View Single Post
  #181   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 10:07 PM posted to uk.transport.london
[email protected] rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,877
Default UTLer in the news

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

In article ,

(Adrian) wrote:

Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

instead of defending his idiocy, the councillor should be demanding
psychic 999 services, and outsourcing to any country that can
promise them.

Ones that are recognisable might help. The various investigations
seem to have concluded that the lack of recognition on the day was
a factor.

Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained
within, that I did? It would seem not.


Whatever. It was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the
paramedic's vehicle might not have had its lights flashing so as to
substantiate my statement that I did not at first appreciate it was on
an emergency call. If you read the Ethical Standards Officer's report,
paragraph 5.5 on page 12 of the committee agenda you will see that she
didn't determine this matter as fact either.


There's a little bit more to that paragraph than that, though,
isn't there?

That paragraph clearly states that the paramedic says the blue roof
lights AND headlights definitely were flashing, whilst your
evidence says that you don't "recall" if they were flashing or not
- and the Ethical Standards Officer explicitly says that your
evidence isn't "credible in this respect". The officer also
explicitly says that the ambulance "could only be" an emergency
vehicle and this "could be seen at some distance", which kinda
shoots Roland's theory down, too.

May I suggest that if your eyesight is so poor that you can't
determine if the headlights and roof lights are flashing from 1m
away you probably shouldn't be cycling?


At the hearing the Standards Board solicitor accepted my suggested
amendment to the wording of 5.5 as in my response to the report, the only
challenge to the findings of the report that I made. It was also accepted
by the hearing panel.

--
Colin Rosenstiel