|
UTLer in the news
In message op.uoxw6zr2haghkf@lucy, at 17:22:01 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: The emergency vehicle will be following you through, actually. Well normally you'd pull over to let it past, isn't that the point of pulling forward? You pull forward through the lights, then to one side. The emergency vehicle then follows you through. What happens next is the interesting bit. Do you stop in the middle of the x-roads, perhaps sat on a yellow box, with traffic attacking you from both sides, or make a gracious exit? The latter will usually be safer, but does the law recognise that - from your other remarks you clearly think the law would prefer you to do the safer thing, even if it's ostensibly prohibited. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:33:19 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message op.uoxw6zr2haghkf@lucy, at 17:22:01 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: The emergency vehicle will be following you through, actually. Well normally you'd pull over to let it past, isn't that the point of pulling forward? You pull forward through the lights, then to one side. The emergency vehicle then follows you through. What happens next is the interesting bit. Do you stop in the middle of the x-roads, perhaps sat on a yellow box, with traffic attacking you from both sides, or make a gracious exit? The latter will usually be safer, but does the law recognise that - from your other remarks you clearly think the law would prefer you to do the safer thing, even if it's ostensibly prohibited. Well the only example given is of somebody who was doing 16mph when photographed "gm, bury says... 11:54am Thu 27 Sep 07 if any of you were at this junction when it happened as i was you would of seen that he moved to the inside lane just passed the lights from the middle lane, the emergency vehicle passed with no problem, he was not in the middle of the junction or obstructing anything, and there was no need for him to then follow the vehicle thru the lights, he was already out of the way if any other vehicle came, had he still been blocking the way then the 1st vehicle would not of got thru, there was a few second gap before he followed, it was dangerous and unwarranted" |
UTLer in the news
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 17:47:24
on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Brian Morrison remarked: The law is rarely designed to recognise the sensible things in life, it's designed to establish the superiority of the legislature over the public at large. Which is exactly why jumping red traffic lights, even if provoked, is a risky occupation. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message op.uoxx5dpghaghkf@lucy, at 17:42:39 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009,
Duncan Wood remarked: What happens next is the interesting bit. Do you stop in the middle of the x-roads, perhaps sat on a yellow box, with traffic attacking you from both sides, or make a gracious exit? The latter will usually be safer, but does the law recognise that - from your other remarks you clearly think the law would prefer you to do the safer thing, even if it's ostensibly prohibited. Well the only example given is of somebody who was doing 16mph when photographed "gm, bury says... 11:54am Thu 27 Sep 07 if any of you were at this junction when it happened as i was you would of seen that he moved to the inside lane just passed the lights Ah! So he didn't follow the emergency vehicle through the lights, he was past by then. from the middle lane, the emergency vehicle passed with no problem, he was not in the middle of the junction or obstructing anything, He apparently did feel he was. and there was no need for him to then follow the vehicle thru the lights, err, we've established he didn't follow the emergency vehicle through - the emergency vehicle followed *him*. he was already out of the way if any other vehicle came, had he still been blocking the way then the 1st vehicle would not of got thru, There's a difference between blocking the way *through* (which we all probably agree he wasn't) and blocking the crosswise traffic. there was a few second gap before he followed, it was dangerous and unwarranted" In one person's opinion. Although as he was past the stop line the traffic lights don't apply any more. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. Good job they didn't stop suddenly;).. -- Tony Sayer |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 00:26:29 on
Sat, 7 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving. Where does that beleif come from? I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already had a drink) without the necessity to save a life. One of the first motoring offences I remember hearing about (in the mid-60's before I got my licence) was my GP who was banned from driving after going out one night on an emergency call when over the limit. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:11:16 +0000 The Natural Philosopher wrote: Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. It does in Germany... Not on a single carriage country road. |
UTLer in the news
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. Good job they didn't stop suddenly;).. I lost em after a mile or two. |
UTLer in the news
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... The initial reaction for someone as stupid and officious as Colin appears, is possible. The subsequent events are inexcusable. Bearing in mind how often these things are misreported in the interests of some publication sensationalising to sell more tree parts, it might be wise to see what actually gets revealed at the enquiry. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
UTLer in the news
Brian Watson wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... The initial reaction for someone as stupid and officious as Colin appears, is possible. The subsequent events are inexcusable. Bearing in mind how often these things are misreported in the interests of some publication sensationalising to sell more tree parts, it might be wise to see what actually gets revealed at the enquiry. The text of the evidence is *all* in the PDF that Richard Kettlewell provided a link to. You can be your own judge and jury. What any official enquiry 'finds' will course be a balance between political expediencies, not in any sense a fair judgement of guilt. If the Hutton enquiry is anything to go by, as little of that evidence will be revealed is possible. |
UTLer in the news
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote: "Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:20 -0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall remarked: It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers Act as a defence for running a red light. This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act. Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to understand how you might have come into your "honest belief". No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that this defence will work. Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving. Where does that beleif come from? I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already had a drink) without the necessity to save a life. Regina vs Martin, 1989. If you're operating under the reasonable belief tht failing to do something may be life threatening then you're allowed to use that as a defense. If tyou then follow the emergency vehicle through the lights then you're going to have more difficulty convincing anyone that that was your belief. |
UTLer in the news
In article , The Natural
Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. Good job they didn't stop suddenly;).. I lost em after a mile or two. And this was on the Road to Sandy.. Wonder no one was slaughtered !... -- Tony Sayer |
UTLer in the news
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus tony sayer wrote: In article , The Natural Philosopher scribeth thus Roland Perry wrote: In message op.uoxip7ishaghkf@lucy, at 12:09:33 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1] [1] Not unless it's operated by the NHS, which I can't tell from that photo, but seems unlikely. So you think it would be morally acceptable to obstruct it? Not unless it was unavoidable, such as a red traffic light (where you wouldn't even have the excuse that the Emergency Workers Act had led you to believe it was OK). Normally I give a wide range of public service vehicles precedence, including buses and refuse trucks. But we are discussing the *legal* situation. No need to defer to Buses. They simply barge their way past without considering other users. I have always found vehicles with 'twos and blues' VERY well driven by comparison. Even the police, normally total disregarders of the law*, seem to be a bit more careful. *I once tried to keep up with an unmarked jaguar full of uniforms that overtook me on the Sandy road. I lost him at 120mph. As fast as I could go. Single lane road of course. Wasn't chasing a load of Old Bill @ 120 odd on country road asking for a bit of bovver?.. They weren't looking in their rear view mirrors were they? Not much overtakes you at 130mph.. Good job they didn't stop suddenly;).. I lost em after a mile or two. And this was on the Road to Sandy.. Wonder no one was slaughtered !... Oh in those days..what..mid 80's - it was very little used beyond the Gt Nth Road. You have half a dozen junctions and a couple of fairly blind bends, but apart from that its very good visibility - even today. |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:15:17 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk"
wrote: "Duncan Wood" considered Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:41:41 -0000 the perfect time to write: On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:26:29 -0000, Phil W Lee phil lee-family me "uk" wrote: "Duncan Wood" considered Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:56:33 -0000 the perfect time to write: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:51:20 -0000, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 14:39:19 on Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Tim Woodall remarked: It's been suggested that people might rely upon the Emergency Workers Act as a defence for running a red light. This is clearly a very poor strategy, when you can't be sure that the vehicle you are giving way to is actually covered by that Act. Surely all you need is an "honest belief" that it was an emergency vehicle (could even be an unmarked, unlit car behind you) and the police wouldn't even bother to charge, let alone it going to court even if your belief was completely wrong and it was difficult for others to understand how you might have come into your "honest belief". No, that's the problem. It's too great of an assumption to make that this defence will work. Why? Duress is accepted as a defence even for drink driving. Where does that belief come from? I happen to know of a case where that defence was rejected, despite strong evidence that he would not have been driving (having already had a drink) without the necessity to save a life. Regina vs Martin, 1989. That was driving whilst disqualified though, wasn't it? The fact that the disqualification was for drink driving doesn't seem all that relevant. There's quite a few for drink driving, AFAIK they all involved a very immediate threat of violence to the driver and it's only worked where they drove a short distance. |
