On 09/03/2013 10:24, Chris J Dixon wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

I am pretty sure that the same amount of money invested elsewhere would
be far more effective in saving lives.

However its your money to spend as you please, just don't try and spend
public money on them.

Yet another demonstration that there is no limit to the areas in
which you lack understanding.

A relative of mine owes her life to the London Air Ambulance,
following an accident on the Cromwell Road.

Even the Air Ambulance crew didn't really expect her to make it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zZdIUdGZda8

Chris


However her life was probably saved by the ambulance that arrived before
the helicopter was even asked for.

It would be interesting but rather costly in lives to see what happened
if they didn't send an ambulance and only sent the air ambulance.
Totally impractical of course as the helicopter wouldn't be able to land
without someone else being there.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 09/03/2013 10:24, Chris J Dixon wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

I am pretty sure that the same amount of money invested elsewhere would
be far more effective in saving lives.

However its your money to spend as you please, just don't try and spend
public money on them.

Yet another demonstration that there is no limit to the areas in
which you lack understanding.

A relative of mine owes her life to the London Air Ambulance,
following an accident on the Cromwell Road.

Even the Air Ambulance crew didn't really expect her to make it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zZdIUdGZda8

Chris


However her life was probably saved by the ambulance that arrived before
the helicopter was even asked for.

It would be interesting but rather costly in lives to see what happened if
they didn't send an ambulance and only sent the air ambulance.

Totally impractical of course as the helicopter wouldn't be able to land
without someone else being there.

Bull****. Ours do it all the time.

On 9 Mar, 18:47, "dennis@home" wrote:
On 09/03/2013 10:24, Chris J Dixon wrote:









dennis@home wrote:

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

I am pretty sure that the same amount of money invested elsewhere would
be far more effective in saving lives.

However its your money to spend as you please, just don't try and spend
public money on them.

Yet another demonstration that there is no limit to the areas in
which you lack understanding.

A relative of mine owes her life to the London Air Ambulance,
following an accident on the Cromwell Road.

Even the Air Ambulance crew didn't really expect her to make it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=zZdIUdGZda8

Chris

However her life was probably saved by the ambulance that arrived before
the helicopter was even asked for.

It would be interesting but rather costly in lives to see what happened
if they didn't send an ambulance and only sent the air ambulance.
Totally impractical of course as the helicopter wouldn't be able to land
without someone else being there.

Yet again you display your total ignorance. The "someone else" does
not need to be ambulance crew, or even medically trained.

MBQ

On 9/03/2013 5:44 a.m., Jethro_uk wrote:

I do not think it is an offense to be abusive to an unsolicited phone
call. Is unsolicited the correct word?

Interesting question ....

Just to try and get back to the point, the question was: is there any law
preventing a person from being offensive to a cold caller ?


What the law says and what the law does are often two different things.

On 10/03/2013 7:41 a.m., dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:

Is it still an offence to use abusive language over the public telephone
system?

Was it ever? It is/was an offence to transmit obscene language (wireless)
at one time, but I'd guess that is rarely enforced these days. ;-)


What do you think malicious calls are and how they are treated?

Surely it makes a difference who initiated the call.

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal
when they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's
assuming that the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been some
talk about them out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and
the paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the
work to stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 09/03/2013 21:08 Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

It does if an increase in staff means they are not so thinly spread.

--
F

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:16:12 +0000, F wrote:

On 09/03/2013 21:08 Bob Eager wrote:

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if
the air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

It does if an increase in staff means they are not so thinly spread.

How does more staff handle a traffic jam? Air ambulances are often
deployed where a road transfer would take too long.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Gib Bogle" wrote in message
...
On 9/03/2013 5:44 a.m., Jethro_uk wrote:

I do not think it is an offense to be abusive to an unsolicited phone
call. Is unsolicited the correct word?

Interesting question ....

Just to try and get back to the point, the question was: is there any law
preventing a person from being offensive to a cold caller ?


What the law says and what the law does are often two different things.

