On Feb 4, 8:21*pm, Adrian wrote:
Ian Jelf gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

What a bloody idiot.
That may indeed be the case.

However, I think we all know that - whenever we see a media report on a
subject we know something about - it usually contains several
inaccuracies or doesn't give the whole story. * That might (and I stress
*might*) be the case here.

That was certainly my first thought, but I completely and utterly fail to
comprehend any circumstances where blocking an ambulance service fast
response vehicle, then locking gates on them, because they "shouldn't be
driving on the grass" is even remotely acceptable.

The story doesn't do itself much credit. It repeatedly refers to the
car as an "ambulance", despite it being one of these
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg.

The URL is worse: it says "Councillor-blocked-ambulance-carrying-
injured-man-as-it-broke-driving-by-laws.html".

There's no indication in the story that the car was carrying an
injured person, nor that it would be allowed to. It does say that the
councillor claimed that the lights were not flashing.

So then the difficult thing to explain is how and why they didn't
manage to convey the fact that they were attending an "emergency",
although it seems to have been no more than a bit of first aid.
Several buckets of salt I think.