I might well agree to totally disagree with you if I had any idea what point you are trying to make.
To be clear though. I have served as a magistrate. I am no longer a magistrate.
You seem to be confusing the responsibilities of magistrates carrying out their duties with those of âordinaryâ people.
It is not right or proper for a non-magistrate to be exercising judgement on how an offence should be dealt with. Or indeed for a magistrate to be exercising such judgement outside of his/her official business. The responsibility is to report an offence to the police. That is all.
Once again, for the millionth time, the use of 999 to report a crime in progress is entirely proper and appropriate. Please do not confuse this with your own opinions. Just stick to the law.
Indeed it does not. So I suggest you look on-line and verify the facts for yourself.
I ahve, and indeed posted the advice on this thread if you care to look.
Then why are you questioning the validity of it, when you must know that what Iâm saying is right? You make no sense to me.
You sound credibly reasonable but not in possession of the full facts.
UK emergency services have tried to make exactly the argument you make. Unfortunately the data does not support them. There appears to be zero evidence that so called emergencies are not getting through because of time-wasting non-emergency calls. Itâs an assertion made repeatedly and repeated endlessly by the media because they love a good example of an idiotic call. It turns out to simply be untrue. A lie. Most calls are answered in under 10 seconds and most of the remainder in under 60. Most abandoned calls are not because the line was blocked. Clearly not. Most abandoned calls are when people believe theyâve either been connected to a queue for the wrong emergency service or have been wrongly treated as non-emergency so they ring off and dial 999 again. This from the police own data accurate as of August 2023.
Regrettably in January this year it was revealed that the real issue is that non-emergency calls are going up to 5 hours without even being answered let alone allocated. At the same time the published data showed that there was no issue of people abandoning emergency calls because they couldnât get through. The issue was solely that once they got through the emergency wasnât responded to as such. The average response time is 16.5 minutes as of June 2023 but behind that lie delays of up to 14 hours.
Trying to guilt people into ringing a non functioning non emergency line when they have a real emergency is right up there with the nonsense about trying to pretend weâre in a crisis of non attendance of medical appointments which is costing the NHS millions. When investigated it was discovered we had no accurate data on non attendance; no accurate data on cost and so on.
Merciless, the magistrate turns 'round, frowning
And whoâs the fool who wears the crown?
A prank call to 999 might be due to an idiotic mischief or malicious intent. A nuisance call such as the one made by the OP - letâs say due to good intent and poor judgement (best case, but should then be accompanied by an apology not arguing people who disagree with his poor judgment should find another job)
Unfortunately, the effect of both of these types of calls can be quite similar or even the same! We have to hope that people on the lines have regular breaks, positive attitude and appropriate training.
Hi Mike
Have you worked in a police emergency call centre or had experience of one?
Thereâs a reason call handlerâs get frustrated with non emergency calls to emergency lines.
Magistrates are almost all âordinary peopleâ like you and me. The are certainly not legal professionals.
I meant âordinaryâ in the sense of not being magistrates thatâs all - as I suspect you well know!
In the broadest sense everyoneâs an ordinary person like you and me - even King Charles I expect!
Thatâs as may be but itâs a straw man in relation to your point. The argument that non-emergency calls prevent the taking of or action on emergency calls is factually inaccurate according to the police own figures.
Ok, time for an impartial viewâŚ. Chat gpt
I asked
In the uk a pavement is partially obstructed by some bricks. Should I call 999?
It said
No, calling 999 for a partially obstructed pavement is not appropriate. You should contact your local council or non-emergency services to report such issues. Calling 999 should be reserved for emergencies that require immediate police, fire, or medical assistance.
Could not put it better
I will simply never accept that it is the role of the public to accept that policing cannot cope with emergencies or non emergencies (and thatâs actually the reality rather than them not coping with one thing) and to moderate their demands accordingly.
Should I roll over and die because the DWP are under-resourced and it can take up to two hours to get through to an outsourced under-trained call centre who likely wonât have the answer to why I currently have no money to live on? Would it be better for them if I ease off; live without money for a bit (or die as has been happening) to do just recognise that itâs a but difficult for them. Alternatively, I could remind myself that they are they to serve me and not the other way around.
Where exactly do we stop with this nonsense? The line here seems to be that we must accept things are under resourced and rubbish and lower our expectations. My line will always be to demand better. I will use my vote to do that; my telephone and whatever means it takes.
Iâm afraid I can only laugh at the idea that we accept policing by consent. Policing by consent hasnât existed for decades and itâs not going to be undergoing some existential crisis simply because some of us believe that they should do their jobs and that where they donât or are unable to do so the proper response is for us to lie down and accept the status quo.
Did we consent to them collecting data on us in breach of GDPR? CCTV on street corners? Facial recognition technology at sporting events and other large public gatherings? Kettling? I donât recall consenting to that? In cell brutality? Deaths in costidy? Disproportionate SUS?
The list goes on and will doubtless not change your mind or anyone elseâs. Thatâs fine but in life you either accept that things are bad and do something about it or you do not. Doing something about it, for me, will never include lowering my expectations because lifeâs a bit tricky for the police and they have to make decisions on competing priorities. Hello. Welcome to âlifeâ.
The solution to under-resourcing and inaction is not to feel sorry for them and make less demand on them. They serve us not the other way round.
Difficult to believe over 200 posts on this !
Guilty as charged myself unfortunately 
⌠and yet here we are with you seeking to define what is an emergency i.e. the issue described by the OP would not be one for you. That remains entirely subjective whereas the objective reality is that the appropriate call is defined by the law; their terms of service and the guidance. Thus the OP was well within their rights to do as they did; isnât going to be prosecuted for wasting police time or unnecessarily bringing the emergency services to their knees because, as Iâve repeatedly noted, the facts (as opposed to opinions) simply donât support the suggestion he was wrong.
The claim that not ringing 999 here is somehow an assistance to the police simply doesnât square up with the data provided by the police or what the law says. I note that when faced with both what the law says and the police data on calls no-one has addressed those issues head on. Instead itâs back to
âI wouldnât do that therefore itâs wrongâ.
âThe majority of a small number of people on a forum wouldnât do that therefore itâs wrong.â
At the end of the day that is all you have. None of the assertions as to why some here feel one ought not to ring 999 in these circumstances are supported by any of the facts claimed for them.
Thus why some posters have reverted to a pretence at humour to disguise essentially passive aggressive ad hom commentary e.g. straw man comments re: Amazon parcels and the like.
By all means keep posting but the police data is factual and what the law says is factual. The OP can legally do what they did and no harm will result except to bricks.
Tackling the builders will likely result in an earful and no other action.
I can sympathize with your issue. I walk the city streets every day and over the years the obstructions from electrical lines running out to electric cars parked in the street, along with shared bikes and scooters left everywhere on walking sidewalks and walking paths is a problem. Not so much for the young but definitely for senior citizens and people with disabilities.
After Covid the vast majority of local, city, state and federal police forces have been greatly reduced. Many cities have hundreds of positions that could be filled and like Seattle are offering financial incentives for trained officers to relocate here. Unfortunately so are many other cities.
Bottom line is calls are prioritized and most often you are going to at best get a phone call returned often the next day unless it is a major crime occurring right at the moment.
Same with health care workers many have left the profession or retired early due to burn out conditions during Covid. So people with and without health care insurance have long waits to get appointments for care.
Life pre-covid and post-covid has brought about many changes and our expectations of how it should be and reality of how it is now continues to be exposed.
So tripping over a brick pile now a days may have you waiting for a emergency response vechile slow to arrive, a long wait in the emergency room for a health care provider to come by and see you, and then you most likely having to fill out an online form for the police.
These times, they keep on a changingâŚ