Talk:999 (emergency telephone number)

Anomaly in 'location'

The end of the last line reads: "..and then hand over to the other force when they arrive.yh man goole". It's the "yh man goole" part that confuses me. I'm assuming it's not meant to be there, but I thought I'd check here first, before just editing it. ZellDenver (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Outdated Information

Quote from "History": "A valid SIM card is required to make a 999/112 emergency call in the UK.[7][8]" This is wholey inaccurate, it is required that all mobile phones be able to dail: 999, 112 & 911. I belive that there may be some other numbers in there too. ZellDenver (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference links 1 and 2 no longer link to the story's there meant to and need to be updated or removed if untrue.

Yes, the GSM standard requires that the phone ATTEMPTS an emergency call without a SIM. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a network will accept such an unidentified call. The major U.K. networks do not. 87.112.142.201 (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

MRT and CRO

Mountain and cave rescue? That's pretty specific types of need. Are there many people getting trapped in caves and mountains in Europe that we don't know about? Anglachel 21:01, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

i've definately seen mountain rescue mentioned in phone boxes can't say i've seen cave rescue or nuclear rescue mentioned before.

the idea is when you have a serious (life or death situation crime in progress etc) emergency you don't need to worry about what number to call you just dial 999 on whatever phone is availible (even a mobile without a sim card WILL dial 999 if it can find a network transmitter and i think they may use other networks to get 999 service if needed).Plugwash 23:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes - people do get trapped in caves (rarely) and on mountains (frequently). You should dial 999 in the UK for ANY emergency requiring emergency medical/police/fire brigade assistance. More specialised teams such as the sea or mountain rescue are contacted by the emergency services operator, but the point is that the general public only have to remember the number 999. Jez 13:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the Highlands of Scotland and Wales, as well as other areas, calls for Mountain Rescue are all too common. In Scotland the police have responsibility for Mountain Rescue so calls will be routed to them. Other areas with caving activities will have Cave Rescue teams though I suspect that any 999 calls will be routed through the police by the emergency operator. --jmb 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be an anecdotal "third" to those two accounts. They don't appear as part of the emergency services lineup on payphone posters in my own, inland, lowland borough (or at least, didn't, given how such things are going the way of the dodo anyhow), but I've seen mention of Coastguard and/or Mountain Rescue alongside the usual three enough times when living in or visiting coastal and mountainous areas. Cave Rescue would probably be part of one and/or other of those, probably included as needed on a strictly localised basis in areas with... well, a lot of caves. Can't put it much more sensibly than that. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear emergency

Is there any evidence that such an emergency service exists in the UK? When it comes to dealing with (or planning and practicing for) any incident of a radiological or nuclear nature, the approach AFAIK is almost always one where the 3 primary services attend (the fire brigade dispatching the relative NBC special units) backed-up by specialists like the internal emergency services of the nuclear industry, MoD, NRPB, etc. --Myfanwy 18:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i strongly suspect there is a specific group (either within one of the emergency services or otherwise) which would have the job of taking the report and coordinating the multi-service response to a nuclear emergency. Plugwash 22:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Due to the recent attacks on London, (7/7/2005 and 21/7/2005), there may be more emergency services available. Nuclear could be one of them.

There is the Civil Nuclear Constabulary formerly the UKAEA Constabulary. They are specifically for the protection of nuclear materials and civil nuclear sites. They as far as I know are the UK's only fully armed police constabulary. Info from CNC Website Roblynas 01:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Aren't MoD Police fully armed? --jmb 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for nuclear emergency to be listed as any calls from the public will be routed to fire or police. There are plans [1] for a radiological emergency in most areas especially near Z-berths but these will be activated by the police or other emergency services. --jmb 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the services section from elsewhere in Wikipedia. I was surprised that they had written "Nuclear Emergency", but I thought that someone could delete it should it turn out wrong. Microchip08 20:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Police, Fire, Ambulance, Coastguard/Mountain Rescue, AA/RAC/Green Flag ... Hazmat/NBC team? They're the sixth emergency service! I don't think the typical dispatcher would give you the time of day if you called up asking for them (or a breakdown truck) using 999 though. At least it would probably start as a police matter (who could then quickly pull in army or other higher-up specialists) until they eventually became involved. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Notation

I assume this is written 9-9-9 here to fit in with the way 9-1-1 and so on are written, but it's virtually never written with the dashes in this country - we just write 999. 81.158.205.255 6 July 2005 04:28 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to 999 (emergency telephone number) - there's no reason why the article title has to be consistent with articles for other countries. It's never written as 9-9-9 in the UK. — sjorford (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

