Finally

Rob Morley said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ... can you still get
them, were they called flying saucers? Google says yes, but I don't
think I've seen them anywhere for ages.

Motorway service stations.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

In article <[email hidden]>

Danny Colyer said:

Rob Morley said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ... can you still get
them, were they called flying saucers? Google says yes, but I don't
think I've seen them anywhere for ages.

Motorway service stations.

I'll have a look next time I pass one :-)

Tom Crispin said:

Quoted message said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ... can you still get
them, were they called flying saucers? Google says yes, but I don't
think I've seen them anywhere for ages.

£1.77 for 50.
http://www.aquarterof.co.uk/flying-saucers-p-122.html

I know it's a sign of my age, but they used to be four for a penny.

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://www.happy-penguin.info/address.jpg

Rob Morley said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ... can you still get
them, were they called flying saucers? Google says yes, but I don't
think I've seen them anywhere for ages.

Waitrose stocks them. I occasionally have a packet with my lunch.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Rob Morley said the following on 30/10/2006 22:32:

Quoted message said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ...

Or one of those cardboard tubes filled with sherbet and a stick of
liquorice poking out the top.

By 'eck - it's amazing I've still got me own teeth!

(And I think this is the first time I've ever had to spell "sherbet",
and I wouldn't have spelt it like that!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Response to Paul Boyd:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ...

Or one of those cardboard tubes filled with sherbet and a stick of
liquorice poking out the top.

Sherbet Fountains, and they still do them <codger-in-waiting> though
there seems to be a lot less sherbet in the tube than there used to be
</>.

They used to make me belch very impressively, always a good thing when
you're young.

--
Mark, UK
"Our opinions do not really blossom into fruition until we have
expressed them to someone else."

In article <[email hidden]>

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Rob Morley said the following on 30/10/2006 22:32:

Quoted message said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ...

Or one of those cardboard tubes filled with sherbet and a stick of
liquorice poking out the top.

Barratts Sherbet Fountains - I used to love them. And sherbet dip-dabs.
And sherbet lemons.

Quoted message said:

By 'eck - it's amazing I've still got me own teeth!

Me too.

Quoted message said:

(And I think this is the first time I've ever had to spell "sherbet",
and I wouldn't have spelt it like that!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbet

Tom said:

Tom Crispin said:

Quoted message said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ... can you still get
them, were they called flying saucers? Google says yes, but I don't
think I've seen them anywhere for ages.

£1.77 for 50.
http://www.aquarterof.co.uk/flying-saucers-p-122.html

I know it's a sign of my age, but they used to be four for a penny.

Shoorly you mean a farthing each?

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:54:59 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

Rob Morley said the following on 30/10/2006 22:32:

Quoted message said:

Or one of those rice-paper and sherbet things ...

Or one of those cardboard tubes filled with sherbet and a stick of
liquorice poking out the top.

Barratts Sherbet Fountains - I used to love them. And sherbet dip-dabs.
And sherbet lemons.

Quoted message said:

By 'eck - it's amazing I've still got me own teeth!

Me too.

What sweets do children eat nowadays? Spangles seem to have gone, and
curly whirlies... And I can't recall the last time I saw pear drops
sold by the quarter - or even 113g!

On another point, did enyone else here have index linked pocket money?
My weekly pocket money was linked directly to the price of wine gums,
and went up (and down*) as the price of a quarter of wine gums
fluctuated.

*it only ever went down after I had lied about a previous price rise.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(And I think this is the first time I've ever had to spell "sherbet",
and I wouldn't have spelt it like that!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbet

On 31/10/2006 19:02, Tom Crispin said,

Quoted message said:

What sweets do children eat nowadays? Spangles seem to have gone, and
curly whirlies... And I can't recall the last time I saw pear drops
sold by the quarter - or even 113g!

