Brian Watson wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The initial reaction for someone as stupid and officious as Colin appears,
is possible.

The subsequent events are inexcusable.

Bearing in mind how often these things are misreported in the interests of
some publication sensationalising to sell more tree parts, it might be wise
to see what actually gets revealed at the enquiry.


The text of the evidence is *all* in the PDF that Richard Kettlewell
provided a link to.

You can be your own judge and jury.

What any official enquiry 'finds' will course be a balance between
political expediencies, not in any sense a fair judgement of guilt.

If the Hutton enquiry is anything to go by, as little of that evidence
will be revealed is possible.

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009
16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:20 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the
police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if
your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.


Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving.

Where does that beleif come from?
I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite
strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already
had a drink) without the necessity to save a life.


Regina vs Martin, 1989.

If you're
operating under the reasonable belief tht failing to do something may be
life threatening then you're allowed to use that as a defense. If tyou
then follow the emergency vehicle through the lights then you're going
to
have more difficulty convincing anyone that that was your belief.

In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1]
[1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that
photo, but seems unlikely.
So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it?
Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you
wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you
to believe it was OK).

Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence,
including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal*
situation.
No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without
considering other users.

I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by
comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*,
seem to be a bit more careful.


*I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that
overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could
go. Single lane road of course.

Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a
bit of bovver?..
They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they?

Not much overtakes you at 130mph..

Good job they didn't stop suddenly..

I lost em after a mile or two.

And this was on the Road to Sandy.. Wonder no one was slaughtered !...
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1]
[1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that
photo, but seems unlikely.
So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it?
Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you
wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you
to believe it was OK).

Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence,
including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal*
situation.
No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without
considering other users.

I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by
comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*,
seem to be a bit more careful.


*I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that
overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could
go. Single lane road of course.

Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a
bit of bovver?..
They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they?

Not much overtakes you at 130mph..
Good job they didn't stop suddenly..
I lost em after a mile or two.

And this was on the Road to Sandy.. Wonder no one was slaughtered !...

Oh in those days..what..mid 80's - it was very little used beyond the Gt
Nth Road.

You have half a dozen junctions and a couple of fairly blind bends, but
apart from that its very good visibility - even today.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:15:17 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Sat, 07 Feb 2009
17:41:41 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me
"uk"
wrote:

"Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009
16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:20 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at
14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall
remarked:
It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency
Workers
Act as a defence for running a red light.

This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that
the
vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act.

Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency
vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the
police
wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if
your
belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to
understand how you might have come into your "honest belief".

No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that
this defence will work.


Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving.

Where does that belief come from?
I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite
strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already
had a drink) without the necessity to save a life.


Regina vs Martin, 1989.

That was driving whilst disqualified though, wasn't it?
The fact that the disqualification was for drink driving doesn't seem
all that relevant.


There's quite a few for drink driving, AFAIK they all involved a very
immediate threat of violence to the driver and it's only worked where they
drove a short distance.

MIG wrote:
I would take "ambulance" to mean a vehicle which carries sick or
injured people.

The word "ambulance" on this vehicle more likely relates to the fact
that it belongs to the ambulance service, just as it would if it was
written on a bicycle or a building. (And such buildings or bicycles
would need to be treated with appropriate respect, and not
obstructed.)

If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear the
designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an ambulance
and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to ordinary
vehicles.

Years ago, my father, then a London bus driver, used to be a volunteer
ambulance driver for a disabled ex-servicemen's charity. The ambulance
was a Bedford coach converted to carry wheelchairs but it was legally an
ambulance and bore the designation. Sometimes if he was doing a trip
that started early, he'd collect the ambulance the night before from the
bus garage where it was stored and park it outside our house. Some
neighbours complained to the council that we were parking a bus on the
street so the council put up a "Buses prohibited" sign outside our
house. The next time my father parked the ambulance outside the council
threatened to prosecute. We pointed out that the vehicle was legally an
ambulance, bore the designation "Ambulance" and therefore could be
parked on the street and we never heard any more about it.

My understanding is that "Ambulance" is a protected designation and it's
an offence to apply it to a vehicle that doesn't meet the definition.

--
Roy

Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at
13:33:51 on Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jules
remarked:
Right... I've not read the report, but I did look at the photo of the
vehicle - and it wasn't obvious that there *was* an ambulance sign on the
bonnet or sides.

There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word
"Ambulance".

Is this a Fire Engine:

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg

No, it's a fire chief's car. I don't think they are new - ISTR having
a Matchbox model of one about 35 years ago.

Roy

In message , at 11:00:41 on Sun, 8
Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked:
MIG wrote:
I would take "ambulance" to mean a vehicle which carries sick or
injured people.
The word "ambulance" on this vehicle more likely relates to the fact
that it belongs to the ambulance service, just as it would if it was
written on a bicycle or a building. (And such buildings or bicycles
would need to be treated with appropriate respect, and not
obstructed.)

If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear
the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an
ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to
ordinary vehicles.

Not all of the protections. Only "NHS" ambulances are covered by the
recent Emergency Workers obstruction law [1], for example.

Years ago, my father, then a London bus driver, used to be a volunteer
ambulance driver for a disabled ex-servicemen's charity. The ambulance
was a Bedford coach converted to carry wheelchairs but it was legally
an ambulance and bore the designation. Sometimes if he was doing a
trip that started early, he'd collect the ambulance the night before
from the bus garage where it was stored and park it outside our house.
Some neighbours complained to the council that we were parking a bus on
the street so the council put up a "Buses prohibited" sign outside our
house. The next time my father parked the ambulance outside the
council threatened to prosecute. We pointed out that the vehicle was
legally an ambulance, bore the designation "Ambulance" and therefore
could be parked on the street and we never heard any more about it.

I think you successfully bluffed them.

My understanding is that "Ambulance" is a protected designation and
it's an offence to apply it to a vehicle that doesn't meet the
definition.

Given that there are "animal ambulances", I doubt that very much.

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dscd0552.jpg

[1] "a person employed by a relevant NHS body in the provision of
ambulance services (including air ambulance services), or of a
person providing such services pursuant to arrangements made by, or
at the request of, a relevant NHS body;"

"a person providing services for the transport of organs, blood,
equipment or personnel pursuant to arrangements made by, or at
the request of, a relevant NHS body;"

The latter is interesting because there have been cases of people
transporting organs being nicked for speeding. It's not clear that a
policeman nicking someone for speeding counts as obstructing an
emergency worker - because there's a 'reasonable cause' exemption for
the policeman...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/2949904.stm

--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:04:51 on Sun, 8
Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked:
There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the
word "Ambulance".
Is this a Fire Engine:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg

No, it's a fire chief's car. I don't think they are new - ISTR having
a Matchbox model of one about 35 years ago.

Exactly. Whereas it seems that *any* vehicle connected with the
ambulance service seems to have "Ambulance" written on it, even when it
doesn't have a primary patient-carrying function (any more than the fire
chief's car has a primary fire fighting function).
--
Roland Perry

Roy Stilling gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear the
designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an ambulance
and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to ordinary
vehicles.

So a shiny black van, driven by a man in a black suit & black tie, and
bearing "Private Ambulance" in small gold letters on the bonnet, falls
into the same legal category as a battenburg-bedecked Merc Sprinter with
a paramedic on board?