People are specifically told to call "nine, one, one" in the US. This is supposedly because if you say "call nine-eleven," people in a panic situation can't find the eleven on the telephone. I have a rather scratchy video copy of a movie "short" produced in the UK in the late 1930's giving people hints on proper telephone procedures. The narrator in this piece tells people to "dial nine, double-nine." I'm guessing that this somewhat confusing phrase didn't last long. --RDV 1 March 2007

"Where's the any key?". Quite. I do user helpdesk work, I can find this explanation all too believable. People unable to call for help as they can't find the "eleven" or "double nine" (worse if they're calling on someone else's behalf). "nine nine nine" or "nine one one" is a nice atomic list of instructions which your monkey brain can follow whilst spinning a dial or jabbing at keys. Similarly I've only ever heard the euro ones read out as "one one two" and the like, rather than "one twelve" (or one-thirteen, one-fourteen back when they were separate - one-one-three etc instead). Dashes are entirely optional as you don't read out any other phone numbers as their mathematical values rather than indiviual figures unless it's a deliberate construct as part of a mnemonic (sixty-nine sixty-nine instead of six-nine-six-nine for example, or one-one-eight-five-hundred instead of five-zero-zero), but some informational posters may find it helpful to spell it out in that way for the hard of understanding. And for children as well I guess? 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You tend to hear emergency service people referring to them as "Treble Nine" calls. --jmb 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

And back in the G.P.O. days, operators would typically follow the very precise instructions on how to pronounce various formats of number, and refer to them as "nine double-nine" calls. 87.114.88.41 (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Then shouldn't 1-1-2 be moved to 112 (emergency telephone number) too? I've never seen that number written as 112 in Europe, only as 1-1-2. (Stefan2 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Procedure when dialling 999

It's worth mentioning you don't need to know what service you require before dialling 999, the operator will make a judgement for you on the basis of what you're screaming. You can always ask them what is available/describe the situation.

Would it be worth including information here giving details of the procedure/etc. involved in dialling 999 (standard call) so people know what to expect - I've worked in the emergency services for a while & every little bit of info that gets out there is a benefit to our response. Unfortunately the government currently doesn't seem interested in paying for this. For an example see... http://www.diretribe.com/stuff/guide-to-having-an-emergency/ Thanks.

The major 999 providers (BT and C&W - who together deal with 99% of calls) will route calls to the following Emergency Services only: Police, Fire, Ambulance and Coastguard. Other services are accessed via those four services. In virtually all cases BT and C&W will connect the call to the service which is requested. They make no judgement call normally, and untill very recently there was no definition of what an emergency was. That definition is not used by BT and C&W. The purpose of BT and C&W is only to pass the call on as soon as possible, which normally means doing what the caller asks for. If multiple services are needed (for example following an accident) the service mentioned first will normally recieve the call. The service spoken to will liase with the other services. sb 13:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused about the question asked by opparators. Back in School (1995-2006) I was taught it was 'Which service do you require?' and I have never had to call an emergency phone number. This article dosn't seem to cite any sources on this so has anyone got any proof on this?(Tk420 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

The history of 999 in the article is wrong

The 999 number did not originate during the Blitz as its diamond jubilee was celebrated in 1997. The first 999 call was by Mrs Stanley Beard in 1937. See: http://www.sigtel.com/tel_hist_999.html Also see the "New Shell Book of Firsts" under 1937.

History of 999

I was led to believe that one of the reasons the numbers "999" where chosen is that they could be dialled in the dark as "9" was the last number on the dial and nearest the stop.

0 is the last number on a standard dial phone, so, no ;) --Kiand 16:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

TV programme

Should we mention the BBC TV program 999? Also, does anyone know the official name? I've seen things like 999 Lifesavers, but I haven't been able to find anything definitive. --Scott Wilson 22:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

programme Jooler 22:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The official name is 999 - IMDB profile

Sense of Humour

Good to see our politicians have one. "In an emergency, dial 999. To have the police visit your home for non-emergencies, use 101". LMAO... --User24 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And in the nuclear emergency PDF linked in a different section above. The team that would be called upon if something went badly wrong with a Trident sub off the Scottish coast? Why, the Nuclear Emergency Monitoring Organisation, aka NEMO... Despite the general sounding nature of the expanded acronym, I somehow bet they never dealt with any situation that didn't revolve around submarines... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

999 from mobile telephone

I have read in the past that priority for "112" calls was written into the specification of GSM. Opinions seem to vary about whether "999" gets the same priority. Does anyone have a definitive answer? --jmb 17:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most sim cards in mobile phones will translate a "999" dialled on a mobile phone to "112" in the UK. This ensures that the call gets priority on the network. It also means that it is not possible to count the number of truely dialled "112" calls in the UK, though the number is probably very low. 999 landline calls do get priority provided they are made using traditional signalling. It is unclear if 999 calls will get priority on "Next Generation Networks" which use VoIP. sb 22:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

It is an all-service number, meaning that it should be called in any situations where state-run emergency services are needed. The three main and best-known services are fire & rescue services, police and paramedics.

The British term "Fire Brigade" has been changed to "fire services" then "fire & rescue". Many UK brigades have changed their names but most people in the UK think of the Fire Brigade so I think the term should continue to used as this is about a UK 999 service.

Similarly ambulance has been changed to paramedic. Most UK ambulance service use that word in their name. Most but not not all emergency ambulances carry paramedics. People normally ask for an ambulance when calling for 999 not a paramedic.

"state-run" also seems unnecessary, most emergency services are state-run but not all. Mountain Rescue is mostly organised by the police in Scotland but not in England and Wales. The RNLI is not state-run either and I am sure there others which are not. --jmb 22:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Should "Paramedics" be "Ambulance"? That's what I've always called it. Which service do you require? Microchip08 15:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign...

I would think it should read "police, fire and ambulance" as that is the phrase usually used. I can't imagine the emergency operator asking if someone wants "Police, Fire & Rescue or Paramedics". --jmb 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, all the ambulances I see around (Worcestershire) say "AMBULANCE" in big letters on the front. They may say "Paramedic" as well - I haven't looked too closely for a long time - but they certainly haven't stopped saying "Ambulance". 86.136.251.18 00:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The operator will simply ask "Emergency; Which service?". If you're unsure they'll generally prompt with "Police, Fire, or Ambulance?". "Paramedics" is not a term in use for the UK in terms of emergency call handling. 82.69.207.193 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you wouldn't say 'police constable' or 'police community support officer' when you ring for the police or 'fire command officer' or 'fire watch officer' when you ask for the fire service to come would you? It's the same thing really, paramedic is a rank just like an EMT and you can't specify which one you get, you just get whats available! So IMO asking for AMBULANCE is the correct procedure because you are asking for the ambulance service. Well thats my opinion anyway! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.78.139 (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Reason for 999 being chosen

I believe there was another reason for 999 being chosen other than the one in the artice (dial design) or listed above.

Outside London, in the pre-Subscriber trunk dialling (STD) days, exchanges were broken up heirarchically into "town" mian exchanges and "village" sub-exchanges. Only main exchanges had operators on duty. Village exchanges were given dialling codes typically 81, 82 etc. To get from a village to a town you always dialled 9.

• If subscriber in the town wished to dial villageA 234, he dialled 81 234.
• If he wished to dial villageB 234, he dialled 82 234.
• If a number in villageA wanted to dial town 5678, he dialed 9 5678.
• If he wished to dial villageB 234, he dialled 982 234.

When they invented STD, and the STD code for the town was 0543, that for villageA was 054381 etc.

Thus the only number that would work in both towns and villages was 999. The "real" number was town 99. If you were in the town, 99 would work, if you were in the village, you needed to dial 9 99. The number was published as 999 for consistency.

All the above is from memory, can anybody provde a citation? TiffaF 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also though a code like 81 might be used, it would probably take you from one village to another village. Dialling 9 would normally take you to the next exchange up the hierarchy. --jmb 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

- The routing codes outlined above were pretty much the norm, although there were many local variations. Due to numbering issues, some towns used 5x or 7x codes to reach the outlying village exchanges instead of or as well as 8x, for example, and in some cases there would be 3-digit routing codes, such as 851, 852, etc.

In the most basic system where village A and village B each had trunks only to their parent exchange in town, then all calls from one village to another would be dialed via the town: 981, 982, etc. Sometimes two outlying dependent exchanges would be close enough and have sufficient telephone traffic to justify direct trunks between them, in which case other codes would be assigned. So subscribers in village A might then be told to dial 6 234 to reach village B number 234, while calls to everywhere else would still start with a 9 to reach the parent exchange.

If you wish to cite a reference, Atkinson's "Telephony" Volume 2 (Pitman, 1950) is a standard reference book from the old days and covers a lot of this.

Into the STD days, calls to adjoining STD code areas were (in most cases) still counted as local and were dialed with other local routing codes instead of the STD code. These codes to reach adjacent STD areas were typically 91, 92, 93, etc.

These ran alongside the use of 9 in small exchanges to reach the parent, so local calls from or to a dependent exchange in an adjacent area could string these together, e.g. if the town in the above example used 91 to reach the next large town, then somebody in village B would dial 991 for calls to that other town. You could even end up with a call from a dependent in one exchange to a dependent in another having a local dialing code something like 99182 -- 9 to reach YOUR parent, 91 to connect to the main exchange in the adjoining area, then 82 to reach an outlying exchange from that town.

So as this relates to 999, yes, another factor in the first digit being 9 was that at many outlying rural exchanges 9 already routed to the parent exchange, and thus allowed 999 service to be provisioned for both the main town and all its dependents without any major changes having to be made at those dependents.

The trunking on the selectors did indeed also mean that in many towns you could reach the operator with just 99, although that was never the case in London.

London used a director system, where the first three digits dialed were stored in a register and then translated into the digits needed to operate the switches to route the call. The only exception was a special arrangement so that you could reach a regular operator by dialing just 0. So in London (and the other director areas: Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester), it was always necessary to dial 999 in full. PBC1966 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No SIM card / no service calls

It's worth mentioning that the article as far as UK access to the European 112 convention is incorrect. Despite the *GSM* standard requiring sim-less connection to the emergency services, this will not work in the UK (try it!). BT charges mobile operators for each 999 call handled - although this cost is not passed on to the caller - and therefore sim-less phones will not establish a connection as no network wants to absorb that cost for a non-subscriber. There is also the issue of not being able to ring back a sim-less phone as it has no telephone number, which would break EISEC and the verbal "escort and announce" backup method of call delivery.

Next time you find yourself with no service on your subscribed network, yet can see other providers' signals, and have your sim card in, try and get a 999/112 call to connect. You'll receive "Attempting emergency call.... call failed." This unfortunately bit me in the bottom recently where I came across the scene of an RTC and had to drive three-quarters of a mile back down the road to the public phone box to contact the emergency services. The provision of free emergency calls without a sim card or no signal on your subscribed network is at the discretion of the networks - And currently, no UK network allows this. 82.69.207.193 18:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Complete bunkum, IMHO. If this is fact and can be verified, then amend the article. Emergency calls always get priority. And please sign posts with four tildes ~~~~. Dmccormac (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems to contradict itself:

A valid SIM card is required to make a 999/112 emergency call in the UK.[4] However, all UK GSM mobile phones still permit a call to the emergency line even in the absence of a SIM card, for example by allocating that function to a softkey.

Does it mean the phones allow the call in principle, but in fact the call won't connect because no network currently supports it? JRawle (Talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct. 89.240.63.103 (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As the original poster stated, GSM mobile phones on UK networks will not make emergency calls on other networks or without a SIM card. Claims that they will are simply urban myth, and it's very easy to verify that this fails. Mauls (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is a shame ... I mean, I find the thing about absorbing the cost or it breaking the usual emergency services script to be utter hogwash (possibly made up by some daily mail reading anti-H&S "this country's going to hell because of all the jobsworths, benefit claimants and immigrants" blowhard) as it's a pro-bono, health and safety, possibly mandatory public protection thing that can't cost all that much (a few thousand pounds a year, surely?) compared to all the other things they spend millions upon billions on ... but the other point re their previously having allowed it but found that it mainly attracted malicious abuse and so were forced to disable to function is sadly far more believable. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

BT history of 999

This might be useful [999 celebrates its 70th birthday]. I found it looking for the story about 111 (which I'd heard 10 years ago working for BT), there's probably other things in there that can be added. Bazzargh (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't 911 work in the UK?

