Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#151
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#152
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/ |
#153
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#154
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#155
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#156
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#157
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#158
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#159
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#160
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Croxley Link news | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
BREAKING NEWS!! Power Cut affecting Railways in the South East | London Transport | |||
Epping-Ongar news? | London Transport |