Shouldn't the 999 call go through despite the caller losing consciousness?

Shouldn't the 999 call go through despite the caller losing consciousness? - Crop black businesswoman speaking on smartphone on street

In Kingsman: The Secret Service, after the bar fight, Gallahad sends an "amnesia" dart to the barman who dialed a three-digit number, which I assume is the UK emergency number 999.

The barman then fell with the phone in his hand (next to his ear, which shows he was done dialing) and Gallahad went to finish his beer.

Shouldn't the call be followed-up by emergency services anyway? I believe that like in most countries calling a number and then not hearing the caller is a signal to urgently send someone to check.

Gallahad on the other hand was not particularly in a hurry to finish the beer and the conversation.

It may have also been a quick dial number to the mob, but the effect should be the same - someone seeing the call and then silence would likely send someone to check as well.



Best Answer

I can only speculate that the call was deemed 'not an emergency', in-universe. There is some rationale for that.

The UK 999 system has a structure called Silent Solution for callers unable to speak, whether through disability or if trying to call secretly & must remain silent. If you know the system, for instance as an abused partner etc with 'prior', then you are supposed to press 55 to indicate you are using Silent Solution. However, even without 55, the 999 operator will in any case stay on the line for some time to try extract at least some information, asking the caller to signal any kind of response - tapping, coughing, one-word answers etc - anything to identify a true response.

In the absence of any response, then all they can do is attempt to identify by background noise an assessment of the situation.

There would be no noise indicative of a 'dangerous' situation, merely some background conversation, and no response at all from the barman, so it's entirely possible that even in realistic terms, as opposed to simply script convenience, that no follow-up would be done.

For script convenience, of course, it was just an amusing 'nick of time' before he managed to speak to the operator, and we can forget about it once the camera cuts away.




Pictures about "Shouldn't the 999 call go through despite the caller losing consciousness?"

Shouldn't the 999 call go through despite the caller losing consciousness? - Woman in White Crew Neck T-shirt Using Silver Macbook
Shouldn't the 999 call go through despite the caller losing consciousness? - Serious female making call on mobile near dark studio background
Shouldn't the 999 call go through despite the caller losing consciousness? - Serious African American male talking on smartphone while working on laptop in summer cafe



Should you call an ambulance if someone is unconscious?

If the person is unconscious but still breathing, put them into the recovery position with their head lower than their body and call an ambulance immediately. Continue watching the patient to ensure they don't stop breathing and continue to breathe normally.

Should you call 999 for an unconscious but breathing casualty?

If they're breathing normally, place them in the recovery position so their airway remains clear of obstructions, and continue to monitor normal breathing. Gasping or irregular breathing is not normal breathing. If the person isn't breathing or is not breathing normally, call 999 for an ambulance and then begin CPR.

Can 999 call you back?

If you dial 999, stay on the line. Otherwise we will call you back. The police want to know that you are safe and it saves us valuable time.

What happens when someone calls 999?

When you dial 999, the first person you speak to is the Operator who will ask you which service you need. If you ask for an ambulance, you will be put through to your local ambulance service. An emergency call handler will then take the call and will ask you questions so that help can be arranged.



Shouldn't Be




Sources: Stack Exchange - This article follows the attribution requirements of Stack Exchange and is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Images: Ono Kosuki, Anna Shvets, Ketut Subiyanto, Ketut Subiyanto