Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#171
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roland Perry pedanticised:
Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. Use your eyes, is my advice, use your eyes. Flailing around, ever more desperate, rather than admit he's talking out of his Harris. Why, Roland? Why defend a man against all the evidence? Even he admitted (with weasel words, granted) that he was wrong. Why can't you? Let me spell it out for you ... H-E W-A-S W-R-O-N-G Who gives computers to kids who'd do better with an Etch A Sketch? One day, we'll get back to London's transport issues, instead of 'how to defend council rage 101' -- Andrew "When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule, Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman |
#172
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Andrew Heenan" gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: One day, we'll get back to London's transport issues, instead of 'how to defend council rage 101' Liveliest this group's been for _ages_... |
#173
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 17:28:35 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. As with vicars - except more so - ambulances on call tend to have some rather unsubtle clues visually identifying them. In this case, the people on the day seem to accept that the ambulance (an estate car) wasn't as recognisable as you assume. Not that the vicar's vocation was a particularly relevant factor in why the police shouldn't have kicked the **** out of him... The penalty for photographing ones own children now. -- Roland Perry |
#174
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. As with vicars - except more so - ambulances on call tend to have some rather unsubtle clues visually identifying them. In this case, the people on the day seem to accept that the ambulance (an estate car) wasn't as recognisable as you assume. Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements? |
#176
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#177
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 17:34:15 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained within, that I did? It would seem not. Yes a couple of weeks ago. -- Roland Perry |
#178
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 17:37:40 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Andrew Heenan remarked: Roland Perry pedanticised: Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. Let me spell it out for you ... H-E W-A-S W-R-O-N-G I haven't denied he was wrong. Just like those police are wrong. But immediate recognition (or the lack of it) probably played a part in both incidents. -- Roland Perry |
#179
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 17:55:28 on Sun, 15
Feb 2009, Adrian remarked: Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements? Yes. -- Roland Perry |
#180
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: In article , (Adrian) wrote: Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: instead of defending his idiocy, the councillor should be demanding psychic 999 services, and outsourcing to any country that can promise them. Ones that are recognisable might help. The various investigations seem to have concluded that the lack of recognition on the day was a factor. Did you read the same 137page PDF report, and the evidence contained within, that I did? It would seem not. Whatever. It was agreed between the parties at the hearing that the paramedic's vehicle might not have had its lights flashing so as to substantiate my statement that I did not at first appreciate it was on an emergency call. If you read the Ethical Standards Officer's report, paragraph 5.5 on page 12 of the committee agenda you will see that she didn't determine this matter as fact either. There's a little bit more to that paragraph than that, though, isn't there? That paragraph clearly states that the paramedic says the blue roof lights AND headlights definitely were flashing, whilst your evidence says that you don't "recall" if they were flashing or not - and the Ethical Standards Officer explicitly says that your evidence isn't "credible in this respect". The officer also explicitly says that the ambulance "could only be" an emergency vehicle and this "could be seen at some distance", which kinda shoots Roland's theory down, too. May I suggest that if your eyesight is so poor that you can't determine if the headlights and roof lights are flashing from 1m away you probably shouldn't be cycling? |
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 |