Re: False alarms

["Norm Mugford" <1alarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:

"I hang out at Sumo wrestling matches watching Norm"

Watch that Bob...I resemble that remark.

Norm Mugford




"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:N5a%f.6213$x63.5847@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> > > > "Everywhere Man" <alarminstall@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > > > news:1144702426.272614.144170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >
>> > > What do you think about fining the centrals?
>> >
>
>> Very nice having an alarm unit at the local PD.
>
> It works well in every area it is implimented.
>
> What if the customer
>> refuses to attend the school?
>
> There is an incentive built in to attend. They attend after their third
> alarm and have received a $50 fine. By attending, the $50 fine is waived.
> If
> they don't attend they pay the $50 and the next will be $100.
> Another city, here in Florida, will waive fines equal to the cost of
> upgrading the system. That is also popular. If someone has $400 in fines
> pending, the city will waive those if the custmer spends the $400 to
> upgrade
> their system.
>
>
>> I believe we have lack of effort/interest here. They like to complain
>> but they won't sit down to address the issue.
>
> Those could be the most dangerous type. A quick knee jerk reaction type
> policy takes no time or effort on their part. The industry needs to stay
> in
> their face to get them to the table.
>>
>>
>> I contacted folks at IQ,
>
> I know you are affiliated with Brinks and they are a big supporter of IQ.
> In
> fact they could be the only supporter. IQ is a very weak Board with very
> little support and funding. I am not bashing the intent of the program,
> but
> it is underfunded and is not really going anywhere. Unless things are
> changing, Brinks in actually the one keeping it alive.
>
> the NYBFAA
>
> To fragmented to be a real force. They can't agree with each other to get
> anything accomplished. They have a reputation of being not a unified
> group.
>
>>and the RAA.
>
> Who are these folks?
>
> I was hoping to get
>> FARA involved as well.
>
> They are mostly law enforcement folks and work well with the industry but
> again have very limited funds. They will make phone calls to areas
> supporting a good ordinance program. Norma Beaubien has been a great
> contact
> for the industry, and John Moorehouse, also a FARA board member, is
> running
> a program at his Sheriffs office, here is Florida, that I mentioned has
> had
> a 78% reduction in F/A since he implimented their ordinance. He sits on
> our
> BOD, as the public safety liason, for the AAF as well. He is definiately a
> good person to talk with.
>
>>If we have an opportunity to get the government
>> to discuss alternatives to fines then we should jump at it.
>
> Enhanced Call Verification is the fastest proven method to reduce
> dispatches
> to date. There is absolutely no cost to the muni, no work on their part,
> simply a reduction in request for dispatch. It is the easiest, fastest way
> to go for immediately reducing dispatches.
>>
>> And our opponents here are the responders. The cops want people to
>> believe 99% of all systems false.
>
> Makes you think they may be getting ready for some sort of policy.
>
> I made it clear to chamber members
>> that 99% of all signals are false.
>> I said our industry has ultimate control over the signals,
>
> That is where ECV comes into play.
>
>>control over
>> the quality of equipment used,
>
> Mandatory CPO1 standards.
>
>>and the extent of training.
>
> School for abusers
>
>> I suggested members contract with licensed, bonded, and insured
>> companies that abide by IQ standards of installation. I handed out
>> samples of the Installer's & Customer's False Alarm Prevention
>> checklist from the NBFAA, and I discussed how the end user is also
>> responsible because all they care about is price. I talked about the 7
>> day no dispatch policy and how it is extremely affective. I mentioned
>> two way voice, and video monitoring.
>
> All recommendations that have been here for some time now. These items
> should still be supported as methods of false alarm reduction.
>
>> It appears that some are reading this as me saying 99% of all alarm
>> systems are shit. I never said that, and I never would say that.
>
> People hear what they think they hear, not necessarily what is said. You
> can
> correct this by not addressing the senior centers luncheon.
>
>> Maybe they should reread what I said, and then tell me exactly what I
>> was wrong about.
>
> They won't remember yesterday, let alone what they read last week.
>
>> And YOU are allowed to skim read. I have a soft spot for old folks and
>> know how the eyes play tricks on you. Norm is a MUCH MUCH MUCH younger
>> guy than you so he has no excuse. Poor bastard is probably still
>> pecking away at the keyboard emailing a hate letter to the paper. NORM!
>> Read it again ya friggin hot head. Doesn't it make you laugh when you
>> see these kids go off half-cocked, Bob?
>
> Kids!!! Can't teach them anything. And the music they play, my God! And
> these are going to be the leaders of our country.
>
>>
>> My point is the police (the people we rely on to respond) only see the
>> 99%.
>> Let's cut it down to 50% so we can take them to task for slow response
>> times.
>
> The 99% will always be there. You, me or the industry cannot improve that.
> What you really are referring to and if they are smart, what they really
> want (but don't know how to say it) is to reduce the amount of dispatches.
> Enhanced Call Verification will do that. Immediately!!
>
>> The more accurate we become the faster they will respond.
>
> I don't believe that for a minute. They (the opponents) do not believe
> alarm
> response is police work.
>
>>Here is what
>> I said our industry should do to cut the numbers down.
>> I said:
>> If the customer doesn't know how to use it we should teach them.
>> If it's faulty we should fix it.
>> If it's a chronic abuser we should shut them off.
>> If we don't do that then slap the fine on me.
>
> You were doing great until the last line.
>
>> Aint I just the big bad boogey man?
>
> Not really, I applaud anyone looking for an answer, addressing the
> concern,
> and being professional enough to put it out there as a possible resolve.
> It
> isn't your fault no one else agrees.
>
>> I appreciate your opinions. You make valid points and welcome your
>> response, but if it ever gets out that I was involved in a serious
>> thread I'll have to shoot you.
>
> You will have to find me. I'll give you a hint, Frank is my counter guy,
> Ejad does my installs, I hang out at Sumo wrestling matches watching Norm,
> and get my Kicks and Giggles from RLB.
>>
>> > Catch ya on the rebound...<
>>
>> Is that a comment on my weight? Saying I am shaped like a basketball?
>> Mom says I am not fat I am just jolly.
>
> No, she said "Jelly". Clean the crap out of your ears.
>
>> I hope someone whizzes in your senior center lunch.
>
> There goes the seriousness of the thread. That is OK, it was (still is) an
> important topic.
>
>
>


I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html