London Banter - View Single Post

Adrian · February 16th 09, 06:30 AM posted to uk.transport.london

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

That's the watered-down-in-your-favour version? ****. What did the
previous version say?

That the paramedic was 100% that the lights were flashing, you
bull****ted frantically, to the point that nobody would even have
believed you if you said that black wasn't white?