Not very often at all in fact.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal
when they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's
assuming that the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been some
talk about them out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and
the paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the
work to stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambuances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:23:02 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save
lives. Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal
when they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's
assuming that the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been
some talk about them out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any
lives. If you think about it they are always secondary units to
arrive and the paramedics that are already at the sceen have
already done the work to stabilise the patient before the
helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down
the road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before
the paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance
arrived in about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first
responders not paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if
the air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambuances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich

That is a staffing problem at the hospital, isn't it? Waiting time in A&E
doesn't start ticking until they are unloaded.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 9 Mar 2013 21:25:07 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if
the air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating
theatre any faster.

It does if an increase in staff means they are not so thinly spread.

How does more staff handle a traffic jam? Air ambulances are often
deployed where a road transfer would take too long.

Quite, and it doesn't have to be traffic just the distance and the roads.
Seems that many posting in this bit of the thread are townies and expect
a paramedic ambulance to arrive in 5 mins and they are only 15 mins by
road from an major A&E department.

The nearest A&E to here is 40 mins away in a car, without traffic,
motoring well. Ambulance with patient on board will be much nearer, if
not over, an hour. The roads are mostly narrow, single carriageways, with
many blind bends. If truck comes the other way on a straight bit you
breath in, meeting on a bend makes the heart beat faster... Oh and you
will have waited about 40 minuets for the paramedic ambulance to arrive
in the first place.

The nearest A&E isn't a major trauma A&E either. The nearest of those is
over an hour by car... Flying time to the major A&E is a couple of tens
of minuets, if that. Flying time in is hardly enough to warm the engines
up properly as one of the GNAS helos is based 10 miles away. B-)

As for spending the money on more paramedics so they can reach any part
of the UK land mass in say 10 mins. You'd have an awful lot of very bored
and very skilled people sitting about doing nothing virtually all the
time. We did have a (singular) paramedic based on The Moor for a while
but they hated it. 1 (One) call a week on average is not exactly what
they spent years training for. There was some talk of rotating them
round, come out here for some peace and quiet after taking the physical
and verbal abuse from the vomit covered drunken clubbers in the center of
Carlisle for a couple of weeks. I think that was far too radical for the
suits in charge...

The paramedic was taken away, it really was very hard to justify. We
still have, just, an Ambulance and first responders but the NHS Trust
(ha!, "trust" wouldn't trust 'em further than I could throw 'em) wanted
to take that away as well. Damn suits looking at the age of the ambulance
and the qualifications of the first responders and not seeing them serve
any useful purpose with out spending money. Their minds have been changed
once it was pointed out that the average response time for an ambulance
off The Moor to here *is* 40 mins and that some one will die if they take
away even the limited local service. We'd also make sure the media knew
the background if that did happen as well... Some one with half a clue
and basic kit is better than none at all, particularly for the best part
of the "golden hour". I think they are going to spend the money on
upgrading the vehicle and some more training, but it's all gone
worryingly quiet...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 09/03/2013 22:48, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Quite, and it doesn't have to be traffic just the distance and the roads.
Seems that many posting in this bit of the thread are townies and expect
a paramedic ambulance to arrive in 5 mins and they are only 15 mins by
road from an major A&E department.

The nearest A&E to here is 40 mins away in a car, without traffic,
motoring well. Ambulance with patient on board will be much nearer, if
not over, an hour. The roads are mostly narrow, single carriageways, with
many blind bends. If truck comes the other way on a straight bit you
breath in, meeting on a bend makes the heart beat faster... Oh and you
will have waited about 40 minuets for the paramedic ambulance to arrive
in the first place.

The nearest A&E isn't a major trauma A&E either. The nearest of those is
over an hour by car... Flying time to the major A&E is a couple of tens
of minuets, if that. Flying time in is hardly enough to warm the engines
up properly as one of the GNAS helos is based 10 miles away. B-)

As for spending the money on more paramedics so they can reach any part
of the UK land mass in say 10 mins. You'd have an awful lot of very bored
and very skilled people sitting about doing nothing virtually all the
time. We did have a (singular) paramedic based on The Moor for a while
but they hated it. 1 (One) call a week on average is not exactly what
they spent years training for. There was some talk of rotating them
round, come out here for some peace and quiet after taking the physical
and verbal abuse from the vomit covered drunken clubbers in the center of
Carlisle for a couple of weeks. I think that was far too radical for the
suits in charge...

