|
UTLer in the news
"Ian Jelf" wrote ...
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. It's a linguistic difference; they were elected to serve. There's probably some correct term that sums this up. Let's not get pedantic about it. 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. Yes and no; in a smaller, simpler society, you could get away with that; indeed, the 'Paris Commune' of 140 years ago was urged by Marx to have a system of voting 'em in, and democratically throwing them out if they ceased to do the job. In our larger, more complex society, we long ago (democratically, via our elected representatives) chose to have some checks and balances. This avoided having redo elections if, say, 5% of the electrorate demanded it - it also avoided having wait until the next election to get the *******s out. 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. I agree; but the person who won the election, who they failed to elect (either by not voting or voting for someone else), still has a duty to all the constituents. And it's him we're talking about. I really see no reason why we should wait for the full term minus 3.2 seconds, just because the lying ******* conned us at the election. And, in the UK at least, we don't have to. Though in practice, the toothless watchdogs usually achieve little - as in this case; one insincere apology - just like the bankers - when he should have been charged and kicked out of office. The man's clearly an idiot. You of course, may disagree. -- 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
|
UTLer in the news
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 am certainly not in a position to cast the first stone, having got things wrong myself on several occasions and acted badly in consequence. Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn spotless? -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
UTLer in the news
|
UTLer in the news
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.) |
UTLer in the news
"Brian Watson" wrote ...
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 am certainly not in a position to cast the first stone, having got things wrong myself on several occasions and acted badly in consequence. Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn spotless? Of course I'm not spotless, but we're not talking about me, and I'm not his agent. You've missed the point that this was an AMBULANCE - and by some strange coincidence, so does his 'explanation'. Plus your friend's action broke the law. Strange that those were the only relevant facts, yet you and your pal have ignored them. -- Andrew |
UTLer in the news
Ian Jelf wrote
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. But they are "Public Officers" (Holders of a public office) so, eg, liable for "Misconduct in Public Office" and can reasonable be held to higher standards than private persons. The recent House of Lords kerfuffle has drawn attention to the fact that MPs and peers are probably not liable under the current "Public" Bribery & Corruption law but nevertheless holding them to such a standard (as recommended by the Law Commission) is perfectly reasonable. -- Mike D |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 17:51:28 on Sat, 14
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked: 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, and many people who have had the opportunity to discuss the incident with people who were there at the time seem to accept that it was initially mis-identified. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
In message , Brian Watson
writes wrote in message m... 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 am certainly not in a position to cast the first stone, having got things wrong myself on several occasions and acted badly in consequence. Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn spotless? I;d go along with every word of Brian's contribution there and leave my contributions and views as states and as they stand. I don't like unelected watchdogs dictating to elected individuals. That's my job as a voter. As Andrew said a couple of posts back, "you of course may disagree". :-)) -- 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
In message 01c98ecd$584497e0$LocalHost@default, Michael R N Dolbear
writes Ian Jelf wrote 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. But they are "Public Officers" (Holders of a public office) so, eg, liable for "Misconduct in Public Office" and can reasonable be held to higher standards than private persons. Yes, that's what I don't agree with. I want these people held to the *same* standards as everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. -- 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
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Ian Jelf wrote:
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. 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. The gaping hole in this i dea is that the electorate only get a chance to do this every few years. Are you really saying that if an elected official does something dreadful, then there should be no way of getting rid of them, we should just have to wait until the next election? I think that sounds like a really bad idea. In some places, they have such things as recall elections, whereby if the public are unhappy with an elected official, they can depose him before his term expires. If we had a mechanism like that, which worked effectively, then i'd be fairly happy with not having a bureaucratic disciplinary procedure, since the employers (the public) could hire and fire directly. But in the absence of such a mechanism, we need a procedure to keep elected officials in line on our behalf. Note that i'm not saying here that i think the process that was in action in the case we've been discussing is a good example of this - it might or might not be, i really don't know. And obviously i'm also not passing comment on Colin's case either. tom -- never mind your fingers, i've got blisters on my brain |
UTLer in the news
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? Still, Colin is in good company really. No one, it appears, is actually responsible for anything these days. Not in politics. Of course its different in aviation, where someone is alway to blame for a crash. And people do extensive studies to understand them and issue warnings. In light of the crash IN NY state a few days ago a friend passed me this link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23060735779946 Let's hope Colin is never a pilot on a plane with a passenger. Where awareness of subtler clues than blue flashing lights, are necessary to avoid killing people. |
UTLer in the news
On Feb 14, 10:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote: On Feb 14, 11:53 am, "Brian Watson" wrote: wrote in message om... 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? Still, Colin is in good company really. No one, it appears, is actually responsible for anything these days. Not in politics. Of course its different in aviation, where someone is alway to blame for a crash. And people do extensive studies to understand them and issue warnings. In light of the crash IN NY state a few days ago a friend passed me this link. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...23060735779946 Let's hope Colin is never a pilot on a plane with a passenger. *Where awareness of subtler clues than blue flashing lights, are necessary to avoid killing people.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
UTLer in the news
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. |
UTLer in the news
In message . li, Tom
