On Feb 16, 3:07*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
much cut

FWIW here is the link that Richard provided.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...009/0211stds/3....

Thanks to both who repeated the link, and thank gawd for broadband.

My impression of all this is kind of confirmed really.

1) We had a newspaper article which was clearly untrustworthy.

2) We have a lack of criminal investigation, which would presumably
have taken place if lives had been threatened.

A dangerous presumption.

3) We know that the injured person was treated.

4) We have an investigation with the purpose of deciding whether the
paramedic was treated with respect and whether the office of
Councillor was brought into dispute (and nothing more).

Precisely. And *nothing more*.

Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening
and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain
person actually directly lied.

'case not proven'

No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or
were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they
should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't
*demonstrably* lie, that's all right then.

If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we
wouldn't need to rant here.

So the evidence for criminal behaviour is the LACK of investigation?
I don't know if there was or wasn't, but no relevant investigation
seems to have been made at the time.


5) The latter investigation took place so long after the event that
both parties couldn't remember what time of day the incident had taken
place.

I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely
they would be falsified.

Why on Earth would they be? I am noting that the amount of time
elapsed was such that they didn't remember such a major detail. Only
the log seems to have corrected both of them when they both remembered
a different time of day.


So in the circumstances, I think that some of the judgements and
pronouncements that have been made here are somewhat excessive, and
possibly less justified and more premeditated than any misjudgements
that took place on the day (which was the point I was making a while
back).

You have to be kidding.

No. I observed that people make wild accusations without knowing much
about what actually happened.

Maybe you are right and the relevant authorities failed to carry a
criminal investigation into actions that deliberately put someone's
life at risk.

Or maybe someone was rude to a driver due to a misunderstanding and
then allowed him to proceed without risk to anyone.

Or maybe all sorts of other things. But the evidence is flimsy. No
doubt it's a cover-up.