The paramedic was taken away, it really was very hard to justify. We
still have, just, an Ambulance and first responders but the NHS Trust
(ha!, "trust" wouldn't trust 'em further than I could throw 'em) wanted
to take that away as well. Damn suits looking at the age of the ambulance
and the qualifications of the first responders and not seeing them serve
any useful purpose with out spending money. Their minds have been changed
once it was pointed out that the average response time for an ambulance
off The Moor to here *is* 40 mins and that some one will die if they take
away even the limited local service. We'd also make sure the media knew
the background if that did happen as well... Some one with half a clue
and basic kit is better than none at all, particularly for the best part
of the "golden hour". I think they are going to spend the money on
upgrading the vehicle and some more training, but it's all gone
worryingly quiet...

Our A&E is 28 minutes away (Google maps estimate - while that is
possible in quieter times, it is not in rush hours or snow or when there
has been an accident on the very busy road). And that is despite living
in an "Urban Area" with over 115,000 population - not a couple of people
and a few sheep. :-)

We do have the advantage of ambulance stationed around.

--
Rod

In article om,
dennis@home scribeth thus
On 08/03/2013 11:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:40:59 -0000, tim..... wrote:

Thing was, IIRC, he was collecting for something I actually might have
contributed to, under other circumstances. Hey-ho.

Except that you wouldn't have been contributing in any useful sense.
90% if it goes into his pocket

Or the pocket of the company that has been engaged to pay people to go
round knocking on doors...

The only charity that gets any money out of me is the Great North Air
Ambulance via their lottery, I might win something or I might need their
services and I find it disgusting that all the Air Ambulance Services are
not funded from central government via the NHS or what ever.


The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.

Den...

Beg to correct U as always, but back in July 2009 my very existence was
saved by an air ambulance. If that hadn't got me quite some distance to
a specialist unit I'd have been history;!....


If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

No always so...

--
Tony Sayer

On 09/03/2013 19:54, Man at B&Q wrote:

Yet again you display your total ignorance. The "someone else" does
not need to be ambulance crew, or even medically trained.

MBQ


Go on then, phone up and ask for an air ambulance and see what they say.

On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:23:02 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambuances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich

Fat *******s stuck in the rear doors again?

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:

Is it still an offence to use abusive language over the public
telephone system?

Was it ever? It is/was an offence to transmit obscene language
(wireless) at one time, but I'd guess that is rarely enforced these
days. ;-)


What do you think malicious calls are and how they are treated?

You don't know the difference between malicious and abusive?

If I called you a c**t - that's abusive.
If I call you a thieving c**t - that's malicious.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/03/2013 01:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:

Is it still an offence to use abusive language over the public
telephone system?

Was it ever? It is/was an offence to transmit obscene language
(wireless) at one time, but I'd guess that is rarely enforced these
days. ;-)


What do you think malicious calls are and how they are treated?

You don't know the difference between malicious and abusive?

If I called you a c**t - that's abusive.
If I call you a thieving c**t - that's malicious.

But the BT definition of mailcious calls is:

"Malicious calls - calls that aim to distress you"

IMHO responding on a call made by someone to you falls outwith that
definition. Whether other definitions (including, of course, formal
legal definitions such as exist, or precedents) also require the call to
have been made with the intent of causing distress, is another question...

--
Rod

On 10/03/2013 01:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:

Is it still an offence to use abusive language over the public
telephone system?

Was it ever? It is/was an offence to transmit obscene language
(wireless) at one time, but I'd guess that is rarely enforced these
days. ;-)


What do you think malicious calls are and how they are treated?

You don't know the difference between malicious and abusive?

If I called you a c**t - that's abusive.
If I call you a thieving c**t - that's malicious.

Doesn't it depend on whether it's true or not?