It works in Ireland. I just tested it. -- Evertype·✆ 19:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that unless it is an emergency, you shouldn't "test" emergency service numbers. Anyway, your test would constitute original research and as such, could not be used in the article. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that when I spoke to the women who answered the phone, I explained what I was doing and mentioned the Wikipedia and she said that it was fine. May I ask how one can document something that is not documented? I can cite that the Eircom telephone lists onlu 999 and 112. In reality, 911 works in Ireland—quite sensibly, since so many North American tourists come here. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you write the above on a web page or a blog or USENET then quote that. It is exactly the same information but might satisfy the Wiki sourcing requirements. --jmb (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that self-sourcing (as that would be) is allowed. Evertype, it probably would have been preferable to ring Eircom and speak to them rather than call the emergency services to confirm the number. In all honesty, Wikipedia should not really be relied upon to provide emergency contact details such as this, and tourists should be aware of what the official numbers are within the country - I can hardly seem them coming to Wikipedia to find that out. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You must not live in Ireland, if you think ringing Eircom would ever produce results of any kind. "Allowed"? There is a mapping of 911 to the Irish Emergency Number service. The Eircom telephone directory doesn't happen to mention it, but this does not mean that the mapping is not there. I'm not sure why you think that I'm trying to put this information so that Wikipedia can be relied upon to provide emergency contact details. The articles on these Emergency Numbers are in themselves interesting. My "assertion" that 911 maps to 999 and 112 in Ireland is quite verifiable. -- Evertype·✆ 23:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even that it has been reported that on some networks in the UK, and in Ireland dialing 9-1-1 will forward you to the emergency line, 911 is not the official number in those locations and can not be relied upon in case of emergency. Therefore it should not be qouted as official. I have moved this info further down the article. CrZTgR (talk) 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I quoted anything as "official". I've edited and given a citation from an external source. -- Evertype·✆ 10:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly you did not quote it as official, because it is not. And wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is official. Look for example at the official web site of Ireland's National Police [2]. I also bet that 112 and 999 are the only two numbers officialy required by law to be made available to the public in the Republic of Ireland. But I would be glad if you can find some source like government web site or legal act that at least recommends implementation of 911. At the same time finding information from one of the VOIP operators is valuable but does not prove that 911 would work with all operators in Ireland.

But all the above does not mean that information you provided does not belong here. I am for example very interested to know what numbers actually work in different states. But this information does not belong in an introduction. It is an article about 999. In an intro readers are generally interested where and for what purpose 999 is used. That is why I have moved this to the bottom of the United Kingdom section of this article last time I made corrections. I am leaving 911 there. You are welcome to start Ireland section and provide some more information. Try to stick to official information and sources. Otherwise it is better to write "It has been reported..." or "According to some sources..." just to be on a safe side. And once again: since 911 is not a number officially recognized by the police or government than it does not belong in an introduction :-) CrZTgR (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way is the Wikipedia official? I don't follow this reasoning. Could you explain? (Regarding 911, I'm discussing this with a number of people "officially". -- Evertype·✆ 10:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite agree, an encyclopaedia should record what exists or happens. Whether or not it is official is irrelevant. --jmb (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As it says above - on most mobile phones sold in the UK and Ireland the number 911 will be translated by the mobile to 112 which will work in every country of the EU sb (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have checked this with Comreg (The Irish Telecommunications Regulator which allocates numbers) and 911 is not officially part of the Irish numbering scheme and could form the first 3 digits of a normal local phone number. However, some mobile phones may automatically connect calls dialed as 911 or 999 to the GSM emergency service i.e. 112. However, this is *not* a feature of the telephone network or the Irish numbering plan. The only emergency numbers that work in Ireland are 112 and 999 any connection to 911 is being carried out by a mobile handset's internal software or a private network. 911 will *not* work on any Irish public network.

08

My old Nokia mobile used to rind the emergency services when you dialled 08 (which it used to do, fairly frequently, on its own accord). Does anyone know if this is an official number? KillerKat (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is just an oddity of that particular phone - perhaps a speed dial? If you think about a standard POTS system you have to dial '08' to do '0800' or '0845', so '08' should not do anything by itself. There are 5 numbers in the UK that I know of capable of connecting you to the emergency operator. 112 (the European number), 100 (999 is just a priority line to the operator), 999 itself, 998 (used for vehicle telematics), and a 5 digit engineers number that I cannot recall off hand. 82.69.207.193 (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

My ancient Sony Ericsson phone has an "SOS numbers" list. By default, this contains 112, 999, 911 and 08. These numbers can be dialled even with the keypad locked. If I try to dial a number starting with any digit other than 0,1,9 it says "locked", and I can dial until I deviate from one of those four numbers. I haven't attempted to connect a call for obvious reasons, so I don't know if it connects to the emergency operator when any number on the SOS list is dialled, or whether it's simply a list of numbers that can be dialled when the keypad is locked.

Anyway, this suggests 08 is the emergency number in certain countries, which would explain the behaviour of the Nokia phone. The latter may also have a settings screen to change this. JRawle (Talk) 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

BT/C&W etc. operators

Are there any BT, C&W etc. operators out there? If so, i'd like to begin by saying that I have always been very impressed with your professionalism and reliability. I have never once come across a bad operator and I really think that that say's something.

