In message op.upebegynhaghkf@lucy, at 13:50:30 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood 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.

Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't
that also apply to the injury?
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 14:40:02 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message op.upebegynhaghkf@lucy, at 13:50:30 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood 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.

Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't
that also apply to the injury?

It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high
priority call. It's just that a dislocated kneecap is something that
can be fairly easily treated by a trained professional without needing
emergency hospitalisation.

Mark
--
Geek for Hi http://mark.goodge.co.uk/geek-for-hire/

In message e.net, at
14:53:31 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mark Goodge
remarked:
Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight, shouldn't
that also apply to the injury?

It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high
priority call.

That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency
life-threatening call" that has been much peddled.
--
Roland Perry

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

Nice to know you are bugging our computers.

Most of us read it - and the fact the 'victim was OK is not the point; the
frothing-at-the-mouth councillor didn't know that it wasn't a heart attck
severe head injury or what; neither, apparently do he care. THAT's the
point.

And why, out of interest are you defending him?
I think you should declare YOUR interest.
--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:12:20 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message e.net, at
14:53:31 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Mark Goodge
remarked:
Given that this whole debate is with the benefit of hindsight,
shouldn't
that also apply to the injury?

It does. The injury was limb-threatening. And that's considered a high
priority call.

That's fair enough, but far from the "any call is an emergency
life-threatening call" that has been much peddled.


As a member of the public it seems to be the sensible assumption though.

"Adrian" wrote :
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.

Exactly; why are people twisting the facts to defend this guy?

Is it because he's a cyclist?
Is it because he's a lib dem?
Is it because he's an imbecile?

I think we should be told!
--

Andrew
http://www.wordskit.com/
http://www.flayme.com/

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

"magwitch" wrote in :
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.

'Strue; fat embolus is a significant cause of death. But it really isn't the
issue; neither the ambulance man or the congenital idiot *knew* the exact
nature of the injuries. But it was clearly marked ambulance vehicle (they've
used non-traditional vehicles, including motor bikes, for 30 years), with an
articulate ambulance driver. I first travelled in an ambulance estate care
(with markings and blue lights), in 1978. And I was not the first.

It was obstructed, and deliberately so - none of this is rocket science. As
usual, the truth is there for those that wish to see it.
--

Andrew
"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein

"Andrew Heenan" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Exactly; why are people twisting the facts to defend this guy?

Is it because he's a cyclist?

I think you may have hit the nail on the head there.

Cyclist = good, automatically right.
Motorist = bad, automatically wrong.

"Duncan Wood" wrote :
It's the same emergency call for limb threatening or life threatening, the
lack of psychic abilities on the part of a call centre makes it pointless
differentiating.

Exactly, instead of defending his idiocy, the councillor should be demanding
psychic 999 services, and outsourcing to any country that can promise them.

Narnia? Eastasia? Isle of Man? I don;t know. But ask the fellow who knows
what pdf's we're reading; he'll know.
--
Andrew


If you stand up and be counted,
From time to time you may get yourself knocked down.
But remember this:
A man flattened by an opponent can get up again.
A man flattened by conformity stays down for good.
- Thomas J. Watson Jr.

On Feb 15, 11:56*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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
news:g9ydnXsrQIyuPAvUnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d@gigane ws.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.

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...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.

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).

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.

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).