UTLer in the news
MIG wrote:
I would take "ambulance" to mean a vehicle which carries sick or injured people. The word "ambulance" on this vehicle more likely relates to the fact that it belongs to the ambulance service, just as it would if it was written on a bicycle or a building. (And such buildings or bicycles would need to be treated with appropriate respect, and not obstructed.) If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to ordinary vehicles. Years ago, my father, then a London bus driver, used to be a volunteer ambulance driver for a disabled ex-servicemen's charity. The ambulance was a Bedford coach converted to carry wheelchairs but it was legally an ambulance and bore the designation. Sometimes if he was doing a trip that started early, he'd collect the ambulance the night before from the bus garage where it was stored and park it outside our house. Some neighbours complained to the council that we were parking a bus on the street so the council put up a "Buses prohibited" sign outside our house. The next time my father parked the ambulance outside the council threatened to prosecute. We pointed out that the vehicle was legally an ambulance, bore the designation "Ambulance" and therefore could be parked on the street and we never heard any more about it. My understanding is that "Ambulance" is a protected designation and it's an offence to apply it to a vehicle that doesn't meet the definition. -- Roy |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry wrote:
In message . com, at 13:33:51 on Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Jules remarked: Right... I've not read the report, but I did look at the photo of the vehicle - and it wasn't obvious that there *was* an ambulance sign on the bonnet or sides. There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word "Ambulance". Is this a Fire Engine: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg No, it's a fire chief's car. I don't think they are new - ISTR having a Matchbox model of one about 35 years ago. Roy |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 11:00:41 on Sun, 8
Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked: MIG wrote: I would take "ambulance" to mean a vehicle which carries sick or injured people. The word "ambulance" on this vehicle more likely relates to the fact that it belongs to the ambulance service, just as it would if it was written on a bicycle or a building. (And such buildings or bicycles would need to be treated with appropriate respect, and not obstructed.) If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to ordinary vehicles. Not all of the protections. Only "NHS" ambulances are covered by the recent Emergency Workers obstruction law [1], for example. Years ago, my father, then a London bus driver, used to be a volunteer ambulance driver for a disabled ex-servicemen's charity. The ambulance was a Bedford coach converted to carry wheelchairs but it was legally an ambulance and bore the designation. Sometimes if he was doing a trip that started early, he'd collect the ambulance the night before from the bus garage where it was stored and park it outside our house. Some neighbours complained to the council that we were parking a bus on the street so the council put up a "Buses prohibited" sign outside our house. The next time my father parked the ambulance outside the council threatened to prosecute. We pointed out that the vehicle was legally an ambulance, bore the designation "Ambulance" and therefore could be parked on the street and we never heard any more about it. I think you successfully bluffed them. My understanding is that "Ambulance" is a protected designation and it's an offence to apply it to a vehicle that doesn't meet the definition. Given that there are "animal ambulances", I doubt that very much. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dscd0552.jpg [1] "a person employed by a relevant NHS body in the provision of ambulance services (including air ambulance services), or of a person providing such services pursuant to arrangements made by, or at the request of, a relevant NHS body;" "a person providing services for the transport of organs, blood, equipment or personnel pursuant to arrangements made by, or at the request of, a relevant NHS body;" The latter is interesting because there have been cases of people transporting organs being nicked for speeding. It's not clear that a policeman nicking someone for speeding counts as obstructing an emergency worker - because there's a 'reasonable cause' exemption for the policeman... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/2949904.stm -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 11:04:51 on Sun, 8
Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked: There's also a certain degree of function creep in the use of the word "Ambulance". Is this a Fire Engine: http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/fire/dcp00999.jpg No, it's a fire chief's car. I don't think they are new - ISTR having a Matchbox model of one about 35 years ago. Exactly. Whereas it seems that *any* vehicle connected with the ambulance service seems to have "Ambulance" written on it, even when it doesn't have a primary patient-carrying function (any more than the fire chief's car has a primary fire fighting function). -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
