esp as ambulance purposes do not require the use of an ambulance,
something which is forgotten by people who can't read legislation
properly

I tell you what, seeing as you can read so "properly", have a go with
this little quote and see if you can comprehend what it means;

"As the law currently stands, there is no exemption from speed
limits for the carriage of blood and human organs. This was
specifically excluded from the legislation by those writing
the law."

Then obviously the law needs changing

I'm not denying otherwise, clearly it does. Hopefully the decisions that
are made in the progress of this case may go some way towards changing
that, if only by the means of case law.

People here just seem to be under a few mis-conceptions as to what is
actually currently legal and what isn't. The driver in question
committed a crime hoping that on the slim offchance he got caught that
they would just get 'let off the hook' because it was such an important
journey. I agree completely with that decision, I would do the same
thing myself. And one of the Police forces involved clearly agreed it
was an important enough not to prosecute as well.

There is a clear difference between being 'let off the hook' and acting
lawfully. He was just unlucky to get caught by two Policeforces, and
that one of them was unfortunately not willing to overlook his crime.


--
Lordy