What is the metric equivalent of a quarter these days? I assume you can
still buy sweets by the quarter (or whatever), can't you? "A quarter of
pear drops please" is so much easier to say than "One hundred and 13
grams of pear drops please" isn't it? I guess it's probably 100g, which
is still a mouthful, not to mention less sweeties for yer money!

Quoted message said:

On another point, did enyone else here have index linked pocket money?

Nope! Started at 1/- (actually, it was 5p, but decimalisation was still
a bit new then!) I think it gradually went up to about £1 by the time I
was 16. If that's index linked, I'll let someone else do the maths :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherbet

Thanks Rob - it was that page that decided me on only one 'r'!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Tom Crispin said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

You miss the point... bikes don't have registration numbers but I
normally delay the chap/ette for longer than the red light and inform
them about safety, law etc. This one was so blatant and dangerous they
really deserved to have the £30 ticket.

I saw a police car driven on and then parked on the pavement
yesterday. I asked the driver what gave him the right to drive and
park on the pavement when it was illegal for an eight year old to
cycle on the pavement. He said there was an emergency in Woolworths.
Having just come from Woolworths myself I knew he was mistaken. There
was a drunk teenager who'd helped himself to, and eaten, a couple of
candy shrimps to wind up the security guard.

Did the policeman deserve a ticket? Who'd give him one, or was he
above the law?

Tom,

Here we have a couple of very good examples of what is known as 'the
knowledge gap'.

The first is your knowledge within the shop.

You have seen the teenager taking sweets and eating them and you have
observed that the teenager is drunk. Good.
You have probably, based on your experience, made an assessement on the
behavior of the teenager as to whether you feel he is a danger to
yourself or not as well.

But you cannot know how the teenager would react if you were to try to
detain him - which is the security guards dilema. You do not know the
pressures which might effect this persons life or their normal demenour.
They may be of a violent disposition when challenged, they may be
carrying a knife. It's a knowledge gap and this teenager represents an
unknown threat to yourself no matter how well you might believe you have
read the situation.

There are two types of threat, Known and Unknown.

There is *never* a safe threat no matter how small or seemingly
complient the subject is.

Story:

Some years ago a female colleague was called to an underpass to answer a
report of an elderly female who appeared disorientated. Sure enough she
saw an elderly female shuffeling about in a big coat talking to herself.

She approached the elderly woman from behind and spoke to her as she put
her hand on the womans shoulder. The elderly woman then turned round
and stabbed the PC with a kitchen knife because she was disorientated
and afraid.

My colleague had made an assumption that the elderly woman was not a
threat based on her previous experience.

So you can never trust to appearences.

Your second knowledge gap is what you assume the police officer knows
about the situation based on your knowledge.

In general this type of call would be despatched as...

Male causing a disturbance...

Drunk male causing a disturbance...

There is normally not much detail as radio transmissions are KISS
abreviated.

K_eep
I_t
S_hort &
S-imple

So from the officers point of view there could well have been an
emergency in the store requiring his attention. Provided he parked the
vehicle carefully without endangering the public in doing so he might
well take a decision to park on the pavement if it were the best option.

Another factor which could effect that type of decision is the possible
behaviour of the person once arrested - if that was necessary. Drunk
people are unpredictable at the best of times if they then decide to
play up having the vehicle nearer rather than further away could be a
factor. I am talking here in general terms not knowing the layout of
the streets refered to, traffic densities, junctions, widths etc. etc. I
am not going to enter into a lengthy discussion over if this was a good
or bad decision given the local topography. I am just illustrating some
of the factors effecting the decisions response vehicle drivers have to
make.

Sniper8052

On 31/10/2006 19:42, Sniper8052(L96A1) said,

Quoted message said:

You have seen the teenager taking sweets and eating them and you have
observed that the teenager is drunk. Good.
You have probably, based on your experience, made an assessement on the
behavior of the teenager as to whether you feel he is a danger to
yourself or not as well.

But you cannot know how the teenager would react if you were to try to
detain him - which is the security guards dilema.

So why can't the security guard just whack him over the head with a
baseball bat? :-)

(Seems a bit harsh for nicking two candy shrimps, mind!)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom Crispin said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

You miss the point... bikes don't have registration numbers but I
normally delay the chap/ette for longer than the red light and inform
them about safety, law etc. This one was so blatant and dangerous they
really deserved to have the £30 ticket.

I saw a police car driven on and then parked on the pavement
yesterday. I asked the driver what gave him the right to drive and
park on the pavement when it was illegal for an eight year old to
cycle on the pavement. He said there was an emergency in Woolworths.
Having just come from Woolworths myself I knew he was mistaken. There
was a drunk teenager who'd helped himself to, and eaten, a couple of
candy shrimps to wind up the security guard.

Did the policeman deserve a ticket? Who'd give him one, or was he
above the law?

Tom,

Here we have a couple of very good examples of what is known as 'the
knowledge gap'.

The first is your knowledge within the shop.

You have seen the teenager taking sweets and eating them and you have
observed that the teenager is drunk. Good.
You have probably, based on your experience, made an assessement on the
behavior of the teenager as to whether you feel he is a danger to
yourself or not as well.

But you cannot know how the teenager would react if you were to try to
detain him - which is the security guards dilema. You do not know the
pressures which might effect this persons life or their normal demenour.
They may be of a violent disposition when challenged, they may be
carrying a knife. It's a knowledge gap and this teenager represents an
unknown threat to yourself no matter how well you might believe you have
read the situation.

There are two types of threat, Known and Unknown.

There is *never* a safe threat no matter how small or seemingly
complient the subject is.

Story:

Some years ago a female colleague was called to an underpass to answer a
report of an elderly female who appeared disorientated. Sure enough she
saw an elderly female shuffeling about in a big coat talking to herself.

She approached the elderly woman from behind and spoke to her as she put
her hand on the womans shoulder. The elderly woman then turned round
and stabbed the PC with a kitchen knife because she was disorientated
and afraid.

My colleague had made an assumption that the elderly woman was not a
threat based on her previous experience.

So you can never trust to appearences.

Your second knowledge gap is what you assume the police officer knows
about the situation based on your knowledge.

In general this type of call would be despatched as...

Male causing a disturbance...

Drunk male causing a disturbance...

There is normally not much detail as radio transmissions are KISS
abreviated.

K_eep
I_t
S_hort &
S-imple

So from the officers point of view there could well have been an
emergency in the store requiring his attention. Provided he parked the
vehicle carefully without endangering the public in doing so he might
well take a decision to park on the pavement if it were the best option.

Another factor which could effect that type of decision is the possible
behaviour of the person once arrested - if that was necessary. Drunk
people are unpredictable at the best of times if they then decide to
play up having the vehicle nearer rather than further away could be a
factor. I am talking here in general terms not knowing the layout of
the streets refered to, traffic densities, junctions, widths etc. etc. I
am not going to enter into a lengthy discussion over if this was a good
or bad decision given the local topography. I am just illustrating some
of the factors effecting the decisions response vehicle drivers have to
make.

Let me help you then.

Here's an aerial photo.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/woolies.jpg

The police car was parked at the red cross. You may just be able to
make out a box junction and zig-zag markings between the car's
position and the pedestrian lights two cars' lengths south. The main
entrance of Woolies is at the blue arrow. The road to the east of
Woolies is a residential road. The road to the north is the A20, and
you can even see it marked as a red route.

I fully accept the need for the police to respond to an emergency, and
also accept that they may not even know the seriousness of any given
incident, so may have to treat it as an emergency.

I do not accept the need, in this case, for the police car to mount
the pavement and park adjacent to a pedestrian crossing when there are
three lanes of perfectly good tarmac a car length's north of where
they parked. I would also like to suggest that either the residential
road or the A20, which has red route parking bays, would be closer to
the shop and make a safer parking site.

Tom Crispin said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:35:25 GMT, "Sniper8052(L96A1)"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>You miss the point... bikes don't have registration numbers but I
>normally delay the chap/ette for longer than the red light and inform
>them about safety, law etc. This one was so blatant and dangerous they
>really deserved to have the £30 ticket.

I saw a police car driven on and then parked on the pavement
yesterday. I asked the driver what gave him the right to drive and
park on the pavement when it was illegal for an eight year old to
cycle on the pavement. He said there was an emergency in Woolworths.
Having just come from Woolworths myself I knew he was mistaken. There
was a drunk teenager who'd helped himself to, and eaten, a couple of
candy shrimps to wind up the security guard.

Did the policeman deserve a ticket? Who'd give him one, or was he
above the law?

Tom,

Here we have a couple of very good examples of what is known as 'the
knowledge gap'.

The first is your knowledge within the shop.

You have seen the teenager taking sweets and eating them and you have
observed that the teenager is drunk. Good.
You have probably, based on your experience, made an assessement on the
behavior of the teenager as to whether you feel he is a danger to
yourself or not as well.

But you cannot know how the teenager would react if you were to try to
detain him - which is the security guards dilema. You do not know the
pressures which might effect this persons life or their normal demenour.
They may be of a violent disposition when challenged, they may be
carrying a knife. It's a knowledge gap and this teenager represents an
unknown threat to yourself no matter how well you might believe you have
read the situation.

There are two types of threat, Known and Unknown.

There is *never* a safe threat no matter how small or seemingly
complient the subject is.

Story:

Some years ago a female colleague was called to an underpass to answer a
report of an elderly female who appeared disorientated. Sure enough she
saw an elderly female shuffeling about in a big coat talking to herself.

She approached the elderly woman from behind and spoke to her as she put
her hand on the womans shoulder. The elderly woman then turned round
and stabbed the PC with a kitchen knife because she was disorientated
and afraid.

My colleague had made an assumption that the elderly woman was not a
threat based on her previous experience.

So you can never trust to appearences.

Your second knowledge gap is what you assume the police officer knows
about the situation based on your knowledge.

In general this type of call would be despatched as...

Male causing a disturbance...

Drunk male causing a disturbance...

There is normally not much detail as radio transmissions are KISS
abreviated.

K_eep
I_t
S_hort &
S-imple

So from the officers point of view there could well have been an
emergency in the store requiring his attention. Provided he parked the
vehicle carefully without endangering the public in doing so he might
well take a decision to park on the pavement if it were the best option.

Another factor which could effect that type of decision is the possible
behaviour of the person once arrested - if that was necessary. Drunk
people are unpredictable at the best of times if they then decide to
play up having the vehicle nearer rather than further away could be a
factor. I am talking here in general terms not knowing the layout of
the streets refered to, traffic densities, junctions, widths etc. etc. I
am not going to enter into a lengthy discussion over if this was a good
or bad decision given the local topography. I am just illustrating some
of the factors effecting the decisions response vehicle drivers have to
make.

Let me help you then.

Here's an aerial photo.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/woolies.jpg

The police car was parked at the red cross. You may just be able to
make out a box junction and zig-zag markings between the car's
position and the pedestrian lights two cars' lengths south. The main
entrance of Woolies is at the blue arrow. The road to the east of
Woolies is a residential road. The road to the north is the A20, and
you can even see it marked as a red route.

I fully accept the need for the police to respond to an emergency, and
also accept that they may not even know the seriousness of any given
incident, so may have to treat it as an emergency.

I do not accept the need, in this case, for the police car to mount
the pavement and park adjacent to a pedestrian crossing when there are
three lanes of perfectly good tarmac a car length's north of where
they parked. I would also like to suggest that either the residential
road or the A20, which has red route parking bays, would be closer to
the shop and make a safer parking site.

Depending on direction of travel to that point maybe...

The road you are illustrating has at the point you have marked it a
single lane flanked by a double lane in the opposite direction. In one
of those lanes traffic is queuing, which suggests the double carriageway
has prescribed turns left and right, there is a yellow box junction
opposite the position of the stop so parking in the roadway would force
traffic in the single carriageway into the path of traffic in the outer
lane of the double carriageway and restrict the junction as well as
blocking the sightlines of the adjacent traffic signals for the
crossing. I would want a good sight line to the vehicle and store so if
I approached from that road, was responding to a call and was safe to do
so I think I would choose that as probably the best place to stop.

Sorry I do not agree with your assessment but I don't think insisting on
the rule in this situation was or is applicable provided that no danger
was caused to pedestrians as the vehicle was parked.

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Quoted message said:

Let me help you then.

Here's an aerial photo.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/woolies.jpg

The police car was parked at the red cross. You may just be able to
make out a box junction and zig-zag markings between the car's
position and the pedestrian lights two cars' lengths south. The main
entrance of Woolies is at the blue arrow. The road to the east of
Woolies is a residential road. The road to the north is the A20, and
you can even see it marked as a red route.

I fully accept the need for the police to respond to an emergency, and
also accept that they may not even know the seriousness of any given
incident, so may have to treat it as an emergency.

I do not accept the need, in this case, for the police car to mount
the pavement and park adjacent to a pedestrian crossing when there are
three lanes of perfectly good tarmac a car length's north of where
they parked. I would also like to suggest that either the residential
road or the A20, which has red route parking bays, would be closer to
the shop and make a safer parking site.

Depending on direction of travel to that point maybe...

The road you are illustrating has at the point you have marked it a
single lane flanked by a double lane in the opposite direction. In one
of those lanes traffic is queuing,

If you look even more closely you will see the traffic is queuing in a
bus lane!!! However, things aren't as bad as thay may appear. At the
time the photo was taken there were major junction roadworks just
north of the queuing traffic and the bus lane had been suspended and
the second lane closed at the junction. Now the junction has been
improved the queues have gone outside the rush hour. Clearly parking
opposite the box junction or on the zig-zags is unacceptable, but so
is driving on the pavement. Parking on the A20 red route to the north
of Woolies would have been the safest option for all and would have
allowed a clear line of sight to the shop. From the way it was
facing, the police car must have come from the A20 anyway.

Quoted message said:

which suggests the double carriageway
has prescribed turns left and right, there is a yellow box junction
opposite the position of the stop so parking in the roadway would force
traffic in the single carriageway into the path of traffic in the outer
lane of the double carriageway and restrict the junction as well as
blocking the sightlines of the adjacent traffic signals for the
crossing. I would want a good sight line to the vehicle and store so if
I approached from that road, was responding to a call and was safe to do
so I think I would choose that as probably the best place to stop.

Sorry I do not agree with your assessment but I don't think insisting on
the rule in this situation was or is applicable provided that no danger
was caused to pedestrians as the vehicle was parked.

Why is it acceptable for the police to drive on the pavement on a
routine emergency call when it's illegal for an eight year old cyclist
to ride to school on the pavement?

Tom Crispin said:

Quoted message said:

I know it's a sign of my age, but they used to be four for a penny.

Shoorly you mean a farthing each?

No, four for a "new"penny. I don't remember buying anything with "old"
money, but I remember thinking how tiny the "new" money looked. I wasn't
born when the farthing was withdrawn from circulation.

Tom
--
Return address is dead. Real address is at
http://www.happy-penguin.info/address.jpg

Tosspot said:

Tom Crispin said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 30/10/2006 11:59, Rob Morley said,

>That could have escalated into a violent confrontation, the lad might
>have had a knife or infected needles in his pocket ...

Or he could have...

...eaten another candy shrimp!

Given that the lad had already demonstrated himself to be rather
partial to candy shrimps, that would have been a highly likely further
escalation.

Tis sad but true, if only the poor policemen had been aware he was
dealing with a suicide candy shrimp bomber. These poor young souls are
indoctinatrated at a young age to enter Walmarks unobserved and eat
Candy Shrimps till they explode.

I thought that only happened when they ate a bucketfull of cola
bottles, then swallowed a few mentoes?

TL

Tom Crispin said:

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Quoted message said:

Let me help you then.

Here's an aerial photo.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/woolies.jpg

The police car was parked at the red cross. You may just be able to
make out a box junction and zig-zag markings between the car's
position and the pedestrian lights two cars' lengths south. The main
entrance of Woolies is at the blue arrow. The road to the east of
Woolies is a residential road. The road to the north is the A20, and
you can even see it marked as a red route.

I fully accept the need for the police to respond to an emergency, and
also accept that they may not even know the seriousness of any given
incident, so may have to treat it as an emergency.

I do not accept the need, in this case, for the police car to mount
the pavement and park adjacent to a pedestrian crossing when there are
three lanes of perfectly good tarmac a car length's north of where
they parked. I would also like to suggest that either the residential
road or the A20, which has red route parking bays, would be closer to
the shop and make a safer parking site.

Depending on direction of travel to that point maybe...

The road you are illustrating has at the point you have marked it a
single lane flanked by a double lane in the opposite direction. In one
of those lanes traffic is queuing,

If you look even more closely you will see the traffic is queuing in a
bus lane!!! However, things aren't as bad as thay may appear. At the
time the photo was taken there were major junction roadworks just
north of the queuing traffic and the bus lane had been suspended and
the second lane closed at the junction. Now the junction has been
improved the queues have gone outside the rush hour. Clearly parking
opposite the box junction or on the zig-zags is unacceptable, but so
is driving on the pavement. Parking on the A20 red route to the north
of Woolies would have been the safest option for all and would have
allowed a clear line of sight to the shop. From the way it was
facing, the police car must have come from the A20 anyway.

Quoted message said:

which suggests the double carriageway
has prescribed turns left and right, there is a yellow box junction
opposite the position of the stop so parking in the roadway would force
traffic in the single carriageway into the path of traffic in the outer
lane of the double carriageway and restrict the junction as well as
blocking the sightlines of the adjacent traffic signals for the
crossing. I would want a good sight line to the vehicle and store so if
I approached from that road, was responding to a call and was safe to do
so I think I would choose that as probably the best place to stop.

Sorry I do not agree with your assessment but I don't think insisting on
the rule in this situation was or is applicable provided that no danger
was caused to pedestrians as the vehicle was parked.

Why is it acceptable for the police to drive on the pavement on a
routine emergency call when it's illegal for an eight year old cyclist
to ride to school on the pavement?

Tom,

You are an intelligent person so I find it difficult to credit that you
are choosing this as an issue over which to raise a debate. Had you
said that the officer had chosen to park in that position to visit
MacDonald's I would agree with your stance but that is not the case and
the officer is responding to a priority message.

As a society we expect our emergency services to react to calls for
assistance quickly, we allow them a certain latitude in doing so
provided that when they use that latitude they do so with reasonable
care. If they fail to show that care then there is an investigation and
possibly criminal proceedings.

As a society we also recognise that members of the public might at some
point have to respond to the emergency services desire to make progress
and allow that they would not face prosecution for an offence so long as
their action were reasonable in the circumstances.

That you suggest that the officer could have parked the vehicle on the
A20 suggests a double standard. Why is it permissible for the officer
to park the vehicle on a red route but not on a pavement, should he not
find a legal parking place?

The fact is that to insist on the letter of the law under all
circumstances would have a seriously deleterious effect on the response
of the emergency services. That is why society allows the emergency
services such latitude and demands that they are responsible and
accountable.

When on duty each driver drives on a civilian licence, we hold a police
permit but our civilian licence is at risk if we overstep the bounds of
what society regards as safe or responsible even whilst responding to an
emergency call.