Roy Stilling gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying: If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to ordinary vehicles. So a shiny black van, driven by a man in a black suit & black tie, and bearing "Private Ambulance" in small gold letters on the bonnet, falls into the same legal category as a battenburg-bedecked Merc Sprinter with a paramedic on board? |
UTLer in the news
In message , Roy Stilling
writes My understanding is that "Ambulance" is a protected designation and it's an offence to apply it to a vehicle that doesn't meet the definition. I doubt it. Consider the picture on the following website: http://www.jumbulance.org.uk/ It is a designation as an emergency vehicle that it is the important distinction. -- Paul Terry |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:22:46AM +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:00:41 on Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Roy Stilling remarked: If a vehicle falls under the legal definition that allows it to bear the designation "Ambulance" and does so, then it is legally an ambulance and entitled to various legal privileges that don't apply to ordinary vehicles. Not all of the protections. Only "NHS" ambulances are covered by the recent Emergency Workers obstruction law [1], for example. There are (or were) also Responsibilities. Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. Thankfully, the army were aware of this and the vehicles all had convenient metal flaps for covering up the insignia, so that squaddie medics wouldn't have had to help civilians when the vehicles were in service. -- David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 12:34:38
on Tue, 10 Feb 2009, David Cantrell remarked: Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. That sounds like the French law about giving assistance that we heard about after princess Diana's crash. Is there really an equivalent in the UK? -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
David Cantrell wrote in
k: Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. I am a little doubtful that there is any such requirement, but I am aware - from driving a similarly marked vehicle - that the red cross is claimed as a trademark by the Red Cross, who told us (this was 40 years ago) to remove it from the vehicle. However, I see via Google that the position is far from straightforward or undisputed even though the symbol is now protected under the Geneva Convention. So far as I know there is no restriction on using the word 'ambulance' on a vehicle. At least one local care home near me uses such a vehicle to ferry its clients to the local shops. Peter -- Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com |
UTLer in the news
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Peter Campbell Smith wrote:
David Cantrell wrote in k: Back when I drove a Landrover 101, I believe that the owners' club's advice to owners of the Ambulance version was that when driving on public roads, they should cover up the gigantic red cross and the word "ambulance" because if they didn't they would be required to stop and assist at any accident and could be prosecuted if they hadn't had the necessary training. I am a little doubtful that there is any such requirement, but I am aware - from driving a similarly marked vehicle - that the red cross is claimed as a trademark by the Red Cross, who told us (this was 40 years ago) to remove it from the vehicle. There was as big fuss a while ago about the use of the red cross in video games: many fighting-related games have medical packs you can pick up to restore some of your character's health, and the red cross is pretty much universally used to label them. The ICRC were understandably not happy about their logo being used in warlike games! tom -- I was employed by a Lacanian and, believe me, you don't want to see what a postmodern approach to cashflow entails. -- G' |
UTLer in the news
On 10 Feb, 16:53, Tom Anderson wrote:
There was as big fuss a while ago about the use of the red cross in video games: many fighting-related games have medical packs you can pick up to restore some of your character's health, and the red cross is pretty much universally used to label them. The ICRC were understandably not happy about their logo being used in warlike games! In America, the red cross trademark is owned by Johnson & Johnson, who a few years ago ended up suing the American Red Cross for using it on commercial products. U |
UTLer in the news
James Farrar wrote:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c8zpw5 Update: http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/ccm/cont...-councillor.en Decision on complaint about Councillor Colin Rosenstiel "A Cambridge City Council Hearing Panel met today (Wednesday 11 February) to consider a complaint that Councillor Colin Rosenstiel failed to comply with the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. The complaint was made by the East of England Ambulance Service following an incident on Jesus Green in June 2007. A Standards Board for England investigator looked into the complaint and concluded that Councillor Rosenstiel had breached the Code of Conduct for Councillors. Today the Hearing Panel, which is a sub-committee of the Council's Standards Committee, received the investigator's findings and heard representations on behalf of Councillor Rosenstiel. The panel concluded that Councillor Rosenstiel failed to comply with two provisions of the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. It concluded that Councillor Rosenstiel failed to treat the ambulance driver involved in the incident with respect and by doing so failed to comply with paragraph 2(b) of the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. The panel also concluded Councillor Rosenstiel had brought his office of councillor into disrepute in breach of paragraph 4 of the code. Having come to these conclusions the panel decided to impose a penalty on Councillor Rosenstiel. The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. The panel requested that the apologies were made public. Copies of the letters of apology from Councillor Rosenstiel are attached: see URL" |
UTLer in the news
Joe wrote in :
The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been spent in order to get an apology. So much for "an apology costs nothing"! |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:35:31PM +0000, James Farrar wrote:
Joe wrote in : The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been spent in order to get an apology. What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist |
UTLer in the news
In message , David
Cantrell writes On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 06:35:31PM +0000, James Farrar wrote: Joe wrote in : The panel agreed that Councillor Rosenstiel should send a full personal, unqualified and unreserved written apology to the East of England Ambulance Service and the ambulance driver involved in the incident in June 2007. The form of this apology was agreed with the Hearing Panel. So in other words, a whole bunch of taxpayers' money has been spent in order to get an apology. What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one. Indeed but what else is there to do or where else is there to go with this matter? I think it underlines a very basic flaw in the way in which councillors are treated. Don't get me wrong, I often hold these people, making far-reaching decisions about things they have no real knowledge of [1]. However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair. If anyone else undertakes actions they are not subject to anything except the law of the land and their employers' internal disciplinary procedures. Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". It strikes me as not being a council's job to hold its own members to account in this way. Certainly temporarily barring them from meetings, effectively putting them out of office for a time, seems to me to be deeply undemocratic. That is the job of the councillor's electors next time they go to the polls. If they break the law then of course the *law* should deal with them. But not a council, no. Good grief; that sounded like me standing up for local councillors! I think I'll go and lie down for a while. :-) [1] Once again, I stress I am not referring to Colin here. I know nothing about his politics or achievements and don't wish to comment on this particular event. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
UTLer in the news
Ian Jelf gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair. There's one relevant detail that you're forgetting, though, Ian. I know you said you weren't commenting on this particular case, but it's a good example to use. Was the ambulance driver blocked by Joe Public, or was it blocked by a councillor believing he was performing part of that role? I'd say the latter. In which case, it comes fairly within scope of a regulatory body for councillors. Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". When they have their councillor's hat on, and are justifying their actions as "I'm a councillor", then - yes. That's appropriate. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 13:00:45 on Thu,
12 Feb 2009, Ian Jelf remarked: I think it underlines a very basic flaw in the way in which councillors are treated. Don't get me wrong, I often hold these people, making far-reaching decisions about things they have no real knowledge of [1]. However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair. While I will be the first to demand that elected officials should refrain from fiddling their expenses, it does seem a bit harsh when the goalposts are moved such that no-one can be elected/appointed if, eg, they have *ever* filed a late tax return. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
"Ian Jelf" wrote :
What's the point of apologising only after being ordered to do so? I would consider such an apology to be insincere if I received one. Indeed but what else is there to do or where else is there to go with this matter? He should have been charged with the offence he committed. If he wasn't a councillor, he almost certainly would have been. If I was the ambulance man, I'd demand the union took out a private prosecution. Once these eejits are allowed to get away with it, they start to think 'councillor' means 'I own this town' - not the theoretical 'I serve this town' -- 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. |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:00:45PM +0000, Ian Jelf wrote:
