On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight,
shouldn't
that also apply to the injury?

It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high
priority call.

That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency
life-threatening call" that has been much peddled.

As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though.

Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar
here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm

Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well.


I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary part
of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before
driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles.