Have the police got nothing better to do?

[UKPoacher]

UK poacher - your first post justified the police doing something.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have acted.

 

Your second post was about who might have actually called the police, and i don't disagree with that either.

I've had my fair share of being pointed at about things that in the end were shown to be nothing to do with me, so I'm all in favour of being careful in pointing fingers and making accusations.

 

You never explained why the police followed the procedure that they did - if you had, i'd have thought 'fair enough'. Like I did in the post above, without prompting.

 

More importantly, thanks for posting at all, despite the fact it makes you a target.

After all, it's vital to get both points of view.

 

Here again for the hard of understanding:

 

Once again we are asked to comment on secondhand information. We only have what your friend said to you and what of that you remembered. It might not actually have been as stated. People do tend to exagerate to make a point. I'm just pleased that plod took the time to be at the old lady's house when your friend called. He didn't arrive by magic or divine intervention either. Someone must have called the job in and imagine the Daily Mail readers amongst you's horror if plod had ignored the call and the old lady had been charged £3,000 for the work and taken to her bank for payment.

 

If the police attend an incident like this it goes without saying that they will check out the salesman very thoroughly to ensure that he is who he purports to be. That might rub someone up the wrong way if the believe themselves to be beyond reproach, but con men don't usually walk around with a badge on indicating their profession.

[Jaguar Warrior]

UKPoacher -

At no time did you appear to be explaining the specific procedure used - your first post and your last bold highlights are supporting the police doing something, and I do agree that they couldn't simply do nothing. All I initially said was that they should have phoned him.

 

At no time did I suggest the police should do nothing. Quote me from my posts if you like. I've agreed I was out of order in criticising the procedure followed.

I've since seen the sense in it. I'm not the one you need to convince. I've always been on the side of the police for not ignoring the call. I'm even on your side about the method used.

 

However, (deep breath JW)........ You never explained why the man was 'trapped' into turning up rather than being phoned. The OP didn't understand it either. Initially i didn't understand it either.

 

 

You simply justified police action (something I have always agreed with). I went off and thought about it and realised that the 'trap' method is probably the best course of action.

 

I apologise for daring to question the methods used by the police.

 

If you were the policeman in question, if you had taken the same approach if the drive washer questioned the need for that particular entrapment approach in public, would you have also justified the approach with 'well, you can't expect us to do nothing'? That is what you are doing to me. Could i suggest dropping the justification for doing something, and concentrate on explaining why they have to physically meet/trap/intercept/apprehend such persons, since a real criminal will simply lie on the phone? Not to me though, I get it.

 

Sorry for whatever I've said that was wrong in your eyes - absolutely no offence was meant, pardon the pun.

JW

Edited April 6, 2011 by Jaguar Warrior

[amateur]

Betterware, Avon and, of course, ******** are all members of the Direct Selling Association, and, as such, their distributors are required to carry photo id's.

 

So a reasonable means of distinguishing between the cowboys and legitimate traders.

 

In my years of very remunerative cataloguing I have never had an adverse reaction from the police, nor indeed from 90% of the public with whom I deal - and you only deal with the 10% once.

[des]

so many rip offs no come backs

[Jaguar Warrior]

oops, double post now deleted

Edited April 6, 2011 by Jaguar Warrior

[Jaguar Warrior]

Taken from Leicester Council Website: http://www.leics.gov.uk/no_cold_calling_zones.htm

 

No Cold Calling Zones: -

 

• Are areas nominated in which cold callers are discouraged from calling. They are not designed to stop all callers and, thus, regular callers, utility services and known callers should not be deterred. Those involved in door to door selling may still call but should always provide prior notice of their intention to call. (jw - i'm unsure how they do this, drop off a leaflet maybe? (bad joke).)

 

• Are designed to assist in areas that are considered to be vulnerable, but are not designed for areas that just feel that they do not want cold callers. Vulnerability can be measured in many ways but it may be an area of elderly persons, an area where there has been a high level of recorded crime, such as burglary or distraction burglary, or even an isolated area of a small number of properties.

 

• Will discourage rogue traders who, for example, tell householders work needs doing and then charge exorbitant prices, sell poor quality items at high prices or pressure sell. The zones will also discourage those who use door step selling as the opening for distraction burglaries or to make plans for future burglaries. End of quote.

 

Here's another:

http://stoke.gov.uk/ccm/navigation/environment/trading-standards/no-cold-calling-zones/;jsessionid=aSLh3Bf2U18f

 

The zones are not designed to stop:

 

* Regular roundsmen such as your milkman or paperboy.

* Regular callers like Avon and Betterware who just leave a catalogue.

* Utility services such as Gas and Electric companies who call to read your meter.

* Political groups canvassing for election purposes and at other times throughout the year. end of quote.

 

Driveway cleaners are neither known, regular or utility workers. Betterware and Avon ARE regular callers.

 

I still stand firmly behind my original interpretation:

 

All of the above groups can drop off a leaflet. or catalogue. or whatever. They ARE allowed to call, though I'm not sure if they can knock on the first visit, which might be their notification to call and knock ata alter date, as required by certain direct trading rules. I don't care - they can call, but the cockerel always says no, irregardless of what I think.

 

No other callers (not included above) are allowed to call to drop off a leaflet, or catalogue or anything else for that matter and wander up the drives in a no cold calling zone. They aren't allowed to call for anything, ever. Even with a leaflet. End of my interpretation.

 

Doc W and Nial - do you now agree that this is what the writer of the first website was trying to say? I'll provide the nails and mast, you just provide your colours.

We all agree the other webpage was ambiguous, I just think your interpretations to be off the mark. Sorry

They are strangers, arriving uninvited. Neither me or my cockerel want them coming up my drive.

 

Note for Vince, the OP:

Treat the above quotes like reloading data - verify them.

Then help your mate decide if it is worth making a complaint. I like officerdribbles post - ive found that a word with a superior usually gets an apology with the 'we are all human' line, though that works for me.

If you do complain, consider focusing on what was said by the policeman and if he could have explained his course of action any better, as opposed to other courses of action like phoning. Myself I would leave it.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Jaguar Warrior

[Vince Green]

 

 

if you do complain, consider focusing on what was said by the policeman and if he could have explained his course of action any better, as opposed to other courses of action like phoning. Myself I would leave it.

Nothing to do with me, its all in the hands of the Citizens Advice and their solicitor. It was before the thread was started. Apparantly they are of the opinion that somebody acted illegally in establishing a verbal contract with him to provide goods or services which they never had any intention of honouring. Its that intent that is the clincher.

 

Most of the discussion on here has focussed around the no cold calling zone but missed the point that by "booking" him they acted illegally and he is entitled to seek redress.

 

The big beef with him has always been that he turned up at nine oclock loaded up with all his stuff all ready and psyched up to do a days work and was told to clear off and don't come back. I don't think he cares about the zone

 

On the advice of CA he has started an action through the small claims court against the police for payment and this he will almost certainly win. So they say

 

Anyway, no doubt it will drag on for some time yet

Edited April 6, 2011 by Vince Green

[UKPoacher]

UKPoacher -

At no time did you appear to be explaining the specific procedure used - your first post and your last bold highlights are supporting the police doing something, and I do agree that they couldn't simply do nothing. All I initially said was that they should have phoned him.

 

At no time did I suggest the police should do nothing. Quote me from my posts if you like. I've agreed I was out of order in criticising the procedure followed.

I've since seen the sense in it. I'm not the one you need to convince. I've always been on the side of the police for not ignoring the call. I'm even on your side about the method used.

 

However, (deep breath JW)........ You never explained why the man was 'trapped' into turning up rather than being phoned. The OP didn't understand it either. Initially i didn't understand it either.

 

 

You simply justified police action (something I have always agreed with). I went off and thought about it and realised that the 'trap' method is probably the best course of action.

 

I apologise for daring to question the methods used by the police.

