In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood 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.

Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar
here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm

Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well.
--
Roland Perry

"Duncan Wood" wrote:
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.

Both the law and the paramedic training demands that emergency calls are all
taken seriously; in many case (including this one), the details availbale to
the ambulance are often insufficient to decide the level of risk; people
under stress get it wrong, panic, don't realise the magnitude, may be
misinformed, may be drunk, etc., etc.

That's why the law takes ALL calls seriously.
And does the crew until they've made their own assessment.
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood 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.

Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar
here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm

Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well.


I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary part
of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before
driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles.

On Feb 15, 3:55*pm, "Duncan Wood" wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry *
wrote:





In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, *
Duncan Wood 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.

Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the vicar *
here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm

Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well.

I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary part *
of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before *
driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles.

Although this Councillor does seem to be capable of following the
similar rule "you don't respond to gratuitous abuse from trolls". (I
don't refer to you of course, but there's one or two attempting such a
wind-up here and dismally failing.)

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 16:22:33 -0000, MIG
wrote:

On Feb 15, 3:55*pm, "Duncan Wood" wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:49:25 -0000, Roland Perry *
wrote:





In message op.upef3ik7haghkf@lucy, at 15:31:56 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
*
Duncan Wood 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.

Assumptions are often dangerous. What was the need to beat up the
vicar *
here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7886331.stm

Maybe there will be hindsight applied to that incident as well.

I don't know & fail to see the connection. Assumption is a necessary
part *
of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge
before *
driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles.

Although this Councillor does seem to be capable of following the
similar rule "you don't respond to gratuitous abuse from trolls". (I
don't refer to you of course, but there's one or two attempting such a
wind-up here and dismally failing.)


Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult with
your solicitor before getting out of the way, Colin did actually apologise
for getting that wrong.

In message op.upeg5zrfhaghkf@lucy, at 15:55:01 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
Assumption is a necessary part of life, one doesn't conduct a
structural analysis of a road bridge before driving ones car over it,
you don't obstruct emergency vehicles.

And you don't beat up vicars. Of course, first you have to realise they
are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call.
--
Roland Perry

In message op.upejhrr2haghkf@lucy, at 16:45:17 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked:
Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult
with your solicitor before getting out of the way,

Did I really?

Colin did actually apologise for getting that wrong.

And I'm sure the police will apologise to the vicar.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:45:20 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked:
instead of defending his idiocy, the councillor should be demanding
psychic 999 services, and outsourcing to any country that can promise them.

Ones that are recognisable might help. The various investigations seem
to have concluded that the lack of recognition on the day was a factor.
--
Roland Perry

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

Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the
vehicle is an ambulance on call.

As with vicars - except more so - ambulances on call tend to have some
rather unsubtle clues visually identifying them.

Not that the vicar's vocation was a particularly relevant factor in why
the police shouldn't have kicked the **** out of him...

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

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

Ones that are recognisable might help. The various investigations seem
to have concluded that the lack of recognition on the day was a factor.

Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained
within, that I did? It would seem not.