Cheaper calls to police


The police phone number has changed from an 0845 to an 0345 prefix. The full number for West Midlands Police is now 0345 113 5000.
The new, low-cost number will benefit mobile phone users as it charges just a few pence per minute or nothing, instead of a variable rate dictated by service providers. Some mobile providers were charging a local rate fee to be connected to the existing 0845 113 5000 number. But the tariff was sometimes considerably higher from other operators, with charges as high as 40 pence per minute.

Advertisements

20 responses to “Cheaper calls to police

  1. P Doff was right in what he has said about corruption involving the cvcha and the vale mail. I have done a little work myself in investigating the claims, and found that a director of headline media the company who publish the vale mail, is also on the payroll of cvcha, now not only is this a major conflict of interests, but it also backs up what P Doff had to say. It would have been interesting to know exactly what he did say in full before he was censored by the vale mail though. Maybe he hit a nerve!

  2. concerned vale resident

    interesting reading !!!!

  3. Ann Froggatt

    As I understand it, if anyone publishes material that could be considered libellous, they are liable to be sued by the person who is libelled.
    As Editor of the Valemail, and also the man responsible for moderating this blog, Clive Edwards would, the way the law stands at present, be held PERSONALLY responsible for any defamatory material that appeared either here or in the ValeMail.
    Censorship is not in Clive Edwards’s vocabulary. He is a journalist of total integrity. It is quite wrong, in fact it’s disgraceful, to imply that he could be “leaned on” or otherwise influenced to suppress people’s opinions.
    Please stop suggesting that he’s trying to silence anyone. That in itself is getting pretty close to libel, and it’s a shameful slur on a decent, honest man.

  4. ANN ONYMOUS

    there was nothing wrong with what was posted prior to froggatts comment, seems in perfect order to me and as for the laws regarding defamation of character, i will think you will find that a) the above is true and b) it is in the public’s interest to know, thereby anyone attempting to sue in a court of law would struggle to do so. time we cleaned up the vale and those in positions of power need to be brought to book before we can clean up the streets.

  5. P Doff is not right and neither are you anonymous. Please check your facts and make sure you have up to date information before making these scandalous and possibly libellous accusations

  6. Ann Froggatt

    I agree wholeheartedly that it is in our interests to know exactly what is going on amongst the powers- that-be who run the estate. They are supposed to be acting FOR us, not for their own benefit. I have noted with disappointment – and growing anxiety – that no-one from the Carnival Committee has seen fit to answer my straightforward question about their need to appoint a consultant.
    What my first comment (above) referred to was P.Doff ‘s earlier NAMING of people he/she considered corrupt. That was what ValeMail had to tread carefully about – to allow that comment to stand would have rendered ValeMail liable to be sued, under our ridiculous libel laws.
    There is a recent example of how people can sue on the flimsiest of grounds just because someone doubts their word and says so publicly:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/01/simon-singh-wins-libel-court

    Simon Singh had a dreadful time over this, yet it was his genuine opinion, not inspired by malice or any ulterior motive.
    So you can see that ValeMail and Clive Edwards have to walk a tightrope every time someone shouts ” corruption” and names an allegedly corrupt person.
    It’s not censorship, it’s our b*****stupid libel laws. Free speech? Not in England, I’m afraid.

  7. This is actually starting to get ridiculous.

    If CVCHA was trying to censor what goes into Vale Mail WHY would there be a article on the police swoop in Orchard Meddow Walk, complete with quote off Peter Ritchmond?

    WHY would this story also be on this website?

    WHY would there be this thread of discussion on this site?

    Things have gone wrong and they have been reported on, no conspiracy no cover up just honest straightforward reporting.

    If people are going to make ridiculous allegations then these will be taken off, what would you prefer for them to be left up and then that person gets hit with a libel suit?

    Clive works very hard on the newspaper and this website for the residents of Castle Vale so stop with all the negativity.

    Secondly for all the people that have posted stuff about illegal goings on on the estate I hope they have reported these to the Police and CVCHA if not why not?
    Posting things on this website will not get the problems sorted you need to go to the Police and give them the facts.

    Ann with regards to Bob I would guess that has he worked on the Carnival for many years as a BCC employee this was carried over to when he became self employed (a consultant) this would probably be because of his expertise in organising the event.