Anderson writes On Sat, 14 Feb 2009, Ian Jelf wrote: 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. 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. The gaping hole in this i dea is that the electorate only get a chance to do this every few years. Are you really saying that if an elected official does something dreadful, then there should be no way of getting rid of them, we should just have to wait until the next election? Yes. I think that sounds like a really bad idea. Well, as I said earlier, this is Usenet and we all tend to differ. I would, though, like to think I do so in an affable manner! :-) In some places, they have such things as recall elections, whereby if the public are unhappy with an elected official, they can depose him before his term expires. If we had a mechanism like that, which worked effectively, then i'd be fairly happy with not having a bureaucratic disciplinary procedure, since the employers (the public) could hire and fire directly. The "gaping hole" in that to borrow Tom's phrase, is that "someone" would have to decide the circumstances under which such a recall would occur. That's where (presumably) unelected officials are able to affect elected ones. But in the absence of such a mechanism, we need a procedure to keep elected officials in line on our behalf. Note that i'm not saying here that i think the process that was in action in the case we've been discussing is a good example of this - it might or might not be, i really don't know. And obviously i'm also not passing comment on Colin's case either. 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. 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! -- 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
In message , at 22:38:21 on
Sat, 14 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: 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 read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
"Ian Jelf" wrote
But they are "Public Officers" (Holders of a public office) so, eg, liable for "Misconduct in Public Office" and can reasonable be held to higher standards than private persons. Yes, that's what I don't agree with. I want these people held to the *same* standards as everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less. There is a case for a higher standard, but this is niether the time nor the group for it. For the purposes of this thread, I'd be happy with the *same* standard - ie treated like you or I would be if we lost our rag in public and deliberately obstructed an emergency ambulance that *could* have been on a life or death mission. We'd at the very *least* have been prosecuted, not allowed to make a mealy-mouthed apology (while still implying it was someone else's fault), and get back to expenses paid largesse. It stinks ... like most local politics. He's nothing special. Pigs and trough and no prosecutions just about sums up local government. Andrew |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:38:21 on Sat, 14 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: 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 read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc. Yup. clear straightforward info from a professional versus a highly odd account from Our Esteemed Councillor. |
UTLer in the news
"Andrew Heenan" wrote in message ... "Brian Watson" wrote ... Everyone else here (especially those lining up to have a pop at him) so damn spotless? Of course I'm not spotless, but we're not talking about me, and I'm not his agent. You've missed the point that this was an AMBULANCE - and by some strange coincidence, so does his 'explanation'. Plus your friend's action broke the law. He is not my friend. I don't know him, though I *may* have met him once, to deliver something. Strange that those were the only relevant facts, yet you and your pal have ignored them. As I say, not my pal. And I'm not ignoring anything. re-read what I wrote. It does not address the incident at all; it addresses the reasons why he seems to have got it *wrong* and the subsequent wittering on about it. -- Brian "Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman." |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 09:49:18 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: 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 read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc. Yup. clear straightforward info from a professional versus a highly odd account from Our Esteemed Councillor. Did Colin claim that a dislocated kneecap wasn't life-threatening, but the ambulanceman disagreed? -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: 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. |
UTLer in the news
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@giganews .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. |
UTLer in the news
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:49:18 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher remarked: 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 read it too - dislocated kneecap iirc. Yup. clear straightforward info from a professional versus a highly odd account from Our Esteemed Councillor. Did Colin claim that a dislocated kneecap wasn't life-threatening, but the ambulanceman disagreed? From memory, Colin wasn't really interested in what the ambulance was doing there, and in fact denied that he thought it was an ambulance at all. The substance of the two stories is that the ambulance was there to attend a potentially limb threatening event: 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. Now that is patently hindsight, and could not have been known by the driver at the time of the first altercation with Colin. The situation there was that an ambulance - or paramedic vehicle, fully equipped with all the paraphernalia designed to make it apparent what it was, was blocked by colin and involved in an argument. Colin claims that in a clear summers evening in broad daylight, he didn't know it was an emergency vehicle. Despite apparently having conversation with the driver who told him it was. Then after this initial piece of pinball wizardry*, he accosts the vehicle AGAIN on leaving.. *One can only account for this by either concluding the Colin is in fact a deaf, dumb and blind idiot, or a liar, or possibly mentally ill. Or all three. Now whilst one can feel deep sympathy for Colin, on account of his problems, it still does NOT justify his retention by the council in any position of authority. |
UTLer in the news
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...11stds/3_0.pdf |
UTLer in the news
MIG writes:
On Feb 14, 10:38Â*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Â*From the extremely clear and detailed evidence given by both Colin and the driver in the PDF of the hearing Â*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. http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...11stds/3_0.pdf 24MB, 137 pages. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/ |
UTLer in the news
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
MIG wrote: 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...11stds/3_0.pdf 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. Some of the bone marrow escaped into his blood stream, blocked his lungs and he died, even though the accident happened 1 mile from the County (Buckinghamshire) hospital and he got to A&E and was x-rayed within the hour. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 11:42:12 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher 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. -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:17:48 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 11:42:12 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, The Natural Philosopher 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. |
UTLer in the news
In message , at 10:47:50 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: 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. Was it ever established that the blue lights were indeed flashing? I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone, but even flashing lights means very little these days - because the are used in too many situations where they aren't appropriate. Horns, however, might be different. What we do know is that from the front there are virtually no markings visible (although similar vehicles in other places do have gaudier markings). -- Roland Perry |
UTLer in the news
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 |
UTLer in the news
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/ |
UTLer in the news
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 |
UTLer in the news
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. |
UTLer in the news
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. |
UTLer in the news
"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 |
UTLer in the news
"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 |
UTLer in the news
"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. |
UTLer in the news
"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. |
UTLer in the news
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). |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk