Lordy wrote in message tlworld.com...
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.

Big difference between this and your original "**** him" sentiment at
the beginning of the thread. All I'm saying.

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.

"Crime" - ha, I guess now speeding at 1 am is right up there with
beating grannies and mugging kids for mobiles, is it .

Lordy wrote in message tlworld.com...
I just hope you never need their services

The Gatso stuff should have been binned at source

Yes, it should have, I agree 100%

harrasing emergency services is completely rediculous.

I think he means indiscrimate application of the law without room for
freedom of thought, consideration or mitigation.

Erm, prosecuting someone for having committed a crime is not
"harrassment". The problem is that it should not have been a crime in
the first place, and that's a result of the ****ty legislation.

Well, that's true. Humans create the law - humans apply the law.
Neither legislation nor application is perfect. Where would *you*
prefer the imperfections to lie?

Big difference between this and your original "**** him" sentiment
at the beginning of the thread. All I'm saying.

He *knowingly* broke the law hoping that he would be let off if caught.

Yes, the Police force have been too harsh but that doesn't mean there
should they should make such an uproar about it claiming it's so unfair.

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.

"Crime" - ha, I guess now speeding at 1 am is right up there with
beating grannies and mugging kids for mobiles, is it .

Oh yes, I forgot, speeding isn't illegal on here.

*yawn*


--
Lordy

Erm, prosecuting someone for having committed a crime is not
"harrassment". The problem is that it should not have been a crime in
the first place, and that's a result of the ****ty legislation.

Well, that's true. Humans create the law - humans apply the law.
Neither legislation nor application is perfect. Where would *you*
prefer the imperfections to lie?

Erm, humans *are* applying the law.
Two Police forces came to differing decisions...


--
Lordy

So, you're wife's been beaten or stabbed in a mugging gone wrong, or
your child has been rushed to hospital having had a near-death
experience with a cot mattress, or a severe food allergy you didn't
know about?

Read the thread a bit more before posting such wank - in such situations
he would not have been breaking the law. The journey that he made at
that time was not classed as Ambulance duty.

And if you're caught speeding to the aid of your nearest and
dearest, late at night on an emtpy A-road?
Well then, "****" you too.

If I'm "caught" doing something that I know is illegal, yet I still do
it, then any consequences are fair enough and I'll accept that.

Oh, and "**** you" too, prick boy


--
Lordy

So, you're wife's been beaten or stabbed in a mugging gone wrong, or
your child has been rushed to hospital having had a near-death
experience with a cot mattress, or a severe food allergy you didn't
know about?

And if you're caught speeding to the aid of your nearest and dearest,
late at night on an emtpy A-road? Well then, "****" you too.

**** getting caught, i wouldn't stop!

Exactly, do what you have to in the *full knowledge* of what you are
doing and accept the consequences later.


--
Lordy

AstraVanMan wrote:
Indeed - a mate of mine's recently bought a 2.6 Carlton (saloon) and
whilst it's no rocketship off the line, it's very happy sitting on
the motorway at 120-130mph.

Peter

Blimey...

:-)

/Waves/

Not that it gets the chance to do those speeds that often though! His
average commuting speed, like most people's, is about 20mph. He's
pretty impressed about how few revs it's doing at high speeds though.

Peter

I'll look out for the cigarette lighter...

:-)

B

Christ, is this thread still going ?

Lordy, much as you would like it to be, the law is not as clear cut
as you think

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 ?

In this case, perhaps, it is clear that a criminal act occurred.

Well spotted

However, "**** him" is not exactly a helpful attitude.

Agreed, it was a conversation opener tho

At worst he made a mistake

He did not make a "mistake". He deliberately broke the law relying on
the fact that if he was caught he would be let off for extenuating
circumstances. And he did it in the full knowledge of what he was doing.

104 on the A1 late is by no means excessive

I agree, but neither yours nor my opinion of 'excessive' is relevant to
anything. And regardless, 104 actual is likely to have been somewhere in
the region of 115mph to 120mph indicated speed on his dashboard.


--
Lordy

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

So the Police say that he broke the law, the Department of Health say
that he broke the law, and the Union supporting the man say he broke the
law, but good old Steve Firth says he didn't.

The Police are bringing this as a test case.
Does the term "test case" mean anything to you?

What may change is the legislation itself, as a result of the
controversy surrounding the case. It will probably be brought into line
with other newer legislation (such as signs), which differ in their
definition of ambulances from the 1984 act, directly referencing an
ambulance as a vehicle conveying injured people *or* organs.

When is the actual case now anyway, last I heard it was on June 11th, I
assume it got adjourned again ?



--
Lordy