Could you enlighten me as to how you recieve calls and your procedures for passing them on to the relevant service and if there is much difference between passing them to each service.. i.e. different protocols/expectations for Ambo, Fire and Police? Also what happens if you cannot get through to a force and have to keep the caller on the line for 2 minutes, or longer... how does that feel... what do you do?

many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.244.188 (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors in the "Procedures in the United Kingdom" section of the article

I'm a 999 Operator with BT in Bangor, Wales and some of details in the article are incorrect.

• "If the caller is unsure as to which service they require, the operator will advise according to the situation" is wrong. In that situation, we would default to the police.
• "If an incident requires more than one service, for instance a Road Traffic Collision with injuries and trapped persons, depending on the service the caller has chosen, the service will alert the other services for the caller" is partially correct. In the first instance, the BT/C&W Operator will advise the caller to stay on the line after connection to the first service requested, where we will connect to the next service. The EA may mention that they will let the other service(s) know, but the BT/C&W Operators still need to contact them regardless.
• Previously, the operator had to start the connection to the emergency service control room by stating the location of the operator, followed by the caller’s telephone number, i.e. "Bangor connecting 01248 300 000" is also not totally accurate. While EISEC is in use, not all EAs (Emergency Authorities) have this service available to them. In those cases, we still need pass our location details and the caller's number.

HDC7777 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Split UK section into new article

New article = 999 (Emergency telephone number UK). Jamesyboy2468 (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes and converted the new article to a re-direct. This fork makes no sense. The 999 number originated in the UK and discussing use in other countries has no sensible context without referring in detail to the British history and use. The new article therefore serves no purpose. The original article was not over-long and was not in need of dividing up. Please put any proposals here first before making further article creations along the same lines. Please see WP:BRD for further guidance. Thank you  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the clarification. Jamesyboy2468 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Different question/comment re: 911 in the UK

OK, maybe it might cause confusion in Ireland / Eire, but I cannot say I have ever seen or heard of a local _UK_ exchange (usually a 3 digit #, or 4 in London now) that starts with a 9. Never seen a number written down that uses one, never seen one described as the code for a particular area. I would expect they're deliberately withheld, the same as those which start 0 and 1, to prevent confusion if nothing else - even if it means only 70% of the potential number space is available rather than 80%, and you lose a good few exchange mnemonics (a lot of them, at least in years past, seem to map as closely as possible to the first three letters being "spelt out" on the dial / number pad, and 9 carries WXYZ...). There's also every possibility that non-emergency 9** numbers get used as internal service codes for phone engineers etc. Nice and convenient. Or possibly just anything starting "9" gets patched through, in case some poor unfortunate started dialling 999 and got interrupted in keypad-mashing fashion.

Super-local STD codes, sure... at least, pre "phoneday". My grandparents' number (several counties away) used to start (0)927 (with a 6-digit local exchange + subscriber number, vs our 7-digit one hidden behind (0)21), and now it's (0)1927 (matching our (0)121). But those are long distance codes, never dialled without the gatekeeper 0 unless you're ringing in from abroad (and therefore can't access 1** or 9** service numbers anyhow), and never dialled at all if you're calling from a local landline.

Ergo there's nothing to prevent telecoms providers in England / Wales / Scotland / Northern Ireland from quietly mapping 911 (and 112, and most other general emergency numbers) to 999 so that panicked foreigners can quickly call for help without having to change mental gears from the code they've so far used all their lives. They need not necessarily publicise or even acknowledge it, as the need is itself basically unofficial (no-one who dials it actually "means to"), but the capability may be there all the same. The only one I think that's probably a general no-go is 666, as that actually does sometimes surface as a local exchange, when it's not excluded entirely on superstitious or religious grounds.

However, if anyone would like to furnish a few genuine, verifiable examples of UK telephone exchanges that carry a "911", or even any other "9**" number, I'll back down on this point! Otherwise, I move to have that particular note erased or clarified, as it may well be total bunk. The cite link for it is for the _Irish_ network, and despite its historic links with Britain, it is after all its own wholly different country. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For a very long list of numbers starting 911 try this link. Or try visiting Bristol and looking at the phone numbers on the fronts of shops etc. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"I cannot say I have ever seen or heard of a local _UK_ exchange (usually a 3 digit #, or 4 in London now) that starts with a 9."

