On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:22:33 -0000, MIG
wrote:

On Feb 15, 3:55*pm, "Duncan Wood" wrote:
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.

Although this Councillor does seem to be capable of following the
similar rule "you don't respond to gratuitous abuse from trolls". (I
don't refer to you of course, but there's one or two attempting such a
wind-up here and dismally failing.)


Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult with
your solicitor before getting out of the way, Colin did actually apologise
for getting that wrong.