
February 6th 09, 12:09 PM
posted to uk.transport.london,cam.misc
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity at LondonBanter: Feb 2009
Posts: 17
|
|
UTLer in the news
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:01:11 -0000, Roland Perry
wrote:
In message , at 11:41:42 on
Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Jon Green 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 services vehicle.
Good. And is this a vehicle you are required to "not obstruct"?
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/DSC04085.jpg [1]
Or this one:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0950.jpg [2]
And:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0314.jpg [1] again.
or even:
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dsc08465.jpg [3]
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/others/dscd0918.jpg [4]
http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dscd0552.jpg [5]
[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?
[2] Only if he's an NHS doctor
[3] Definitely not, I'd say. Department of transport
[4] Ditto, London Underground
[5] Not NHS
|