Theft of ambulance

[Vipers]

S3_Graham said:

Tuvra said:

S3_Graham said:

Rovinghawk said:

stevensdrs said:

He will probably get community service!

He might even get a fair trial first............

RH

he will get a fair trial, its the outcome of the trail that wont be fair.... on the rest of the nation.

Undoubtedly he will get a fair trial and appeal the decision over and over again, the solicitor acting on his behalf will be paid for by the tax payer as well so dick head has probably cost the tax payer what? £70-80k?.

no doubt some of his 'human rights' will be broken in some way/shape/form so he will then sue the state for 1billion also.

Let's see now, as you say 79-80 k at least, some smart arsed slipery lawyer who will find all the excuses under the sun why he shouldn't be found guilty, and at the end of the day, community service, which he won't do, and if he is lucky an increase in benifits for some reason or another then again, someone with a sick child may just give him a smack one dark night.

[roachcoach]

EDLT said:

I could understand it if it was sold on or was required for some Ocean's 11 style caper, but what is the point of stealing it just to set fire to it?

that was my assumption when I heard it had been nicked (but not yet recovered).

I actually expected it to be 'returned' after its true intention was revealed. I guess some people are too stupid for words.


At least it'll be insured, which is something.

[CraigyMc]

The only thing I can think is that the guy must have just come off the back of a Grand Theft Auto marathon.

C

[Rovinghawk]

S3_Graham said:

he will get a fair trial, its the outcome of the trail that wont be fair.... on the rest of the nation.

When you calm down you might consider the possibility that he didn't actually do it and is innocent.

If he's found guilty then fine, string the bugger up, btw.

RH

[Maxf]

roachcoach said:

At least it'll be insured, which is something.

I think ambulances are self insured - so underwritten by the service/government.

[D1ngd0ng]

Jasandjules said:

Simple, if he is convicted, place him on a list. He will not receive any ambulance responses, ever.

Hippocratic Oath? Interested to hear the opinion of the pro's

[blearyeyedboy]

D1ngd0ng said:

Hippocratic Oath? Interested to hear the opinion of the pro's

The Hippocratic Oath mentions nothing about this sort of thing. (Google it for yourself if you like. There are classical versions which start "I swear by Appollo.." and all that gubbins, or modern versions that are a little more practical.)

As far as legislative bodies go, there's a significant difference between actively doing harm (eg, taking a lead pipe to someone) and withholding your treatment (eg, someone who's just tried to knock my block off will be asked to leave without being treated, probably with the help of a security guard or the police.)

This is only the case for someone who's knowingly being a problem. For example, the guy who clouted my jaw because he was confused after coming round from an anaesthetic wasn't to blame, and I laughed about it with him later on. The guy who's been in a fight and bleeding on the floor who threatens staff can either calm down or go and bleed outside... This sounds harsh but if other patients are hurt then that's not on. It's the same if people are disadvantaged by staff being taken out of action by being hurt or by staff having their time occupied trying to de-escalate a situation- it's simply not fair on those other patients. Not to mention the fact that most of us would rather not be threatened or hurt at work.

The emphasis here is on someone who's a threat to staff/other people- a history of stealing an ambulance in this way probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy professional/regulatory bodies that their treatment should be withheld. (At a pinch, you might at least have it considered if someone was directly harmed there and then through inconsiderate actions but I doubt it'd wash with the powers-that-be...) A history of attacking healthcare staff or patients might.

There are patients who are banned from seeing GP's. They are usually seen in specific Violent Patient Units, losing their right to be seen locally and only being seen with security staff present at all times. I'm a doctor rather than an ambulance trust employee though; perhaps one of those could give their own perspective?

Edited by blearyeyedboy for crap spelling and grammar.

Edited by blearyeyedboy on Wednesday 21st September 10:58