The Role of DCI "Terry" Gibbons, at the scene - 7th August 1985...

[simong]

Here is a link to the Sceptre 120 an improved version of the 100 http://www.britishtelephones.com/t10200.htm

Please note f. Call timing, to display elapsed time in minutes and second; (up to one hour) during a call until handset is restored.


Displayed until handset is restored, no date, or time of phone call etc

[smiffy]

careful what you claim simong(who is billy?..you obsessed?)...sceptre 100 info here.....seems a bit different in key areas of interest. outside appearance of 120 may be similar but quite a bit different in other ways...

Sceptre 100 was the original Sceptre telephone.  The originals were produced in Light Blue and Beige colours.  Within a short period the colour range was extended to include Maroon, Dark Blue and Grey.

This phone was designed by BT engineers.

This model was available in Loop Dial only.

Facilities:
LCD display
10 number memory
Clock
Call timer
Last number redial
Read out of stored/called number

The memory was retained by 4 Alkaline MN1500 batteries

[simong]

careful what you claim simong(who is billy?..you obsessed?)...sceptre 100 info here.....seems a bit different in key areas of interest. outside appearance of 120 may be similar but quite a bit different in other ways...

Sceptre 100 was the original Sceptre telephone.  The originals were produced in Light Blue and Beige colours.  Within a short period the colour range was extended to include Maroon, Dark Blue and Grey.

This phone was designed by BT engineers.

This model was available in Loop Dial only.

Facilities:
LCD display
10 number memory
Clock
Call timer
Last number redial
Read out of stored/called number

The memory was retained by 4 Alkaline MN1500 batteries

Billy, I couldn't care less who you are, i judge you on what you post and how you treat people on here which is poor in both regards.

I have already posted that info. I posted up the Sceptre 120 details as Mike said the phone could have been an updated version. Have you actually read this thread or just the last reply?

[smiffy]

your a liar simong...check out

1983 first trials for itemised billing...in uk
1984 saw it being introduced on digital exchanges etc





who is billy?...are you mentally ill simong or just a twat?...does it not sink in ,,that I am not called  BILLY

[paulg]

First trials for International and Trunk calls in 1983, first trial for local in 1987.

http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm

[smiffy]

do better searches  ...FIRST Trialed Bath and I think Bristol in 1983.

[simong]

your a liar simong...check out

1983 first trials for itemised billing...in uk
1984 saw it being introduced on digital exchanges etc

Here is a link for you Bill. Check it out. http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm

See 1983, Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis on trunk and international calls in part of Bristol and Bath.

Just so you know, a trunk call is a long distance call.

See 1987, Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.

That's your local itemised telephone billing.

As for lying if you don't believe me ask these guys [email protected]

They were very helpful when i asked them about itemised billing. 

[paulg]

One of the difficulties with this case, is that EP gathered all the evidence they needed to prove Sheila was guilty and responsible which they collected up as part of file SC/688/85. However, on 6th September 1985, the nature of the investigation changed, and the police created a new file, SC/786/85, into which they only put information and evidence that might suggest that Sheila was killed along with the other four victims, by Jeremy. Everything and anything which was part of the original file (SC/688/85) which remotely suggested that Sheila was guilty, was edited out of statements, and reports, before it became part of the new file (SC/786/85) - the original material in the format of the original file (SC/688/85) being withheld under pii rules...

Is it fair that although EP gathered all this evidence in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove that Sheila was guilty and that she did do it, is being withheld under pii rules?

Silly question, how come (SC/688/85) is withheld under pii rules, but you often use evidence from this?

[smiffy]

you will find the bt archives rather fragmented.
no surprise there because you would need to understand bt back in the early to mid 80's to fathom out why.
The technology to provide itemised Bills ...including local calls was there if an area was served by a digital exchange. All types of call and duration were logged on these for compiling bills but normal practise was at first not to itemise local calls for economic and practical reasons rather than the info not being available.
The principal argument about the phone calls are that the records and logs were available and obtained by EP but kept hidden as they supported JB. 
As people mainly see the phone call logs as itemised bills from their own experience with them they do not get the picture that the logs exist from which they were created which is the real central issue. In effect when people have used the term in this case of itemised bill a more accurate description would be phone logs. It is like vacuum cleaners are often called hoovers...not a correct term..hoovering up ..but you know what I mean.
Is an itemised bill an itemised bill......do we classify a partly itemised bill as an itemised bill or should an itemised bill be one that itemises all calls to be really an itemised bill?

out of interest.
1985 my quarterly phone bill was approx £80
My quarterly phone bill  in 1993 and 1994 was £120 approx  per quarter.
my phone and broadband in 2010 was £60 approx per quarter.


PII rules ..easy to abuse on the slightest excuse for the authorities to keep things secret that they feel they do not want the public to know. A reason  could  be that  it may undermine the authority of an  establishment body.