I would take issue with your phrase " ...routine emergency call". There
is no such thing as a "routine emergency call". It is either an
emergency call or it isn't.

Consider this,

X - x - O - o

XX - xx - OO -

What comes next?

If you answer oo then you have made an assumption that there is a
pattern, a routine on which you can base an assumption. In police work
there is no such pattern, hence the officer getting stabbed. She had
established a pattern, a routine for dealing with x,y or z, when that
pattern changed she got injured because she had not taken the proper
precautions.

Sniper8052

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Tom,

You are an intelligent person so I find it difficult to credit that you
are choosing this as an issue over which to raise a debate. Had you
said that the officer had chosen to park in that position to visit
MacDonald's I would agree with your stance but that is not the case and
the officer is responding to a priority message.

As a society we expect our emergency services to react to calls for
assistance quickly, we allow them a certain latitude in doing so
provided that when they use that latitude they do so with reasonable
care. If they fail to show that care then there is an investigation and
possibly criminal proceedings.

As a society we also recognise that members of the public might at some
point have to respond to the emergency services desire to make progress
and allow that they would not face prosecution for an offence so long as
their action were reasonable in the circumstances.

That you suggest that the officer could have parked the vehicle on the
A20 suggests a double standard. Why is it permissible for the officer
to park the vehicle on a red route but not on a pavement, should he not
find a legal parking place?

The fact is that to insist on the letter of the law under all
circumstances would have a seriously deleterious effect on the response
of the emergency services. That is why society allows the emergency
services such latitude and demands that they are responsible and
accountable.

When on duty each driver drives on a civilian licence, we hold a police
permit but our civilian licence is at risk if we overstep the bounds of
what society regards as safe or responsible even whilst responding to an
emergency call.

I would take issue with your phrase " ...routine emergency call". There
is no such thing as a "routine emergency call". It is either an
emergency call or it isn't.

Consider this,

X - x - O - o

XX - xx - OO -

What comes next?

If you answer oo then you have made an assumption that there is a
pattern, a routine on which you can base an assumption. In police work
there is no such pattern, hence the officer getting stabbed. She had
established a pattern, a routine for dealing with x,y or z, when that
pattern changed she got injured because she had not taken the proper
precautions.

I don't disagree with much of what you say, but driving on the
pavement, like driving at 154mph on a motorway, oversteps the mark for
a reasonable response to an emergency call, except in very specific
and unusual circumstances.

Last summer I had a long and fruitful meeting with the park manager of
Greenwich Park. The road through Greenwich Park is closed to through
traffic between 10am and 4pm. However, he'd always left the exit gate
at the bottom open for emergency access. Unfortunately the police
abused the access and would use the park as a short cut and the road
through the park as a race track. He was forced to give notice that
he'd be locking the exit gate (which the police had been using as an
entrance). The fire brigate objected saying they'd have no access in
case of a fire in the park, so the gate is now locked in the daytime
with one of their special yellow locks so they can still gain access.
In other words, following reckless behaviour by police drivers, the
park manager has been forced to deny them access.

And if you still think driving onto the pavement is safe for police
drivers, take a look at this picture.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/policewreck.jpg

This police car tried to mount the pavement just north of the point
where the police car was parked in the aerial photo - marked by a
cross.

http://www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/woolies.jpg

You can clearly see the box junction and the zig-zag lines to relate
the photo to the aerial view, and the place where the bicycle is
locked is the exact place where the police car parked itself last
weekend on its call to Woolworths.

Accidents do happen, and our pavements should be kept clear of all
motor traffic.

Sniper8052(L96A1) said:

Consider this,

X - x - O - o

XX - xx - OO -

What comes next?

If you answer oo then you have made an assumption that there is a
pattern, a routine on which you can base an assumption. In police work
there is no such pattern

Rubbish.

If there is no pattern, there can be no training.