There are many such examples. Portmouth/Southampton (023) and Northern Ireland (028) have had numbers beginning with 9 since these codes with 8-digit local numbers came into use about 14 years ago, and Northern Ireland currently has allocations beginning 911. Areas with 7-digit numbers beginning with 9 currently include Glasgow (0141), Liverpool (0151), Manchester (0161), Newcastle (0191), Nottingham (0115), Bristol (0117) and Reading (0118). Of these, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol and Reading all have some numbers beginning with 911.

Elsewhere the places are too numerous to list, e.g. Cambridge (01223) has allocations for numbers beginning with 911 and 9 followed by other digits. Allocations can be found in the Ofcom numbering tables at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/numbering/index.htm if you really want to see how common it is today.

In the old days, it's true than in the provinces local numbers generally did not begin with a 9, since the 9 level was used for other purposes (variously reaching the parent exchange, accessing services such as directory enquiries and the speaking clock, dialling to adjoining areas, etc., depending upon the place and time period involved). However, local 7-digit numbers beginning with 9 were common in the director areas, e.g. London had WATerloo, WAXlow, WELbeck, WHItehall, WIMbledon and WOOlwich, to name a few. Some of these were changed following the conversion to all-figure numbering in the late 1960's, but there will still codes beginning with 9 (including several beginning with 99 which were all in west London due to the sectorization plan). PBC1966 (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 999 (emergency telephone number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110218174038/http://www.112.ie/ to http://www.112.ie/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110804213641/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_967.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_967.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Silent solution 55

Silent solution 55 - that is not History. It is Procedure, and in addition there should be a link from Abandoned Calls. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

'See also' relevance discussion

I believe Phone fraud is relevant to emergency telephone number, what do you guys think? FRAUDSTERS (IF THE VICTIM HAS MORE TIME TO CONSIDER / ASK FOR SECOND OPINION THEN THE ATTEMPTED FRAUD IS LIKELY TO FAIL) WANT THE FICTION TO SOUND LIKE 'A REAL EMERGENCY WITH FACTUAL BASIS'. Tony85poon (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Thanks to GI for finding a source covering all but three of the listed services. I've removed the three which still have not been sourced, and they can always be readded any time someone finds a source. Thanks. Amisom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Should lifeboats, cave rescue, mine rescue, bomb disposal, moorland search and rescue and quicksand search and rescue be listed in this article as services that can be "summoned" via a 999 call, without sources saying this? 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• No - this is so simple. On Wikipedia, we do not include information without reliable sources. If a reliable source is found which says, "It is possible to summon a lifeboat by calling 999," or, "It is possible to summon a quicksand rescue team by calling 999," or, "It is possible to summon a cave rescue team by calling 999," great. If not, don't include the content.
  As it is, some of the entries in this list are completely unsourced; some of those that have sources are relying on unacceptable ones (eg this) and some of the sources (eg this) explicitly say that it's best not to dial 999 if you need the service in question.
  Because @General Ization: decided to revert-war over this (giving no explanation for his revert and misusing the rollback tool in the process) I'm inviting others' comments. Amisom (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. All of the above are services that are rapidly accessible by calling 999, at the discretion of the 999 operator or supervisor. I'm not sure how the editor thinks they are usually activated. General Ization ^Talk 19:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Have you seriously never read WP:CITE? Amisom (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  Have you not read WP:RFC? You do not engage in debate with all who respond to structured RfC. And also: see WP:BLUESKY. General Ization ^Talk 19:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  WP:BLUESKY is an essay and it doesn't take precedence over Wikipedia's core content policies like WP:V. It's also not relevant, nor is it a particularly good essay. In answer to your question, I have read WP:RFC. I particularly read the bit which says, "Some RfCs are structured as a series of distinct responses, one per editor. Others result in a threaded (indented) conversation involving multiple editors." Amisom (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  With regard specifically to cave rescue, see specifically: https://www.caverescue.org.uk/about-cave-rescue/how-cave-rescue-works/ . It should be quite clear that a protocol exists in which cave rescue can be and generally is activated by calling 999. I'm certain similar advice exists for all of the other services you mention, and that it would have been as easy as or easier for you to locate them versus wikilawyering over this content. General Ization ^Talk 19:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  That looks like a reliable source. Well done. It's certainly better than the unreliable source previously there which specifically said not to call 999. Please go ahead and add the one you found to the article. If it's all that easy to find sources for the other services, then why don't you find them instead of whining about how, erm, easy it is? Amisom (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

And here is another that should suffice to address all of the services you mentioned with one citation: https://www.sunderland.gov.uk/article/12674/Resilience

“ Other emergency services may also be reached through the 999 system, but do not maintain permanent Emergency Control Centres (ECC). All of these emergency services are summoned through the EDD of one of the four principle services listed above:

• Lifeboat and floodwater rescue service
• Mountain rescue service
• Cave rescue service
• Mine rescue service
• Bomb disposal

”

General Ization ^Talk 19:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

< no reference to moorland rescue, lowland rescue or quicksand rescue, but yes, that would seem to cover the others. Again, please go ahead and add it to the article. Amisom (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, per Amisom. We can only include if there are reliable sources that confirms it. Idealigic (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment this is a loaded question which appears to be phrased to elicit a particular response, and then uses selective evidence from a poor quality source. For example the assertion that 999 should NOT be called for a cave rescue. What the source says is clearly a personal opinion but even that admits to using 999. It says "You should only dial 999 or 112 if you do not know the number for the local manned police station." . A better source, the British Cave Rescue Council explicitly says "In an emergency if you need the assistance of a cave rescue team you should: dial 999, ask for the Police, then for Cave Rescue." here. Wikipedia, of all the potential sites presenting evidence needs to be accurate and succinct in such cases. The reality is that ALL public services providing an emergency response capability in the UK can be summoned via the 999 number - usually using the Police as an intermediary. I have worked for several such organisations , at least one of which is still relevant and who are not mentioned here. I have no intention of adding any other organisation until I can find a suitably robust source linking it to the 999 call system. For Wikipedia to be up to date, relevant and accurate, it would be better if those organisations were listed here instead of which we waste time on wiki-lawyering distinctions.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
• Leaning yes, per General Ization and Velella. However, Amisom is correct that that are too many unsourced assertions. These are not mutually contradictory positions. The error here is in assuming that a source has to literally say the exact words "can be summoned by 999". This simply is not true. See WP:NOR and years of debate in its talk page archives, and see also the general principle (codified at WP:COPYRIGHT and various other places) that WP is to be written in editors' own wording, not simply stolen verbatim from previously published sources. If in fact a 999 call can get someone to a particular service quickly and reliably, that is good enough, and we need not depend on or repeat over and over the term "summoned" (these are not demons, after all). But if there is no source evidence that something someone has thrown into this list has anything to do with 999 at all, or there are sources making it clear that attempting to use 999 for one of them is not a reliable or expedient way to do it, then it should be removed from the article. If it turns out that the overall source view, after research is done in more depth, actually supports the inclusion here of something we deleted for lack of sourcing, then it can be re-added with the better sourcing. Remember WP:THEREISNODEADLINE and WP:NOTPAPER. What we have in the article today does not have to be the same as what we have in it (better) tomorrow or (in even better form) next month. It is more important to be accurate that excessively complete. But part of accuracy is realizing that the original/official/formal things for which something like 999 was created and what is it actually usable for in "ground truth" may not be a 1:1 correspondence. Our article should reflect the practical reality, not an idealization wafting to us from the officialdom proclamations of bureaucrats who would prefer that people always called a certain number for a certain thing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Yes If having the information on this WP helps save a life, I think it's worth having on here, regardless of the wp:rs rules. It's not like it's contentious to say, if you dial 999 you can be helped with these things... Comatmebro (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image of US phone

What is the point of including a picture of an American (presumably Bell System) rotary phone in this article? These were never legally used in the UK, all phones being rented from Post Office Telephones until deregulation in the 1980s. British phones had different dial markings, and a number of technical differences including ringing arrangements. --Ef80 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

My friend died

My friend is a duck 31.124.138.122 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

naoko kuroda naomi kinoshita

im 2year ago. we are marrige is regester. my hasband is kenithi kinoshita we are separeite room. sorry. be for we are rive in osaka 5 nakaishikiri higashiosaka japan toru kizaki and naoko kizaki naw 8year ago go out. we are went to indoneshia. in denpasaru imigreshion "free earjeant internashional. dancer paris opera crassic ballet. dacer is stay. in paris not stay. naw in japan stay. on the warking. whith naoko kuroda hasband kenithi kinoshita mabe cia ? we have gov seete. we are imigseshihon send mail rejister . my look like face. my viza seet pike up seete thay are peaple. bad japanise peaple. excuse me. imiglashion take to speach. its better maind. help us. we are caple. in japan skare too. am sorry. 106.185.144.147 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)