In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

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?

At the hearing the Standards Board solicitor accepted my suggested
amendment to the wording of 5.5 as in my response to the report, the only
challenge to the findings of the report that I made. It was also accepted
by the hearing panel.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk (Phil W Lee) wrote:

The only "people on the day" who seem to have accepted that are
(sic) Colin.

You seem to have overlooked the Standards Board's solicitor and the
Standards Committee panel. The Standards Board's Ethical Standards Officer
didn't determine the point either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Duncan Wood" wrote in
newsp.upejhrr2haghkf@lucy:

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.

I'm forced to wonder what would have happened had he apologised promptly.

Roland Perry wrote:
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.

I am sure they thought he was a paedophile.

Just like Colin became convined that paramedics were in fact nasty toffs
or chavs in 4WD vehicles going where only Councillors have a right to
Cycle.

MIG wrote:
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
...
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.


A dangerous presumption.


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).


Precisely. And *nothing more*.

Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening
and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain
person actually directly lied.

'case not proven'

No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or
were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they
should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't
*demonstrably* lie, that's all right then.


If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we
wouldn't need to rant here.

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.

I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely
they would be falsified.

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).

You have to be kidding.

On Feb 16, 3:07*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
much cut

FWIW here is the link that Richard provided.

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...009/0211stds/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.

A dangerous presumption.

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).

Precisely. And *nothing more*.

Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening
and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain
person actually directly lied.

'case not proven'

No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or
were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they
should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't
*demonstrably* lie, that's all right then.

If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we
wouldn't need to rant here.

So the evidence for criminal behaviour is the LACK of investigation?
I don't know if there was or wasn't, but no relevant investigation
seems to have been made at the time.


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.

I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely
they would be falsified.

Why on Earth would they be? I am noting that the amount of time
elapsed was such that they didn't remember such a major detail. Only
the log seems to have corrected both of them when they both remembered
a different time of day.


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).

You have to be kidding.

No. I observed that people make wild accusations without knowing much
about what actually happened.

Maybe you are right and the relevant authorities failed to carry a
criminal investigation into actions that deliberately put someone's
life at risk.

Or maybe someone was rude to a driver due to a misunderstanding and
then allowed him to proceed without risk to anyone.

Or maybe all sorts of other things. But the evidence is flimsy. No
doubt it's a cover-up.

gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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?

At the hearing the Standards Board solicitor accepted my suggested
amendment to the wording of 5.5 as in my response to the report, the
only challenge to the findings of the report that I made. It was also
accepted by the hearing panel.

That's the watered-down-in-your-favour version? ****. What did the
previous version say?

That the paramedic was 100% that the lights were flashing, you
bull****ted frantically, to the point that nobody would even have
believed you if you said that black wasn't white?

In message , at 23:13:35 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked:
Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements?

Yes.

And did you pass comprehension as part of your English Language at
school?
If so, you seem to need some revision.

Did they teach you anything about throwing stones, and glass houses?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:12:25 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked:
And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles
described as an "estate car" either.

That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep
etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like
the Cambridge ones):

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg
--
Roland Perry

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

In message , at 23:12:25 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked:
And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles
described as an "estate car" either.

That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep
etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like
the Cambridge ones):

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg

No, it isn't.

That's a VW Touran mini-people-carrier. Not only isn't it a Honda CR-V,
it doesn't even have a white bonnet as you claim - that's silver. Really,
Roland, you do seem to be determined to make yourself look an utter tit
in this thread.

This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery.
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg

Here's one in East-of-England ambulance livery...
http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/media/pict...AMB_240702.JPG
(Large image - 1600x1200)