--
David

On 10/03/2013 09:58, Lobster wrote:
On 10/03/2013 01:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 00:27, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
bert ] wrote:

Is it still an offence to use abusive language over the public
telephone system?

Was it ever? It is/was an offence to transmit obscene language
(wireless) at one time, but I'd guess that is rarely enforced these
days. ;-)


What do you think malicious calls are and how they are treated?

You don't know the difference between malicious and abusive?

If I called you a c**t - that's abusive.
If I call you a thieving c**t - that's malicious.

Doesn't it depend on whether it's true or not?

The BT definition suggests not. If you call someone with the intent of
distressing them, even if what you say within the call is 100% true, I
think it could count as a malicious call.

--
Rod

On 08/03/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2013 11:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:40:59 -0000, tim..... wrote:

Thing was, IIRC, he was collecting for something I actually might have
contributed to, under other circumstances. Hey-ho.

Except that you wouldn't have been contributing in any useful sense.
90% if it goes into his pocket

Or the pocket of the company that has been engaged to pay people to go
round knocking on doors...

The only charity that gets any money out of me is the Great North Air
Ambulance via their lottery, I might win something or I might need their
services and I find it disgusting that all the Air Ambulance Services are
not funded from central government via the NHS or what ever.


The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

The LAS HEMS helicopter is funded by Guvmint.

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

The Denboi idiot strikes again. Helicopters have two useful functions,
1) being that they can get to remote or difficult areas faster and 2)
that they can get the patient to hospital faster.


I am pretty sure that the same amount of money invested elsewhere would
be far more effective in saving lives.

I am pretty sure you are talking out of your rectum again.

However its your money to spend as you please, just don't try and spend
public money on them.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal when
they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's assuming that
the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been some talk about them
out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

Is the correct answer.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/03/2013 18:38, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal when
they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's assuming that
the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been some talk about them
out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

None.


How many less would there be if the NHS had to fund the helicopters?

None.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/03/2013 22:23, charles wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal
when they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's
assuming that the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been some
talk about them out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and
the paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the
work to stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambuances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich

You don't get seen in A&E any faster if you arrive in an ambulance. You
get triage'd and are seen according to your needs.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/03/2013 23:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 19:54, Man at B&Q wrote:

Yet again you display your total ignorance. The "someone else" does
not need to be ambulance crew, or even medically trained.

MBQ


Go on then, phone up and ask for an air ambulance and see what they say.

Once again Denboi shows his ignorance.

The decision to send out the HEMS would be made by the silver paramedic
on scene, but it's landing area doesn't have to be attended by an
ambulance crew.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/03/2013 23:13, polygonum wrote:

Our A&E is 28 minutes away (Google maps estimate - while that is
possible in quieter times, it is not in rush hours or snow or when there
has been an accident on the very busy road). And that is despite living
in an "Urban Area" with over 115,000 population - not a couple of people
and a few sheep. :-)

We do have the advantage of ambulance stationed around.

We've got three A&E inside half-an-hour. Two twenty minutes away, and
one 28. (Google maps outside rush hour yadah...) You can guess which one
serves this area The local hospital is gradually being downgraded and
now only has a "minor injuries unit".

Of course the disadvantage of having good motorway links (we're stuck
between M3 and M4) is that they are all the other side of a motorway
that stops every rush-hour.

And I can't see an ambulance getting here from our local station in 10
minutes either.

Andy

On 10/03/2013 10:13, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2013 11:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:40:59 -0000, tim..... wrote:

Thing was, IIRC, he was collecting for something I actually might have
contributed to, under other circumstances. Hey-ho.

Except that you wouldn't have been contributing in any useful sense.
90% if it goes into his pocket

Or the pocket of the company that has been engaged to pay people to go
round knocking on doors...

The only charity that gets any money out of me is the Great North Air
Ambulance via their lottery, I might win something or I might need their
services and I find it disgusting that all the Air Ambulance Services
are
not funded from central government via the NHS or what ever.


The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

The LAS HEMS helicopter is partly funded by Guvmint.

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

The Denboi idiot strikes again. Helicopters have two useful functions,
1) being that they can get to remote or difficult areas faster and 2)
that they can get the patient to hospital faster.


I am pretty sure that the same amount of money invested elsewhere would
be far more effective in saving lives.

I am pretty sure you are talking out of your rectum again.

However its your money to spend as you please, just don't try and spend
public money on them.




--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 10/03/2013 11:18, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/03/2013 23:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 19:54, Man at B&Q wrote:

Yet again you display your total ignorance. The "someone else" does
not need to be ambulance crew, or even medically trained.

MBQ


Go on then, phone up and ask for an air ambulance and see what they say.

Once again Denboi shows his ignorance.

The decision to send out the HEMS would be made by the silver paramedic
on scene, but it's landing area doesn't have to be attended by an
ambulance crew.


Just got a txt back from No 1 daughter.

Crew on scene can request HEMS, but there are automatic dispatch
criteria; penetrating trauma, falls from height, RTC with passenger
ejection etc.

There is always a HEMS paramedic in control monitoring calls and caling
back for information.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/03/2013 22:23, charles wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal
when they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's
assuming that the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been some
talk about them out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and
the paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the
work to stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambuances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich



Well there you are, spend the air ambulance money on more A&E staff, far
more likely to save lives.

On 10/03/2013 14:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/03/2013 22:23, charles wrote:
In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 18:38:23 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 08/03/2013 23:42, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 20:25:39 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

AFAIK all the mountain rescue teams are charity funded. No help from
central goverment, I don't think any run helicopters. RAF Search and
Rescue is part of the RAF and principly there to rescue RAF personal
when they crash, rescuing the general public is training. That's
assuming that the RAF/MOD continue to fund RAF S&R, there has been
some
talk about them out sourcing it...

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and
the paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the
work to stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even
scrambled.

Complete and utter ********. Car crash couple of hundred yards down
the
road from here the air ambulance was here a good 30 mins before the
paramedic ambulance. The local "first responder" ambulance arrived in
about 5 minutes but the crew of that are only first responders not
paramedics. What they can do is very limited.

So how many better trained and equipped paramedics could there be if
the
air ambulance money had been spent on them?

Irrelevant. More staff doesn't get the patient to the operating theatre
any faster.

indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambulances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich



Well there you are, spend the air ambulance money on more A&E staff, far
more likely to save lives.

Minor problem your tiny little brain won't have thought of.

The patients will be dead before they get there.....

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Dave Liquorice" wrote:
[snip]

The only charity that gets any money out of me is the Great North Air
Ambulance via their lottery, I might win something or I might need their
services and I find it disgusting that all the Air Ambulance Services are
not funded from central government via the NHS or what ever.

I've given money to the RNLI for years, another charity that deserves
support. I feel that the country needs a service like the RNLI to support
ambulances, air ambulances and paramedics. That is, an organisation
structured like the RNLI capable of specifying and providing the necessary
vehicles, crew training and management services funded entirely by
charitable donation.

The RNLI was, briefly, a government funded organisation. It was a disaster
and the RNLI ended up opting to go back to charitable status. It just works
better. Get it government funded and it will end up under the thumb of some
moron like dennis.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
indeed, a couple of days ago it was reported that ambuances were taking
over 2 hours to unload patients at a hospital in Norwich

You don't get seen in A&E any faster if you arrive in an ambulance. You
get triage'd and are seen according to your needs.

Mmm.. and get moved to a treatment bay after two hours irrespective of
any doctor being available to actually do anything.

The real annoyance is that there are books and a TV in the waiting
room...


--
Tim Lamb

On 10/03/2013 15:14, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 10/03/2013 14:20, dennis@home wrote:

Well there you are, spend the air ambulance money on more A&E staff, far
more likely to save lives.

Minor problem your tiny little brain won't have thought of.

The patients will be dead before they get there.....


Double win there, less patients to be dealt with by more staff. That
will make the A&E numbers look much better, as the waiting time will be
so much less.

What?

Oh. Yes, more people die.

Let's hope the NHS and the politicians aren't listening. They might take
the idea seriously.

Andy

On 10/03/2013 18:28, Andy Champ wrote:
On 10/03/2013 15:14, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 10/03/2013 14:20, dennis@home wrote:

Well there you are, spend the air ambulance money on more A&E staff, far
more likely to save lives.

Minor problem your tiny little brain won't have thought of.

The patients will be dead before they get there.....


Double win there, less patients to be dealt with by more staff. That
will make the A&E numbers look much better, as the waiting time will be
so much less.

What?

Oh. Yes, more people die.

Let's hope the NHS and the politicians aren't listening. They might take
the idea seriously.

You couldn't make up the Guvmint targets for the ambulance service.

Based on a report that was later discredited - by the author, which the
politicians miss read, the Guvmint have an 8 minute target for Cat A
(life threatening) calls.

So, if the ambo arrives in 9 minutes & they save the patients life -
it's a failure. If they arrive in 7 mins & the patient dies - it's a
success. No clinical element.

To meet the targets, LAS have put loads of FRU's (fast response units)
on the road - but they can't transport patients. So the FRU responder
usually has to wait for an ambulance.

Now you have 3 medics & 2 vehicles dealing with a call that previously
took 2 medics & 1 vehicle.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

In article ,
says...


Mmm.. and get moved to a treatment bay after two hours irrespective of
any doctor being available to actually do anything.

The real annoyance is that there are books and a TV in the waiting
room...

I agree.

That TV in the waiting room is _really_ annoying.


--
Sam

On 08/03/2013 22:41, Rod Speed wrote:


"Sam Plusnet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"Sam Plusnet" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

snip lots more

It is unlawful to make direct marketing calls to individuals who
have indicated that they do not want to receive such calls. "


Which is why many of the cold calls I get (despite the TPS) claim
to be
"a survey" or "reminding me I still haven't claimed..." etc. etc.


It does not matter what they "pretend" the call is about. If the
ultimate
aim is to sell something then it's banned

i.e. enough wriggle-room (in their view) to evade legislation.


No it doesn't. They may think that it does, but it doesn't

Possibly,

Certainly,

but since their livelihood depends upon it, I suspect that they've
spent more time thinking about this topic than you or I.

Those who wrote the law certainly did.

Our laws all seem to be written to be open to interpretation. This keeps
the legal profession rolling in money. Funnily enough the goverment and
opposition have a lot of legal people in them. Coincidence? I think not!

I write Engineering documents and spend a lot of time and effort
eliminating ambiguity and possible misinterpretation. I want my
documents to inform a supplier clearly what is wanted, without any doubt
or loopholes. The massed intelligences of government are surely able to
achieve the same end when preparing legislation, unless they choose not to.

SteveW

On 09/03/2013 23:13, polygonum wrote:
On 09/03/2013 22:48, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Quite, and it doesn't have to be traffic just the distance and the roads.
Seems that many posting in this bit of the thread are townies and expect
a paramedic ambulance to arrive in 5 mins and they are only 15 mins by
road from an major A&E department.

The nearest A&E to here is 40 mins away in a car, without traffic,
motoring well. Ambulance with patient on board will be much nearer, if
not over, an hour. The roads are mostly narrow, single carriageways, with
many blind bends. If truck comes the other way on a straight bit you
breath in, meeting on a bend makes the heart beat faster... Oh and you
will have waited about 40 minuets for the paramedic ambulance to arrive
in the first place.

The nearest A&E isn't a major trauma A&E either. The nearest of those is
over an hour by car... Flying time to the major A&E is a couple of tens
of minuets, if that. Flying time in is hardly enough to warm the engines
up properly as one of the GNAS helos is based 10 miles away. B-)

As for spending the money on more paramedics so they can reach any part
of the UK land mass in say 10 mins. You'd have an awful lot of very bored
and very skilled people sitting about doing nothing virtually all the
time. We did have a (singular) paramedic based on The Moor for a while
but they hated it. 1 (One) call a week on average is not exactly what
they spent years training for. There was some talk of rotating them
round, come out here for some peace and quiet after taking the physical
and verbal abuse from the vomit covered drunken clubbers in the center of
Carlisle for a couple of weeks. I think that was far too radical for the
suits in charge...

The paramedic was taken away, it really was very hard to justify. We
still have, just, an Ambulance and first responders but the NHS Trust
(ha!, "trust" wouldn't trust 'em further than I could throw 'em) wanted
to take that away as well. Damn suits looking at the age of the ambulance
and the qualifications of the first responders and not seeing them serve
any useful purpose with out spending money. Their minds have been changed
once it was pointed out that the average response time for an ambulance
off The Moor to here *is* 40 mins and that some one will die if they take
away even the limited local service. We'd also make sure the media knew
the background if that did happen as well... Some one with half a clue
and basic kit is better than none at all, particularly for the best part
of the "golden hour". I think they are going to spend the money on
upgrading the vehicle and some more training, but it's all gone
worryingly quiet...

Our A&E is 28 minutes away (Google maps estimate - while that is
possible in quieter times, it is not in rush hours or snow or when there
has been an accident on the very busy road). And that is despite living
in an "Urban Area" with over 115,000 population - not a couple of people
and a few sheep. :-)

Ours is currently 90 seconds away, but the trust want to close it and
send everyone to one 25 minutes away - assuming no hold-ups. Ours is
also close to the Trafford Centre, the M60 and the M62 (lots of
accidents happen around this junction and a fair few people jump from
the motorway bridge - some survive), the other is close to a different
part of the M60 and the M56.

SteveW

On 10/03/2013 10:13, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/03/2013 20:25, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/03/2013 11:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 8 Mar 2013 10:40:59 -0000, tim..... wrote:

Thing was, IIRC, he was collecting for something I actually might have
contributed to, under other circumstances. Hey-ho.

Except that you wouldn't have been contributing in any useful sense.
90% if it goes into his pocket

Or the pocket of the company that has been engaged to pay people to go
round knocking on doors...

The only charity that gets any money out of me is the Great North Air
Ambulance via their lottery, I might win something or I might need their
services and I find it disgusting that all the Air Ambulance Services
are
not funded from central government via the NHS or what ever.


The government does fund helicopters where they actually save lives.
Like mountain rescue by the RAF, etc.

The LAS HEMS helicopter is funded by Guvmint.

However the helicopter air ambulances probably don't save any lives.
If you think about it they are always secondary units to arrive and the
paramedics that are already at the sceen have already done the work to
stabilise the patient before the helicopter is even scrambled.

The Denboi idiot strikes again. Helicopters have two useful functions,
1) being that they can get to remote or difficult areas faster and 2)
that they can get the patient to hospital faster.

3) They can transport patients with back or neck injuries without the
bumps of road transport. Although you could consider that part of 2 by
having an ambulance drive at a crawl.

SteveW

On 08/03/2013 10:38, tim..... wrote:

"Peter Johnson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 09:00:12 +1300, Gib Bogle
wrote:

When people call talking about a survey, or mentioning the name of a
product or company, I just say "Not interested thanks" and hang up. I
actually feel a bit sorry for the people with these ****ty jobs. I
wouldn't have felt sorry for your caller, but then she never would have
got the chance to swear at me.

From yesterday:
'Is that Mr Johnson? We're doing a short 60 second life-style survey
of the people in the Parkside Close area.'

I had someone call me with a "survey" last week.

She asked some weird questions about whether we had carpets and whether
anyone in the house had asthma (along with the what age group are you
etc type questions.

And that was it.

I don't know if she was cold calling to try and get numbers for people
to call back later to try to sell some wooden flooring, but she could
have filtered me out form that by just establishing that I live in
rented and it wasn't my responsibility

Wooden/laminate flooring or HEPA filtered vacuum cleaner I would guess.

SteveW

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:48:52 +0000, SteveW wrote:

3) They can transport patients with back or neck injuries without the
bumps of road transport.

You can get some quite nasty vibrations in a helicopter, particulary in
hover but generally yes a smoother journey than some potholed A road. And
cornering doesn't shove you sideways like it does in a car.

--
Cheers
Dave.