, a quick web search finds the information below.

Digital Communicator
This is a cost effective single path signalling method and probably the most widely used. This unit can be connected to an existing telephone line or, for more security, a dedicated telephone line.
Upon an activation of the alarm it will send signals to the ARC. The operator at the ARC will take the appropriate action depending on the type of signal received . Subject to the system meeting the required standards, the ARC can call the police and designated key-holders.

The above makes it quite clear that a dedicated line is not essential, just an option for added security (but at extra expense for the extra line).

Your games are worthless as usual.  I posted a source saying another line had to be added and run to the alarm panel which in those days was not a small mobile unit tha tjust plugged into any phone socket.

Moreover the source indicated even in the 1990s they needed a filter to be attached to use a regular houseline.

You post a source to refute this.  You know you can't your games are useless as always.

[Reader]

I posted a source saying another line had to be added and run to the alarm panel which in those days was not a small mobile unit that just plugged into any phone socket.

Moreover the source indicated even in the 1990s they needed a filter to be attached to use a regular houseline.

Your source is about BT Redcare. A filter is needed only in relation to ADSL, but ADSL is not a requirement for digital communication. An alarm panel is typically wired to various alarm devices, such as an external box with a bell (or sounder) and flashing light, so it's not intended to be portable. However, portable computer terminals and the like could use a modem and an ordinary telephone line for digital communication throughout the eighties and before that. It wasn't even necessary for them to be wired or plugged into the telephone line (on occasion, I've used a call box), though a panic button that wasn't permanently connected to a telephone line might be difficult to use in an emergency. Alarm panels are therefore usually wired directly to a telephone line, but don't need to be, and a separate telephone line has never been essential.

[scipio_usmc]

Your source is about BT Redcare. A filter is needed only in relation to ADSL, but ADSL is not a requirement for digital communication. An alarm panel is typically wired to various alarm devices, such as an external box with a bell (or sounder) and flashing light, so it's not intended to be portable. However, portable computer terminals and the like could use a modem and an ordinary telephone line for digital communication throughout the eighties and before that. It wasn't even necessary for them to be wired or plugged into the telephone line (on occasion, I've used a call box), though a panic button that wasn't permanently connected to a telephone line might be difficult to use in an emergency. Alarm panels are therefore usually wired directly to a telephone line, but don't need to be, and a separate telephone line has never been essential.

In 1985 an alarm company would not install an alarm except through a second line.  Saying in theory they could do so is your allegation merely.  You offer no source to establish such is true.  But even if true ift makes no difference because alarm companies would not install an alarm without an addiitonal line run.  You can't provide any source that says they would.

So you play your usual games to try to pretend maybe they cheaped out and refused to pay for anothe rline but payed for alarm monitoring and maybe they did have an alarm that was wired to the regular phone line and that police responded because of it not because of Jeremy's call.  The defense and prosecution would have been aware of an alarm and wound have used it in their arguments.  There was no company this is another fable from Mike which you seem to be happy to join in.  your crediblity sinks anytime you post.

[Reader]

I thought we were discussing what the police might provide in 1985. For a portable panic button, no "installation" by an alarm company is required, as you just plug it in. A second telephone line isn't required for that either.

My "source" for what an alarm company would do in 1985 is the personal experience of a close relative of mine. Unfortunately, that relative is no longer alive and the alarm company they used was a small local company that no longer exists (as its owner retired). However, it's hardly likely that alarm installations for private homes (as distinct from businesses) would be required to have an additional telephone line, as that would make the alarm system unacceptably expensive. More recently (but still over fifteen years ago), someone I know has a monitored alarm system in their home, and it relies on their existing telephone line (they have never had two lines). It does not use ADSL or have any wireless alternative if the telephone line is unavailable. Although the line now has ADSL for internet usage, the alarm works without problem despite not being connected via a filter.

[lebaleb]

According to the statements: In June the cream phone was in the bedroom but on 29th of July it was in the kitchen. This makes Bob Woofenden's investigative reporting and phone theory laughable.

[Roch]

your crediblity sinks anytime you post.

I think this comment is out of order Scip.  There is no need to be so nasty to Reader.