It's very clear. The law says it was a criminal act, and the regulations
that cover ambulance drivers say it was a criminal act. How much clearer
do you want it ?

Since the law does not say it was a criminal act

You are claiming that speeding is not an offense ?

I know this group spouts some **** about speed limits not being fair,
but you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend they
don't exist...

and "the regulations that cover ambulance drivers" appear to be
a figment of your imagination

Actually it's called "Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984", so if you
don't believe me I suggest you go and look for yourself.

Ambulance drivers transporting patients are exempted from speed limits
under the regulations, as are police and fire engines. Vehicles carrying
transplant organs or blood are not included in the act and are subject
to normal speed limits and any other applicable laws (no running red
lights, etc). For Gods sake, it even says on the website of the union
that are supporting him that he was guilty of both speeding and abusing
his position as an ambulance driver by using flashing blue lights in
circumstances when he is not allowed to (the link that was provided at
the start of this thread).

A quick Google picks this up;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...967625,00.html

"The Department of Health confirmed the law did not include
transplant vehicles in the 999 immune category"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/2937910.stm

"As the law stands a vehicle does not qualify as an
ambulance if it is carrying transplant organs."

So like I said, how much clearer do you want it ?

it's not at all clear cut.

It's *very* clear cut, it just seems some people are blinded by the
other factors in the case and unable to look at it as a whole. That or
they just can't be arsed, considering their own opinions more important
that the actual facts. I know some people on here have 'issues' with
you, Steve, but I thought you were better than that :/

HTH


--
Lordy