 

If you were the policeman in question, if you had taken the same approach if the drive washer questioned the need for that particular entrapment approach in public, would you have also justified the approach with 'well, you can't expect us to do nothing'? That is what you are doing to me. Could i suggest dropping the justification for doing something, and concentrate on explaining why they have to physically meet/trap/intercept/apprehend such persons, since a real criminal will simply lie on the phone? Not to me though, I get it.

 

Sorry for whatever I've said that was wrong in your eyes - absolutely no offence was meant, pardon the pun.

JW

 

OK. Next time we will phone the suspected con man on the number he has given and invite him round to the station for a cosy chat. He could come round after he's visited the old lady.

 

As previously stated: We don'tknow the actual facts. This is all secondhand information.

[Dr W]

Jaguar for all your lengthy rambling late night posts I still totally absolutely and unequivably disagree with you.

 

I do not belive that dropping a leaftlet through a letter box is cold calling. The person has the choice whether to make contact, is not pressured has time to think about it and can ring and ask for a fixed quote, they also have time to speak to the neighbour as to whether the job was worth the money.

[Nial]

I'll provide the nails and mast, you just provide your colours.

 

I'm perfectly happy to nail my colours to any mast.

 

That's not what you meant was it?

 

 

Looking at the big picture, No Cold Calling zones are set up to stop doorstep pressure

selling targeting vulnerable people.

 

Do you think the intention is to stop the following people putting leaflets through doors.....

 

Pizza Restaurants

Chinese Restaurants

Gardeners

Ironing Services

Local Sports Clubs

Local Social clubs

Local Chursh services/coffee days

Milk delivery (advertising)

Window cleaners

Gutter Cleaners

Odd Job men

 

Older people may well find many of these services useful, I don't think they are the intended targets of the restriction.

 

 

 

Sorry, my lights still on....

 

...but it's not very bright!

 

 

You're a woman aren't you?

 

Won't listen to logic or reason, you just know that you're right!

 

 

 

It seems to me the OP's mate is a victim of circumstance. He has entered an area where there has most likely been problems before, and the police have acted quite harshly. I think it is heavy handed.

 

It sounds like some busy body curtain twitcher has seen him distributing leaflets and got the police involved, although by

approaching him she removed any accusation that he was cold calling.

 

 

Nial.

[toka_shigazu]

going off what has been posted....

 

Cold caling zone were created to stop people hasstling folk, gutterwork, tarmac, gardening services that rip them off etc. All cold callers usually have big street signs, and/or signs on every house in the scheme, on the door or a window pane next to the door....it is still a fact though that even genuine people offering a service neglect to see this sinage more often than not....they genuinely want work etc. if there is a no cold calling zone there will be a link person through the sheltered housing or council organiser who may be able to offer some kind of introduction/meeting with those on the scheme.

 

This cused some of those who were then hampered from doing their daily 'business' and they changed to leaflet dropping. This was/is not classed as cold calling as it then requires an invite into the house. These individuals would use professional looking flyers including a name, address and telephone number. The name is usually simialr to their own, the address again may have a wrong number or street name and the telephone number would be a pay as you go untraceable number. lets not forget many of these individuals are wanted for numerous similar jobs and so will not want to be caught as it will be a string of offences.

 

officers could never get hold of them as the address would be non existent or s/he would not be known there and they would hang up the phone if they got a sniff of plod, and change their number. all this was done so that police could never get to speak to them or deal directly with them and certainly not link them to any shoddy/non existent work. any error on the flyer was down to an error in the printing room etc.

 

Due to the above it is fairly common after receiving a complaint to get the complainant to ring them back and organise a meeting, and police would be fairly guarantted to be able to speak with the person responsible, sometimes they would be spooked off and not attend the meeting...this is done like this because the officer needs to meet the individual to be able to report them for any offence or at least arrest them [more likely in these kinds of cases]

 

It would sound [going by the information supplied] that your friend was a genuine person and perhaps if the officer had explained all the reasoning a bit better he may have been happier. it may also have added the bonus of directing him to someone who would be able to get a meeting with the residents for you to advertise your serivices.... i can only go by what was put up but there are always other sides to the story!

 

atb

[officerdibble777]

Here again for the hard of understanding:

 

 

 

If the police attend an incident like this it goes without saying that they will check out the salesman very thoroughly to ensure that he is who he purports to be. That might rub someone up the wrong way if the believe themselves to be beyond reproach, but con men don't usually walk around with a badge on indicating their profession.

Mate,your never going to get this warrior to let it go,He seems to be like the Friday night drunk,and always has to be right and has to have the last word.

be careful out there

john

[timps]

On the advice of CA he has started an action through the small claims court against the police for payment and this he will almost certainly win. So they say

 

Anyway, no doubt it will drag on for some time yet

I cannot see this, you have a course of action against the householder. The police had no such contract with him, the householder obviously reported him as a cold caller otherwise they would not have attended. The police did not stop him doing the work against the householders permission, the householder asked the police to intervene.

 

The Police will just say they attended at the request of the householder to deal with a cold caller, if your friend proves there was a verbal contract between him and the householder this is an issue between your friend and the householder not the police.

 

To win against the police you would have to prove loss caused by them, the police did not stop him doing the work the householder did and used the police as a tool to do this.

 

He should sue the householder.

 

I could be wrong and stand to be corrected but our family business deals with litigation in construction and my limited knowledge of the law leads me to this conclusion.

 

I have little faith in citizens advice after a client proceeded to take action against a builder on their recommendation only to find out she did not have a case when she talked to someone who I recommended before she wasted all her money on costs.

[guest1957]

I cannot see this, you have a course of action against the householder. The police had no such contract with him, the householder obviously reported him as a cold caller otherwise they would not have attended. The police did not stop him doing the work against the householders permission, the householder asked the police to intervene.

 

The Police will just say they attended at the request of the householder to deal with a cold caller, if your friend proves there was a verbal contract between him and the householder this is an issue between your friend and the householder not the police.

 

To win against the police you would have to prove loss caused by them, the police did not stop him doing the work the householder did and used the police as a tool to do this.

 

He should sue the householder.

 

I could be wrong and stand to be corrected but our family business deals with litigation in construction and my limited knowledge of the law leads me to this conclusion.

 

I have little faith in citizens advice after a client proceeded to take action against a builder on their recommendation only to find out she did not have a case when she talked to someone who I recommended before she wasted all her money on costs.

 

IIRC you can sue for inducing breach of contract/tortious interference, which might well be applicable here. The problem here comes from proving the verbal contract, not easily done in a court of law.

[toka_shigazu]

yes very hard if the 'OK' was for the work to be done or 'OK' for him to call and discuss it...which would be my thoughts, an invitation in to discuss so not cold calling but not any commitment to use the service...

 

atb

[timps]

IIRC you can sue for inducing breach of contract/tortious interference, which might well be applicable here. The problem here comes from proving the verbal contract, not easily done in a court of law.

 

I think for that to apply you would have to prove the police were complicit in her making or breaking the verbal contract or they stopped him from carrying out his work without the householders consent or she still wanted it doing, that would be hard to prove without the householder as a friendly witness.

 

If she changed her mind about having the work done and phoned the police to attend for fear of her safety / pressure to have the work done or even to get him in trouble then as far as I can see there is no case against the police, just her for breach of contract as the police had no input or knowledge of the contract until she phoned them to attend because she wanted to cancel.

 

You have to prove loss and who is at fault for the loss and as far as I can see it the only case is against the householder which will also be very hard to prove.

Edited April 6, 2011 by timps

[guest1957]

I think for that to apply you would have to prove the police were complicit in her making or breaking the verbal contract or they stopped him from carrying out his work without the householders consent or she still wanted it doing, that would be hard to prove without the householder as a friendly witness.

 

If she changed her mind about having the work done and phoned the police to attend for fear of her safety / pressure to have the work done or even to get him in trouble then as far as I can see there is no case against the police, just her for breach of contract as the police had no input or knowledge of the contract until she phoned them to attend because she wanted to cancel.

 

You have to prove loss and who is at fault for the loss and as far as I can see it the only case is against the householder which will also be very hard to prove.

 

From what has been said I suspect they are bringing both and seeing what sticks

[Jaguar Warrior]

Ive just got off the phone from Surrey Trading Standards/Consumer Direct to ask for a clearer interpretation of the wording on the linked website.

 

Someone suggested that the scheme is to stop 'doorstep pressure selling targeting vulnerable people.' He/she suggests looking at the bigger picture, whilst only looking at half of the picture. Huh? If you look at the full picture, you will see it also is designed to deter opportunistic burglaries.

 

According to Trading Standards, our friend was engaged in 'canvassing for business'. The advisor said that they DO want to discourage this, in order to deter opportunistic burglaries.

 

Leaflet dropping to canvass business appears to be banned in a no cold calling zone. It would be logged by trading standards as a beach of the rules, and the canvasser 'contacted'.

It isn't as serious a transgression as knocking on the door, because that could be seen as 'doorstop pressure selling'.

 

Someone made a useful list of the types of people that might want to consider if they are 'canvassing for business'. A few members think they are all allowed to leaflet, but trading standards disagree:

 

Pizza Restaurants

Chinese Restaurants

Gardeners

Ironing Services

Local Sports Clubs

Local Social clubs

Local Chursh services/coffee days

Milk delivery (advertising)

Window cleaners

Gutter Cleaners

Odd Job men

 

If they are regular or known, it might be ok. They still risk a complaint though if the occupant objects on the grounds that they are 'canvassing for business in a no cold calling zone', and didn't recognise the deliverer/caller.

 

We will all no doubt have different opinions on this, none of which are relevant. It is down to the local authorities to interpret and the police to implement in an approprite and sensitive way.

 

Note Vince, that i've been the only member to change my opinion, the only one to admit they were wrong and the only one to apologise in any way. Yet i'm the most slated for standing my ground. It was like that for Darwin and Galileo too.

 

BTW - i'm not a woman, but I do have a galabiya from Egypt that i like to wear in hot weather or abroad simply because it is sooooo comfy, and i'd recommend it to anyone. I'm like a friday night drunk but i'm not actually one. No offence taken - I don't expect any different from plod - unprofessional .

Edited April 6, 2011 by Jaguar Warrior

[Gordon R]

I will be interested in the outcome of any civil claim. My own view is that they will never succeed in a month of Sundays. I would be more convinced if a top jockey Barrister had rated their chances. :lol:

 

We are getting half a tale and yet some will condemn the Police and say how they would have dealt with it. The simple answer would be for them to join the Police and show them how it is done. Rest assured, whatever they did, some bright spark will pop up to criticise them.

 

This thread will die the death, until the next one - panning the Police. :no:

 

It would be nice to see a "The Police do a very difficult job, with constant criticism, occasionally getting it wrong, but almost always getting it right" thread.

 

Meanwhile - let's plough on with the half tale. :rolleyes:

 

Just read this classic :-

 

Note Vince, that i've been the only member to change my opinion, the only one to admit they were wrong and the only one to apologise in any way. Yet i'm the most slated for standing my ground.

 

How can you change your mind, admit you were wrong whilst standing your ground? Beats me. :lol: :lol:

Edited April 6, 2011 by Gordon R

[Nial]

Ive just got off the phone from Surrey Trading Standards/Consumer Direct to ask for a clearer interpretation of the wording on the linked website.

 

 

Are you mad?

 

You don't even know the original incident was in Surrey.

 

 

 

 

Nial

[UKPoacher]

Just got back from a training course and this sort of thing was covered;

 

Statistics show that only 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 instances of old folk being subject to bogus official scams get reported. The old dears don't report them because they are scared that their relatives will think they can't look after themselves and put them in a home.

 

The average theft per incident is around £1,500.

 

The average age of the victiims is 81 and are predominantly female.

 

Two-thirds of victims fall victim to similar scams perpetrated by associates of the original thieves, i.e. they share and swap information on victims with other thieves.

 

There are a team of six people on remand in South Yorks who are known to have stolen over £100,000 from old folk using the bogus official method and they reckon that their haul will have been nearer £1 million.

[Flashman]

Ive just got off the phone from Surrey Trading Standards/Consumer Direct to ask for a clearer interpretation of the wording on the linked website.

 

Someone suggested that the scheme is to stop 'doorstep pressure selling targeting vulnerable people.' He/she suggests looking at the bigger picture, whilst only looking at half of the picture. Huh? If you look at the full picture, you will see it also is designed to deter opportunistic burglaries.

 

According to Trading Standards, our friend was engaged in 'canvassing for business'. The advisor said that they DO want to discourage this, in order to deter opportunistic burglaries.

 

Leaflet dropping to canvass business appears to be banned in a no cold calling zone. It would be logged by trading standards as a beach of the rules, and the canvasser 'contacted'.

It isn't as serious a transgression as knocking on the door, because that could be seen as 'doorstop pressure selling'.

 

Someone made a useful list of the types of people that might want to consider if they are 'canvassing for business'. A few members think they are all allowed to leaflet, but trading standards disagree:

 

Pizza Restaurants

Chinese Restaurants

Gardeners

Ironing Services

Local Sports Clubs

Local Social clubs

Local Chursh services/coffee days

Milk delivery (advertising)

Window cleaners

Gutter Cleaners

Odd Job men

 

If they are regular or known, it might be ok. They still risk a complaint though if the occupant objects on the grounds that they are 'canvassing for business in a no cold calling zone', and didn't recognise the deliverer/caller.

 

We will all no doubt have different opinions on this, none of which are relevant. It is down to the local authorities to interpret and the police to implement in an approprite and sensitive way.

 

Note Vince, that i've been the only member to change my opinion, the only one to admit they were wrong and the only one to apologise in any way. Yet i'm the most slated for standing my ground. It was like that for Darwin and Galileo too.

 

BTW - i'm not a woman, but I do have a galabiya from Egypt that i like to wear in hot weather or abroad simply because it is sooooo comfy, and i'd recommend it to anyone. I'm like a friday night drunk but i'm not actually one. No offence taken - I don't expect any different from plod - unprofessional .

Perhaps we should change the title of this thread to, "Has Jaguar Warrior got nothing better to do?"

 

I find it amusing that you compare your written rantings in this forum to a couple of the greatest minds of their times. Perhaps a slightly different comparison to Darwinism is in order?

[Dr W]

Just been looking at the literature that Trading Standards produce on how to set up a No Cold Calling Zone (yes it's a quiet day at work) and it only refers to people calling at the house not distributing leaflets.

 

In fact it says that Cold Calling in No Cold Calling Zone isn't illegal so this whole thing is a bit of a waste of time.

 

I would say that some jumped up curtain twitcher with nothing of any interest in her life thought she was saving the community from a dangerous criminal called the police who sent a jumped up PCSO for whom it was the most exciting piece of action all day.

 

I doubt any legal action will get anywhere but who knows.

 

Bored now, let's move on.

[J@mes]

Perhaps we should change the title of this thread to, "Has Jaguar Warrior got nothing better to do?"

 

 

 

 

Roger that.

 

Jag, did you tell Surrey Trading Standards that you needed the information purely to win an internet argument?

 

[UKPoacher]

 

Note Vince, that i've been the only member to change my opinion, the only one to admit they were wrong and the only one to apologise in any way. Yet i'm the most slated for standing my ground. It was like that for Darwin and Galileo too.

 

 

I don't recall Darwin and Galileo changing their ideology midstream. Perhaps old Galileo could have learned a trick or two from you and saved himself all that awful persecution and house arrest nonesense.