[paulg]

you will find the bt archives rather fragmented.
no surprise there because you would need to understand bt back in the early to mid 80's to fathom out why.
The technology to provide itemised Bills ...including local calls was there if an area was served by a digital exchange. All types of call and duration were logged on these for compiling bills but normal practise was at first not to itemise local calls for economic and practical reasons rather than the info not being available.
The principal argument about the phone calls are that the records and logs were available and obtained by EP but kept hidden as they supported JB. 
As people mainly see the phone call logs as itemised bills from their own experience with them they do not get the picture that the logs exist from which they were created which is the real central issue. In effect when people have used the term in this case of itemised bill a more accurate description would be phone logs. It is like vacuum cleaners are often called hoovers...not a correct term..hoovering up ..but you know what I mean.
Is an itemised bill an itemised bill......do we classify a partly itemised bill as an itemised bill or should an itemised bill be one that itemises all calls to be really an itemised bill?

out of interest.
1985 my quarterly phone bill was approx £80
My quarterly phone bill  in 1993 and 1994 was £120 approx  per quarter.
my phone and broadband in 2010 was £60 approx per quarter.


PII rules ..easy to abuse on the slightest excuse for the authorities to keep things secret that they feel they do not want the public to know. A reason  could  be that  it may undermine the authority of an  establishment body.

Nah sunshine, the authorities are not telling porkies on this one, they did not have the technology to log phone calls from WHF and Goldhanger. And the Sceptre 100 is also a red herring, as Mike would say, these are the facts....

As for PII rules, all i want to know is.. If they're secret, and withheld, how can Mike T use evidence from a file that is withheld and secret?

[mike tesko]

One of the difficulties with this case, is that EP gathered all the evidence they needed to prove Sheila was guilty and responsible which they collected up as part of file SC/688/85. However, on 6th September 1985, the nature of the investigation changed, and the police created a new file, SC/786/85, into which they only put information and evidence that might suggest that Sheila was killed along with the other four victims, by Jeremy. Everything and anything which was part of the original file (SC/688/85) which remotely suggested that Sheila was guilty, was edited out of statements, and reports, before it became part of the new file (SC/786/85) - the original material in the format of the original file (SC/688/85) being withheld under pii rules...

Is it fair that although EP gathered all this evidence in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove that Sheila was guilty and that she did do it, is being withheld under pii rules?

Silly question, how come (SC/688/85) is withheld under pii rules, but you often use evidence from this?

.......................

Because parts of the original file (SC/688/85) were carried over into the new file (SC/786/85)...

[paulg]

One of the difficulties with this case, is that EP gathered all the evidence they needed to prove Sheila was guilty and responsible which they collected up as part of file SC/688/85. However, on 6th September 1985, the nature of the investigation changed, and the police created a new file, SC/786/85, into which they only put information and evidence that might suggest that Sheila was killed along with the other four victims, by Jeremy. Everything and anything which was part of the original file (SC/688/85) which remotely suggested that Sheila was guilty, was edited out of statements, and reports, before it became part of the new file (SC/786/85) - the original material in the format of the original file (SC/688/85) being withheld under pii rules...

Is it fair that although EP gathered all this evidence in the original file (SC/688/85) to prove that Sheila was guilty and that she did do it, is being withheld under pii rules?

Silly question, how come (SC/688/85) is withheld under pii rules, but you often use evidence from this?

.......................

Because parts of the original file (SC/688/85) were carried over into the new file (SC/786/85)...

So there was a statement from a courier and a southern electric meter reader carried over?

[smiffy]

paulg posted

Nah sunshine, the authorities are not telling porkies on this one, they did not have the technology to log phone calls from WHF and Goldhanger. And the Sceptre 100 is also a red herring, as Mike would say, these are the facts....

Really ..do you know that for a fact or making it up.?
My friend..face to face type..not internet types ..with a degree in telecommunications stuff worked for BT right through the 1980's ...there was a lot more tech in some areas than others....
Can you tells us what type of exchange catered for whf at the time...and what its capabilities were for logging call details for making up peoples telephone bills, handling types of traffic...ie mobiles etc and how they were costed ,,,etc etc etc... of is it just BS?

sceptre 100 was the phone...so details for that phone apply...similar on the outside but different on the inside to the 120...so different capabilities.

[paulg]

FFS, read the thread with regards to the sceptre phone, its been covered.

BT did not put the hardware in place to track local calls in 1985, in any exchange. Trials were carried out, exactly as that link says.

Contact them like simong has, they'll give you all the info you need.

[smiffy]

how can simong prove he did contact them...or is that just a  false claim?

you dont know what the exchange was for that area and how it costed peoples calls at all do you paulg?....as it varied from area to area?
system x was being put into exchanges and had been for a few years and was for a few years to come etc..

check your telecoms acts and reports etc about things like how they charged for bills ...ie durations and distances and different ways they were recorded dependent on the type of exchange in use.
They had to be able to  establish on firm grounds about how much the bill was and how it was calculated.
They had the capablity in 1983 to list local calls in the trials then..but chose not to add them to the itemised bills they produced for practical and economic reasons.

Think this thread should go back on subject ..rather that let it get distracted by the time wasters diversions.