  8. Thank you anonymous for the link to a web site that names 3 people, non of whom are current directors of Headline Media and have not been for quite some time. I’m afraid the information is very old and not relevant to the recent discussions on this web site and would be grateful if the accusations are not repeated as you have now identified people by name and could be laying yourself open to charges of libel.

  9. Ann
    Thanks for your comments; I appreciate them. Thanks also to Ian and Sammy.
    The defamation law in this country is a tricky one. Many editors call it the ‘chilling’ law, because it cools down hot stories. The point about it is that if you publish something that defames someone else, you (the publisher) has to be able to prove that it is true. If you cannot prove it, then don’t publish. It is not good enough to have an honestly held opinion… it must be based on provable facts.
    Of course, if the anonymous writer wishes to publish his/her defamatory remarks on his own website or newspaper, that is his prerogative.
    But it must be obvious why an anonymous contributor cannot be allowed to publish defamatory remarks on someone else’s website or newspaper. He wants to defame the person without taking responsibility for it……
    Of course, blogs are free to set up. Go to wordpress.com or blogspot.com and set up your own blog; then you become a publisher. And you can go ahead and publish your defamatory comments. But you wouldn’t be anonymous. And you might face a legal action. And so might wordpress or blogspot.

  10. Clive, whilst i can understand what you are saying, the truth is that one of the people accused of corruption is a friend of yours and that is the real reason you dont want things going any further. The truth is that you know the truth and are now praying that something else happens tomorow that will make this current problem disappear under the carpet before even more lies are discovered. The press are quick enough to dish the dirt but don’t like it when it is one of their own.

  11. Caroline, sorry but that is absolute rubbish. I have seen no evidence of corruption. What corruption are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that because CVCHA now owns Headline Media, that that is corrupt? Or that I am therefore corrupt? Or that one of my friends (???who???) is corrupt. If you can find one example of a piece of reporting in Vale Mail that you find corrupt, let me know.
    I am being as patient and tolerant as I can, but frankly this is getting tiresome and pathetic.

  12. It appears that there are several issues here. Firstly, there is a real or perceived problem of drug use/dealing on Castle Vale which some people believe CVCHA should be dealing with. Well, drug use/dealing is a criminal issue that the Police have to deal with but they need to be made aware of it, so the onus is on those who are aware of it to tell the Police. The courts will not grant CVCHA possession unless serious criminal activity has been proved and that needs evidence.
    Secondly, one person appears to hold the belief that because some alleyways have been gated in one area of the estate whilst others in another area have not, then CVCHA must be corrupt. Again, it is not CVCHA that installs the gates anywhere on Castle Vale but the Council, at the request of local Councillors. Would the same accusations of corruption be levelled against any of the Councillors? I think not.
    And thirdly, because Vale Mail’s Editor in trying to protect the Newspaper and the people who are actually posting some of the comments by editing potentially defamatory or libellous statements he, and CVCHA are somehow corrupt.
    Finally, I would say to those people who are using this web site to have a go at CVCHA, Board members and staff at CVCHA, the Police and Vale Mail, use the proper cahnnels to report criminal activity, (the Police have a web site where you can raise your concerns); inform CVCHA of anti social activity, (CVCHA also have a web site where you can report this activity and raise your concerns); and if you wish to accuse individuals or organisations of corruption, make a formal complaint to the relevant authorities and have your concerns investigated independently.

  13. Hey Ppl

    Can i ask does anybody know who is responsible for the operating/recording of the streets on CV. ?

    Many Thanks

  14. p doff do you live on castle vale

  15. stuff from cvcha should come out see whats ready going on castle vale because you not doing good job there are too many people on castle vale taking drug this need get sort out right now all its going get wores

  16. Chunky Nuts, if its the roads that you are refering to then I believe it is the City Council’s Highways Agency.

  17. the monkeys

  18. how about taking fotos of jks presentation for the vale mail then when asked by another team on the vale to do the same thing they were told sorry cant take fotos of children!
    that stinks to me!

  19. hi ian i live on (edited) and there neigbours that take drug i think i am sure there are 2 neighbour dealing drug plus there one neighbour that goes in to other neighbours house get drug all time on (edited) and when they come out of other neighbours house they have there arms fold so people cant see there drugs