However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair. If anyone else undertakes actions they are not subject to anything except the law of the land and their employers' internal disciplinary procedures. Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary procedure to me. In any case, I *do* think it reasonable that while people in positions of authority (such as councillors, police, MPs, etc) should be held only to the same standards as the rest of us, they should be punished more severely when they fail to meet those standards. Because not only have they breached the standards that we expect normal people to adhere to, they have also abused the trust of we who put them in their exalted positions and permit them to have power over us. It strikes me as not being a council's job to hold its own members to account in this way. Certainly temporarily barring them from meetings, effectively putting them out of office for a time, seems to me to be deeply undemocratic. Indeed. If they think that barring a councillor from meetings is appropriate, then it should be permanent and a by-election held. Once again, I stress I am not referring to Colin here. Nor am I. I can't be bothered to read all the background. -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -- H. L. Mencken |
UTLer in the news
In message , David
Cantrell writes On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 01:00:45PM +0000, Ian Jelf wrote: However, the way in which they can be held to account **more strictly than other members of society** does seem to me deeply unfair. If anyone else undertakes actions they are not subject to anything except the law of the land and their employers' internal disciplinary procedures. Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary procedure to me. Yes it sounded like that to me. That's one of my objections to it. Being a councillor, like being an MP is not a job. It is an elected position with no "employer" other than the electorate itself. (I accept that the issue of such people being paid, even if it's only expenses, muddies the waters now on this issue.) In any case, I *do* think it reasonable that while people in positions of authority (such as councillors, police, MPs, etc) should be held only to the same standards as the rest of us, they should be punished more severely when they fail to meet those standards. The we differ on this issue! :-) That's okay, of course. This is Usenet! I say that despite once having seen a councillor do a complete tantrum at being refused service in a Tourist Information Centre because it had closed for the evening, including the full "I am a City Councillor" and another threatening to sue me because I'd criticised his party! For all that, I cannot accept them being *more* severely punished than others. Because not only have they breached the standards that we expect normal people to adhere to, they have also abused the trust of we who put them in their exalted positions and permit them to have power over us. It strikes me as not being a council's job to hold its own members to account in this way. Certainly temporarily barring them from meetings, effectively putting them out of office for a time, seems to me to be deeply undemocratic. Indeed. If they think that barring a councillor from meetings is appropriate, then it should be permanent and a by-election held. But the only people that should be barring anyone from office are the electorate next time the seat is up for election. The electorate are the councillor's "employer" (in the vaguest sense of the word). Once again, I stress I am not referring to Colin here. Nor am I. I can't be bothered to read all the background. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
UTLer in the news
Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account
by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary procedure to me. Nothing Orwellian about it. People stand for election to represent 'the people', and therefore are public servants. It takes approximately 3.2 seconds after the end of their acceptance speech for many of them to forget this, and revel in the power. There's nothing 'Orwellian' about reminding them of their public duty (in vain though that reminder might be). What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed those who bothered to vote - let alone those who didn't, but are still entitled to be represented by honest men (and women) ? No rocket science involved, is there? -- 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 |
UTLer in the news
In message , Andrew Heenan
writes Councillors, on the other hand, seem to be held to account by this Orwellian-sounding "Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors". That "code of conduct" sounds a bit like an employer's disciplinary procedure to me. Nothing Orwellian about it. People stand for election to represent 'the people', and therefore are public servants. It takes approximately 3.2 seconds after the end of their acceptance speech for many of them to forget this, and revel in the power. Absolutely. I've seen that happen on countless occasions, usually through ignorance but often as you say through a hunger for "power". But they are not "public servants" (that term applies to employed council officers). They are elected officials which I consider to be an important distinction. There's nothing 'Orwellian' about reminding them of their public duty (in vain though that reminder might be). No I agree. There's nothing Orwellian about reminding them of their duty. What's wrong with disciplining a power-hungry ******* who has betrayed those who bothered to vote - That is the job of the electorate; not a non-elected body of officials. If a councillor wants to be a complete ******* then that's their prerogative. The democratic process should ensure they don't get in next time. As has been said before, we get the leaders we deserve. let alone those who didn't, but are still entitled to be represented by honest men (and women) ? If they didn't vote, they have no grounds for complaint about who they get to represent them. -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:36 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk