In message , at 09:49:18 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
you've decided that someone's life was risked.
Where did you get this information?

From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin
and the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by
Richard Kettlewell.

Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it.
I read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc.

Yup. clear straightforward info from a professional versus a highly odd
account from Our Esteemed Councillor.

Did Colin claim that a dislocated kneecap wasn't life-threatening, but
the ambulanceman disagreed?
--
Roland Perry

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

You've missed the point that this was an AMBULANCE - and by some strange
coincidence, so does his 'explanation'.

Not wishing to go through this all again, it may have had "Ambulance"
written on it somewhere, but it was an estate car

Albeit one with blue lights flashing merrily on the roof, green
battenburg markings, clear markings and a uniformed paramedic behind the
wheel.

On Feb 14, 10:38*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 10:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote:
wrote in message
news:g9ydnXsrQIyuPAvUnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@giganews .com...
Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.
I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers
and left them to it. *That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.
I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no
political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly
reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.
He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't
excuse it but it explains it.
I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group,
not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly.
The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know
that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless.
(Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly
failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an
appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.)
Or is it that in a case of Usenet, being wrong doesn't actually risk
peoples lives?

Despite knowing nothing about the situation, apart from a newspaper
report which was clearly nosensical and full of misleading hints which
weren't backed up, you've decided that someone's life was risked.

Where did you get this information?

*From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and
the driver in the PDF of the hearing *whose link was posted by Richard
Kettlewell.

Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it.-

I assume that it's posted in a different group from the one that I
have seen. So, sorry if I've included you among the people who are
making their judgements purely on the article and what was posted in
UTL, but I'd be interested to hear an explanation of where someone's
life was risked.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:49:18 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
you've decided that someone's life was risked.
Where did you get this information?

From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin
and the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by
Richard Kettlewell.

Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it.
I read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc.

Yup. clear straightforward info from a professional versus a highly
odd account from Our Esteemed Councillor.

Did Colin claim that a dislocated kneecap wasn't life-threatening, but
the ambulanceman disagreed?

From memory, Colin wasn't really interested in what the ambulance was
doing there, and in fact denied that he thought it was an ambulance at all.

The substance of the two stories is that the ambulance was there to
attend a potentially limb threatening event: A disloacated patella that
could, if left, cause potentially severe bleeding to the extent that if
it were not treated, the leg itself was at risk.

Now that is patently hindsight, and could not have been known by the
driver at the time of the first altercation with Colin. The situation
there was that an ambulance - or paramedic vehicle, fully equipped with
all the paraphernalia designed to make it apparent what it was, was
blocked by colin and involved in an argument.

Colin claims that in a clear summers evening in broad daylight, he
didn't know it was an emergency vehicle. Despite apparently having
conversation with the driver who told him it was.

Then after this initial piece of pinball wizardry*, he accosts the
vehicle AGAIN on leaving..


*One can only account for this by either concluding the Colin is in fact
a deaf, dumb and blind idiot, or a liar, or possibly mentally ill. Or
all three. Now whilst one can feel deep sympathy for Colin, on account
of his problems, it still does NOT justify his retention by the council
in any position of authority.

MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 10:38 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 10:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote:
wrote in message
...
Can I make it clear that this was no power-hungry grab. It was a (totally
screwed up admittedly) attempt to deal with a problem that constituents
have complained about vehemently and repeatedly for many years.
I would never have met the ambulance driver if a constituent hadn't rung
me up and told me that the gate had been broken open. If he had correctly
reported that the gate had been left open by someone entitled to open it I
wouldn't even have gone to look. I'd just have called the council officers
and left them to it. That was where things went wrong and I lost it in
frustration for the failure of people to do their jobs as promised.
I'd say (as someone who doesn't actually live in the city and has no
political or personal beef with Colin) that that looks like a perfectly
reasonable statement about why he was there and why he did what he did.
He got it wrong, but was not fully-acquainted with the facts. It doesn't
excuse it but it explains it.
I spot a parallel with the way in which people posting to this group,
not acquainted with any facts, have behaved rather badly.
The difference is that, rather than having been misinformed, they know
that they have no facts and decide to make judgements nevertheless.
(Or are simply pursuing an attempt at a wind-up and spectacularly
failing to get the response they hoped for, which indicates an
appropriate degree of restraint from the Councillor concerned.)
Or is it that in a case of Usenet, being wrong doesn't actually risk
peoples lives?
Despite knowing nothing about the situation, apart from a newspaper
report which was clearly nosensical and full of misleading hints which
weren't backed up, you've decided that someone's life was risked.
Where did you get this information?
From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and
the driver in the PDF of the hearing whose link was posted by Richard
Kettlewell.

Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it.-

I assume that it's posted in a different group from the one that I
have seen. So, sorry if I've included you among the people who are
making their judgements purely on the article and what was posted in
UTL, but I'd be interested to hear an explanation of where someone's
life was risked.

At the time, the Emergency call was that someone had dislocated or
broken a leg. This - as was pointed out by the driver in his evidence -
is at least a potentially limb threatening event, and, if an artery has
been damaged, potentially life threatening. However since Colin
appeared not to even accept the fact that it was an emergency vehicle on
legitimate business, it might as easily been someone who had been
stabbed, or suffering a drug overdose, heart attack, or choking on
their vomit, (or someone else's), and the outcome would, it appears,
have been no different.

FWIW here is the link that Richard provided.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...11stds/3_0.pdf

MIG writes:
On Feb 14, 10:38Â*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Â*From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin
and the driver in the PDF of the hearing Â*whose link was posted by
Richard Kettlewell.

Unlike the rest of you, I actually downloaded it and read it.-

I assume that it's posted in a different group from the one that I
have seen.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...11stds/3_0.pdf

24MB, 137 pages.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote:

At the time, the Emergency call was that someone had dislocated or
broken a leg. This - as was pointed out by the driver in his evidence -
is at least a potentially limb threatening event, and, if an artery has
been damaged, potentially life threatening. However since Colin
appeared not to even accept the fact that it was an emergency vehicle on
legitimate business, it might as easily been someone who had been
stabbed, or suffering a drug overdose, heart attack, or choking on
their vomit, (or someone else's), and the outcome would, it appears,
have been no different.

FWIW here is the link that Richard provided.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...11stds/3_0.pdf

A broken leg can be life-threatening... a friend of mine's brother was
knocked over by a car and suffered a compound fracture to his leg.

Some of the bone marrow escaped into his blood stream, blocked his lungs
and he died, even though the accident happened 1 mile from the County
(Buckinghamshire) hospital and he got to A&E and was x-rayed within the
hour.

In message , at 11:42:12 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
A disloacated patella that could, if left, cause potentially severe
bleeding to the extent that if it were not treated, the leg itself was
at risk.

So "life threatening" to the life in the leg, perhaps, maybe?

I'm not looking for excuses here, but there does seem to be some
over-egging.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:17:48 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:42:12 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
A disloacated patella that could, if left, cause potentially severe
bleeding to the extent that if it were not treated, the leg itself was
at risk.

So "life threatening" to the life in the leg, perhaps, maybe?

I'm not looking for excuses here, but there does seem to be some
over-egging.


It's the same emergency call for limb threatening or life threatening, the
lack of pshycic abilities on the part of a call centre makes it pointless
differentiating.

In message , at 10:47:50 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked:
Not wishing to go through this all again, it may have had "Ambulance"
written on it somewhere, but it was an estate car

Albeit one with blue lights flashing merrily on the roof, green
battenburg markings, clear markings and a uniformed paramedic behind the
wheel.

Was it ever established that the blue lights were indeed flashing? I'm
not trying to make excuses for anyone, but even flashing lights means
very little these days - because the are used in too many situations
where they aren't appropriate. Horns, however, might be different.

What we do know is that from the front there are virtually no markings
visible (although similar vehicles in other places do have gaudier
markings).

--
Roland Perry