Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#182
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk (Phil W Lee) wrote: The only "people on the day" who seem to have accepted that are (sic) Colin. You seem to have overlooked the Standards Board's solicitor and the Standards Committee panel. The Standards Board's Ethical Standards Officer didn't determine the point either. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
#183
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Duncan Wood" wrote in
news ![]() Oh it does appear to be only Roland who thinks you ought to consult with your solicitor before getting out of the way, Colin did actually apologise for getting that wrong. I'm forced to wonder what would have happened had he apologised promptly. |
#184
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roland Perry wrote:
In message op.upeg5zrfhaghkf@lucy, at 15:55:01 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Duncan Wood remarked: Assumption is a necessary part of life, one doesn't conduct a structural analysis of a road bridge before driving ones car over it, you don't obstruct emergency vehicles. And you don't beat up vicars. Of course, first you have to realise they are a vicar, or that the vehicle is an ambulance on call. I am sure they thought he was a paedophile. Just like Colin became convined that paramedics were in fact nasty toffs or chavs in 4WD vehicles going where only Councillors have a right to Cycle. |
#185
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
MIG wrote:
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 ... 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. A dangerous presumption. 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). Precisely. And *nothing more*. Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain person actually directly lied. 'case not proven' No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't *demonstrably* lie, that's all right then. If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we wouldn't need to rant here. 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. I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely they would be falsified. 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). You have to be kidding. |
#186
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 16, 3:07*am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
much cut FWIW here is the link that Richard provided. http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/c...009/0211stds/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. A dangerous presumption. 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). Precisely. And *nothing more*. Its like Hutton. We have a situation that was extremely life threatening and cost many lives, but the only enquiry is into whether a certain person actually directly lied. 'case not proven' No investigation into whether they failed to ascertain the truth, or were economical with it, whether the judgement was sound, whether they should remain in a position of authority. No. As long as they didn't *demonstrably* lie, that's all right then. If there was EVER any criminal investigations into these matters, we wouldn't need to rant here. So the evidence for criminal behaviour is the LACK of investigation? I don't know if there was or wasn't, but no relevant investigation seems to have been made at the time. 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. I think that log books of 999 calls are actually kept, and its unlikely they would be falsified. Why on Earth would they be? I am noting that the amount of time elapsed was such that they didn't remember such a major detail. Only the log seems to have corrected both of them when they both remembered a different time of day. 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). You have to be kidding. No. I observed that people make wild accusations without knowing much about what actually happened. Maybe you are right and the relevant authorities failed to carry a criminal investigation into actions that deliberately put someone's life at risk. Or maybe someone was rude to a driver due to a misunderstanding and then allowed him to proceed without risk to anyone. Or maybe all sorts of other things. But the evidence is flimsy. No doubt it's a cover-up. |
#187
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#188
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 23:13:35 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: Have you actually read the 137 page PDF containing the statements? Yes. And did you pass comprehension as part of your English Language at school? If so, you seem to need some revision. Did they teach you anything about throwing stones, and glass houses? -- Roland Perry |
#189
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , at 23:12:25 on
Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles described as an "estate car" either. That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like the Cambridge ones): http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg -- Roland Perry |
#190
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roland Perry gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: In message , at 23:12:25 on Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Phil W Lee remarked: And I've never seen (or heard) one of those 4x4 suv type vehicles described as an "estate car" either. That's because it's not a 4x4 SUV in the style of a Range Rover, Jeep etc; it has a much lower profile. Here's one with a white bonnet (like the Cambridge ones): http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/p1130756.jpg No, it isn't. That's a VW Touran mini-people-carrier. Not only isn't it a Honda CR-V, it doesn't even have a white bonnet as you claim - that's silver. Really, Roland, you do seem to be determined to make yourself look an utter tit in this thread. This is a Honda CR-V, in ambulance livery. http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/ambulance/dsc10899.jpg Here's one in East-of-England ambulance livery... http://www.eastamb.nhs.uk/media/pict...AMB_240702.JPG (Large image - 1600x1200) |
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 |