in another thread Belboz said:Bernard - that is my point about 'stable door'. I agree with what was quoted about better security.
Personally, I don't agree with the police policy and never have done since it was changed (prior to that police would attend a residential alarm ringing) Even in highly-populated areas, there are not that many which go off across a shift. Better to attend an alarm (even if later found to be false) with the chance of catching offenders in the act than the current service to burglary victims post-event (something else I strongly disagree with) Remember that the primary object of policing is the prevention of crime.
As for neighbours, that's fine when you have 'good' neighbours who are happy to check your house BUT for many there is little chance of that. Much more likely a nearby neighbour will ring up because they are annoyed at the noise of the alarm.
Anyhow, sorry for taking this off-topic. Was just interested in how it all worked these days. Seems to me the answer would be to have an alarm which is linked to the company. I suppose that's changed as well because that used to cost a small fortune.
Read more: //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/best-professional-wireless-burglar-alarm-system.437639/page-2#ixzz3euxAQvi2
While I am not happy with the lack of police response to bells only alarms it is preferable for the limited police resource to be targetted at those incidents with the best chance of catching culprits in the act. Without doubt silent ( covert ) alarms linked to a reporting centre are best for this, especially when an overt alarm appears to have not reacted to the break in.
To some extent the police policy had to change when low cost, low spec DIY alarms became popular. Bad installation, bad design and criminal triggering of false alarms on insecure systems meant the police simply could not respond to every alarm.