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

Use your eyes, is my advice, use your eyes.
Flailing around, ever more desperate, rather than admit he's talking out of
his Harris.
Why, Roland?
Why defend a man against all the evidence?
Even he admitted (with weasel words, granted) that he was wrong.
Why can't you?

Let me spell it out for you ...
H-E W-A-S W-R-O-N-G

Who gives computers to kids who'd do better with an Etch A Sketch?

One day, we'll get back to London's transport issues, instead of 'how to
defend council rage 101'
--
Andrew
"When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule,
Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman

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

One day, we'll get back to London's transport issues, instead of 'how to
defend council rage 101'

Liveliest this group's been for _ages_...

In message , at 17:28:35 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked:
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.

In this case, the people on the day seem to accept that the ambulance
(an estate car) wasn't as recognisable as you assume.

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

The penalty for photographing ones own children now.
--
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.

In this case, the people on the day seem to accept that the ambulance
(an estate car) wasn't as recognisable as you assume.

Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements?

In message ,
writes
In article ,
(Ian Jelf) wrote:

One of the reasons I've posted so much on this (even after vowing
not to any more) is that I am much influenced by a case here in
Birmingham which has been running for some time. It was the first
time I had encountered the idea of councillors being punished by a
body other than their electorate. I didn't like it then and I
don't like it now.

There are details and links at

http://www.martinmullaney.co.uk/sbe2.html

for those interested.

Can't get to the site now.Is this the case involving taking a video?

Yes.

As a final contribution and to lighten matters somewhat, I had to
clean up after the cat last night (!) and found myself wrapping
"it" in part of the mother-in-law's Daily Mail which included an
article and photograph of Colin R!

MMMMMMM

The cat sends her regards. ;-)
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

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.

Whatever. It was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the
paramedic's vehicle might not have had its lights flashing so as to
substantiate my statement that I did not at first appreciate it was on an
emergency call. If you read the Ethical Standards Officer's report,
paragraph 5.5 on page 12 of the committee agenda you will see that she
didn't determine this matter as fact either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 17:34:15 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked:
Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained
within, that I did? It would seem not.

Yes a couple of weeks ago.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:37:40 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked:
Roland Perry pedanticised:
Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the
vehicle is an ambulance on call.

Let me spell it out for you ...
H-E W-A-S W-R-O-N-G

I haven't denied he was wrong. Just like those police are wrong. But
immediate recognition (or the lack of it) probably played a part in both
incidents.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:55:28 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked:
Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements?

Yes.
--
Roland Perry

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

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.

Whatever. It was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the
paramedic's vehicle might not have had its lights flashing so as to
substantiate my statement that I did not at first appreciate it was on
an emergency call. If you read the Ethical Standards Officer's report,
paragraph 5.5 on page 12 of the committee agenda you will see that she
didn't determine this matter as fact either.

There's a little bit more to that paragraph than that, though, isn't
there?

That paragraph clearly states that the paramedic says the blue roof
lights AND headlights definitely were flashing, whilst your evidence says
that you don't "recall" if they were flashing or not - and the Ethical
Standards Officer explicitly says that your evidence isn't "credible in
this respect". The officer also explicitly says that the ambulance "could
only be" an emergency vehicle and this "could be seen at some distance",
which kinda shoots Roland's theory down, too.

May I suggest that if your eyesight is so poor that you can't determine
if the headlights and roof lights are flashing from 1m away you probably
shouldn't be cycling?