|
UTLer in the news
In message , Roy Stilling
writes 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. I doubt it. Consider the picture on the following website: http://www.jumbulance.org.uk/ It is a designation as an emergency vehicle that it is the important distinction. -- Paul Terry |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:22:46AM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:00:41 on Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked: 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. There are (or were) also Responsibilities. Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. Thankfully, the army were aware of this and the vehicles all had convenient metal flaps for covering up the insignia, so that squaddie medics wouldn't have had to help civilians when the vehicles were in service. -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 12:34:38
on Tue, 10 Feb 2009, David Cantrell remarked: Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. That sounds like the French law about giving assistance that we heard about after princess Diana's crash. Is there really an equivalent in the UK? -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
David Cantrell wrote in
k: Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. I am a little doubtful that there is any such requirement, but I am aware - from driving a similarly marked vehicle - that the red cross is claimed as a trademark by the Red Cross, who told us (this was 40 years ago) to remove it from the vehicle. However, I see via Google that the position is far from straightforward or undisputed even though the symbol is now protected under the Geneva Convention. So far as I know there is no restriction on using the word 'ambulance' on a vehicle. At least one local care home near me uses such a vehicle to ferry its clients to the local shops. Peter -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com |
UTLer in the news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
David Cantrell wrote in k: Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. I am a little doubtful that there is any such requirement, but I am aware - from driving a similarly marked vehicle - that the red cross is claimed as a trademark by the Red Cross, who told us (this was 40 years ago) to remove it from the vehicle. There was as big fuss a while ago about the use of the red cross in video games: many fighting-related games have medical packs you can pick up to restore some of your character's health, and the red cross is pretty much universally used to label them. The ICRC were understandably not happy about their logo being used in warlike games! tom -- I was employed by a Lacanian and, believe me, you don't want to see what a postmodern approach to cashflow entails. -- G' |
UTLer in the news
On 10 Feb, 16:53, Tom Anderson wrote:
There was as big fuss a while ago about the use of the red cross in video games: many fighting-related games have medical packs you can pick up to restore some of your character's health, and the red cross is pretty much universally used to label them. The ICRC were understandably not happy about their logo being used in warlike games! In America, the red cross trademark is owned by Johnson & Johnson, who a few years ago ended up suing the American Red Cross for using it on commercial products. U |
UTLer in the news
James Farrar wrote:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c8zpw5 Update: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/cont...-councillor.en Decision on complaint about Councillor Colin Rosenstiel "A Cambridge City Council Hearing Panel met today (Wednesday 11 February) to consider a complaint that Councillor Colin Rosenstiel failed to comply with the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. The complaint was made by the East of England Ambulance Service following an incident on Jesus Green in June 2007. A Standards Board for England investigator looked into the complaint and concluded that Councillor Rosenstiel had breached the Code of Conduct for Councillors. Today the Hearing Panel, which is a sub-committee of the Council's Standards Committee, received the investigator's findings and heard representations on behalf of Councillor Rosenstiel. The panel concluded that Councillor Rosenstiel failed to comply with two provisions of the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. It concluded that Councillor Rosenstiel failed to treat the ambulance driver involved in the incident with respect and by doing so failed to comply with paragraph 2(b) of the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. The panel also concluded Councillor Rosenstiel had brought his office of councillor into disrepute in breach of paragraph 4 of the code. Having come to these conclusions the panel decided to impose a penalty on Councillor Rosenstiel. The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. The panel requested that the apologies were made public. Copies of the letters of apology from Councillor Rosenstiel are attached: see URL" |
UTLer in the news
Joe wrote in :
The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been spent in order to get an apology. So much for "an apology costs nothing"! |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:35:31PM +0000, James Farrar wrote:
Joe wrote in : The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been spent in order to get an apology. What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk