On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:58:08 +0000, Adrian wrote:

But as I don't "do" sea based water sports, sailing, swimming etc I
feel my money is better donated to the GNAS. I may well need the
services of the GNAS...

But it is not unknown for them to turn out for inland flooding
situations.

If we get flooded bad enough for a boat to be required there will be an
awful lot more things to worry about. Says him located on the side of a
valley 1400' ASL and several hundred foot above the valley bottom...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/03/2013 07:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2013 21:48, SteveW wrote:
On 10/03/2013 10:13, The Moron Handyman wrote:

8


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


So now you want air ambulances at *all* crashes, etc. as the patient may
have a neck or back injury.

No, you're making that up. I said no such thing.

After a crash an air ambulance is requested where the ground paramedics
consider it a sensible or necessary precaution - not for every crash.
They are also used to transport patients between hospitals at times,
either where speed or lack of bumps is necessary - you used to see
stories in the papers of ambulances transferring patients long distances
to specialist spinal units, crawling at 10mph along motorways with
police escorts.

SteveW

On 11/03/2013 19:20, dennis@home wrote:
On 11/03/2013 11:38, Steve Firth wrote:
polygonum wrote:
On 11/03/2013 00:35, Steve Firth wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote:
[snip]

Do you want to quote stats that actually show how many lives are
saved by air ambulances?
There are plenty for the RNLI.

There are plenty for air ambulances. Only a ****ing moron would
attempt to
suggest by sneering that the stats are either hard to find or
non-existent.


The Air Ambulance Service Annual Situation Audit shows 24
helicopters, an
average of 857 lives saved per helicopter per year, so 20,568 lives per
year.

Are you planning to stop stealing oxygen anytime soon pennis?

I would further point out that there are only around ten or twelve
spinal
injury centres in the whole of the UK and Ireland. Availability of
helicopters to transfer patients from scenes of accidents, or other
units, to these specialist units is inherent in the justification for
having so few.

Also that as such things go the Air Ambulance is an efficient service
with
an average cost of £1000 for each life saved.

The RNLI rescues about 22 people per day and spends £140.5 million pa.
that's a cost of £17,500 per life saved.


However it costs a lot more to send a life boat out an a search and
rescue mission than it does to send a helicopter to a known location
where there is probably an ambulance with flashing blue lights on it
attending to the victim.

I would think that many lifeboat launches are rescue missions to a
"known" location, navigation systems being so good these days. If it's
going to be a full search, a helicopter or plane is going to cover a
much larger area and much faster.

SteveW

On 12/03/2013 11:41, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:13:50 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

The LAS HEMS helicopter is funded by Guvmint.

Why only the LAS HEMS?(*) AFAIK none of the other Air Ambulance services
get any assistance from HMG.

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.

Dennis lives in a world where everything is no more than 10 minutes from
everything else. Around here there is no paramedic in attendance until
the Air Ambulance arrives, first responders maybe but no paramedic. Not
unless you are preaperd to wait 40 odd minutes for an ambulance to drive
in...

(*) Stuid question 'cause it's London, and the politicios spend a lot of
time there.


Only partly funded by Guvmint, not fully.

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

Huge wrote:
On 2013-03-12, SteveW wrote:
On 11/03/2013 19:20, dennis@home wrote:


However it costs a lot more to send a life boat out an a search and
rescue mission than it does to send a helicopter to a known location
where there is probably an ambulance with flashing blue lights on it
attending to the victim.

I would think that many lifeboat launches are rescue missions to a
"known" location, navigation systems being so good these days.

IIRC, VHF marine radios have to have built-in GPS these days so the lost
dumb-****s can just press the Big Red "Help Me" Button.

DSC rather than VHF.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2013-03-12, SteveW wrote:
On 11/03/2013 19:20, dennis@home wrote:


However it costs a lot more to send a life boat out an a search and
rescue mission than it does to send a helicopter to a known location
where there is probably an ambulance with flashing blue lights on it
attending to the victim.

I would think that many lifeboat launches are rescue missions to a
"known" location, navigation systems being so good these days.

IIRC, VHF marine radios have to have built-in GPS these days so the lost
dumb-****s can just press the Big Red "Help Me" Button.

Nope.

On 12/03/2013 11:15, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:15:59 +0000 (UTC), Steve Firth wrote:

I've given money to the RNLI for years, another charity that deserves
support.

But as I don't "do" sea based water sports, sailing, swimming etc I feel
my money is better donated to the GNAS. I may well need the services of
the GNAS...

That's a bit selfish only supporting charity that you may need.
Lets hope you don't ever need rescuing in a flood and the RNLI inland
rescue teams don't turn up.

On 12/03/2013 11:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:25:55 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

there is a lot of evidence that a paramedic attending does save people.
There isn't much evidence that sending a helicopter to ferry a patient
that has been attended to by a paramedic has a better chance of
surviving than if they are taken by ambulance.

Small point the patient won't have been attended by a paramedic until the
Air Ambulance arrives...

Why would that be?
Paramedics don't have to operate from fixed bases like helicopters do.
A good ambulance service will know where incidents are likely and will
already have a paramedic nearby.
Why do you think you see ambulances parked on motorway bridges and
supermarket car parks? A hint. they aren't shopping.


Even a biker paramedic would still take 30 odd minutes to arrive,
assuming they did the roads around here aren't very "biker friendly". On
average one or two bikers a year kill themselves outright. ie. even if a
paramedic with a complete set of toys all set up and ready to go was sat
next to the wall they hit, they'd still be dead.

No need for an air hearse then.


And a biker paramedic would still require a paramedic ambulance to
transport the patient, always assuming the patient will last the hour
long road journey having already had to wait 30 mins for the paramedic
biker to arrive...

Around here the Air Ambulance is quite often dispatched because a road
ambulance will simply take too long to arrive and the transfer time via
road would also be too long.


Lucky you, not much use for the other 99% though.

On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ


I didn't say they did.
Someone stupid said it, maybe it was you!

On 12/03/2013 20:28, SteveW wrote:
On 11/03/2013 07:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2013 21:48, SteveW wrote:
On 10/03/2013 10:13, The Moron Handyman wrote:

8


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


So now you want air ambulances at *all* crashes, etc. as the patient may
have a neck or back injury.

No, you're making that up. I said no such thing.


Well how do you know the victim doesn't have neck or spinal injuries?
If its vital that they have a helicopter then you must need one for any
victim that could have neck or spinal injuries and you can't be sure
until they are in the hospital.

After a crash an air ambulance is requested where the ground paramedics
consider it a sensible or necessary precaution - not for every crash.

Don't tell Dave that he is sure there are no ground staff.


They are also used to transport patients between hospitals at times,
either where speed or lack of bumps is necessary - you used to see
stories in the papers of ambulances transferring patients long distances
to specialist spinal units, crawling at 10mph along motorways with
police escorts.

SteveW


That is not a reason to have emergency air ambulances.
You could use commercial services or design a better ambulance.

On 12/03/2013 20:35, SteveW wrote:

I would think that many lifeboat launches are rescue missions to a
"known" location, navigation systems being so good these days. If it's
going to be a full search, a helicopter or plane is going to cover a
much larger area and much faster.

SteveW


If a man falls overboard you *might* know the position to a few hundred
metres, its still going to be hard to find them in the dark.

On Mar 13, 1:46*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ

I didn't say they did.

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

Clearly there will likeley be someone else there. It was reasonable to
assume you were referring to other emergency service personel.

Someone stupid said it,

Yes, you.

MBQ

"dennis@home" wrote:
On 12/03/2013 20:35, SteveW wrote:

I would think that many lifeboat launches are rescue missions to a
"known" location, navigation systems being so good these days. If it's
going to be a full search, a helicopter or plane is going to cover a
much larger area and much faster.

SteveW


If a man falls overboard you *might* know the position to a few hundred
metres, its still going to be hard to find them in the dark.

What sort of qualification do you have to skipper a boat pennis?

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

On 13/03/2013 13:53, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/03/2013 20:28, SteveW wrote:
On 11/03/2013 07:45, dennis@home wrote:
On 10/03/2013 21:48, SteveW wrote:
On 10/03/2013 10:13, The Moron Handyman wrote:

8


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


So now you want air ambulances at *all* crashes, etc. as the patient may
have a neck or back injury.

No, you're making that up. I said no such thing.


Well how do you know the victim doesn't have neck or spinal injuries?

Years of training & experience, idiot.

If its vital that they have a helicopter then you must need one for any
victim that could have neck or spinal injuries and you can't be sure
until they are in the hospital.

You can be 100% sure that someone has spinal/neck injury, but even the
suspicion is enough. If the journey is over rough terrain it could make
it worse.


After a crash an air ambulance is requested where the ground paramedics
consider it a sensible or necessary precaution - not for every crash.

Don't tell Dave that he is sure there are no ground staff.

You don't need medical training to man a helicopter landing area.


They are also used to transport patients between hospitals at times,
either where speed or lack of bumps is necessary - you used to see
stories in the papers of ambulances transferring patients long distances
to specialist spinal units, crawling at 10mph along motorways with
police escorts.

SteveW


That is not a reason to have emergency air ambulances.
You could use commercial services or design a better ambulance.


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

On 13/03/2013 13:46, dennis@home wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ


I didn't say they did.
Someone stupid said it, maybe it was you!

The Denboi idiot said; "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".


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

On 13/03/2013 15:28, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:46 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ

I didn't say they did.

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

Clearly there will likeley be someone else there. It was reasonable to
assume you were referring to other emergency service personel.

Someone stupid said it,

Yes, you.

MBQ


Nowhere did I say a paramedic or even emergency services.
However most helicopter landings anywhere near here need the
police/highways to stop the traffic on the motorway.

the same is true for most population centres.

On 14/03/2013 18:55, dennis@home wrote:
On 13/03/2013 15:28, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:46 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ

I didn't say they did.

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

Clearly there will likeley be someone else there. It was reasonable to
assume you were referring to other emergency service personel.

Someone stupid said it,

Yes, you.

MBQ


Nowhere did I say a paramedic or even emergency services.
However most helicopter landings anywhere near here need the
police/highways to stop the traffic on the motorway.

the same is true for most population centres.

Surely that is only if it needs to land on, or close to, a motorway?

It is actually possible for an incident requiring a helicopter to happen
other than on a motorway. Or do you live on a central reservation?

--
Rod

On 14 Mar, 18:55, "dennis@home" wrote:
On 13/03/2013 15:28, Man at B&Q wrote:









On Mar 13, 1:46 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ

I didn't say they did.

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

Clearly there will likeley be someone else there. It was reasonable to
assume you were referring to other emergency service personel.

Someone stupid said it,

Yes, you.

MBQ

Nowhere did I say a paramedic or even emergency services.
However most helicopter landings anywhere near here need the
police/highways to stop the traffic on the motorway.

the same is true for most population centres.

No motorways through our village, yet I know of at least three visits
by the air ambulance. Once landed in the middle of the T-junction at
the end of our road, serious piloting and it made a fantastic leaf
blower, once on the school playing field, the other I don't know.

MBQ

On 14 Mar, 18:59, polygonum wrote:
On 14/03/2013 18:55, dennis@home wrote:









On 13/03/2013 15:28, Man at B&Q wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:46 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
On 12/03/2013 13:29, Man at B&Q wrote:

But, but, but, Dennis will have a fit when he realises they don't need
a paramedic on the ground to guide them down.

MBQ

I didn't say they did.

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

Clearly there will likeley be someone else there. It was reasonable to
assume you were referring to other emergency service personel.

Someone stupid said it,

Yes, you.

MBQ

Nowhere did I say a paramedic or even emergency services.
However most helicopter landings anywhere near here need the
police/highways to stop the traffic on the motorway.

the same is true for most population centres.

Surely that is only if it needs to land on, or close to, a motorway?

It is actually possible for an incident requiring a helicopter to happen
other than on a motorway. Or do you live on a central reservation?

Under a bridge.

MBQ

In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
You don't need medical training to man a helicopter landing area.
Of course you don't - but you do need to be a trained helicopter
marshal.
--
bert

MOD trained helicopter marshal

On 14/03/2013 22:23, bert wrote:
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
You don't need medical training to man a helicopter landing area.
Of course you don't - but you do need to be a trained helicopter marshal.

Its best to ignore TMH.
He is pretty thick as can be seen by him quoting bits to prove I said a
paramedic where it doesn't say any such thing.
He has been deliberately misreading the stuff I write since my first post.
Just put him down as a troll.

On 15/03/2013 07:52, dennis@home wrote:
On 14/03/2013 22:23, bert wrote:
In message , The Medway Handyman
writes
You don't need medical training to man a helicopter landing area.
Of course you don't - but you do need to be a trained helicopter marshal.

Its best to ignore TMH.
He is pretty thick as can be seen by him quoting bits to prove I said a
paramedic where it doesn't say any such thing.
He has been deliberately misreading the stuff I write since my first post.
Just put him down as a troll.

Its best to ignore Denboi.

He is pretty thick as can be seen by him changing his mind & claiming he
didn't say things, or said something else.

He has been deliberately misreading any replies that don't support his
position.

Just put him down as the village idiot around here.

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

polygonum wrote:

It is actually possible for an incident requiring a helicopter to happen
other than on a motorway. Or do you live on a central reservation?

http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/080228_R042008_Ruscombe.pdf

58 The air ambulance helicopter was the first emergency service unit to arrive, quickly
followed by an ambulance vehicle and the police.

170 The Air Ambulance helicopter was deployed by the South Central Ambulance Service,
NHS Berkshire Division, as part of the emergency response to the accident. The helicopter
arrived at Ruscombe Junction at approximately 11:35 hrs and landed approximately 100
m from the site of the accident, (between Milley Bridge and 850B points) across the down
and up main railway lines (Figure 2).

171 The helicopter landed on the railway lines without formal permission from Network Rail.
There was some confusion in the terms used in the conversation between the Network Rail
control and the Ambulance control as to whether the lines were blocked and all trains had
been stopped.

173 On 2 July 2006, an air ambulance helicopter landed across the tracks at Burnham in
response to an accident. The helicopter landed without permission from Network Rail. In
this instance train movements had been stopped on the four railway lines at Burnham and
a serious accident was avoided. A joint operating procedure was subsequently written by
Network Rail and the air ambulance team to prevent this type of incident happening again.

254 The South Central Ambulance Service, NHS Berkshire Division, in consultation with
Network Rail has issued a new instruction to their air ambulance that the helicopter will
not land on or within 3 m of the railway track. This instruction will also be amended in the
air ambulance operational manual.

Recommendations to address issues associated with the emergency response
7 Network Rail and the National Health Service (NHS) should take steps to
correctly implement the existing protocol governing the landing of air ambulance
helicopters at rail incidents and accidents (paragraph 250).

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Mar 14, 10:23*pm, bert ] wrote:
In message , The Medway Handyman
writesYou don't need medical training to man a helicopter landing area.

Of course you don't - but you do need to be a trained helicopter
marshal.

The pilot can land thge air ambulance without help from the ground.

MBQ

On 10/03/2013 11:20, Andy Champ wrote:
On 09/03/2013 23:13, polygonum wrote:

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

Around my the ambulances are often sitting around in standby locations,
on a clear side of the regular traffic bottlenecks, so getting to a
patient is not so much of a problem. Getting them to hospital may be a
different matter - a recent _slight_ scattering of snow a few days ago
resulted in 3 hours to travel 14 miles to work!


--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk

On 10/03/2013 11:20, Andy Champ wrote:
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
Ambulances & FRUs don't usually return to station after a call, they
stay at strategic points (RVPs).


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

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:12:09 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 10/03/2013 11:20, Andy Champ wrote:
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
Ambulances & FRUs don't usually return to station after a call, they
stay at strategic points (RVPs).

Indeed, although I guess they keep one or two at our local station as
it's fairly central. My callouts have always come from there - 0.5 miles
away!

- SWMBO in suddenly accelerated labour
- car accident outside
- man driving into bus outside
- kid falling under car outside
- me collapsing on floor due to allergic reaction, banging head
- and son vomiting on station platform up the road (less said about that
one...)



--
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 17/03/2013 15:23, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:12:09 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 10/03/2013 11:20, Andy Champ wrote:
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
Ambulances & FRUs don't usually return to station after a call, they
stay at strategic points (RVPs).

Indeed, although I guess they keep one or two at our local station as
it's fairly central. My callouts have always come from there - 0.5 miles
away!

- SWMBO in suddenly accelerated labour
- car accident outside
- man driving into bus outside
- kid falling under car outside
- me collapsing on floor due to allergic reaction, banging head
- and son vomiting on station platform up the road (less said about that
one...)



Blimey! I'm glad I don't live near you!

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

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:26:27 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 17/03/2013 15:23, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:12:09 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

On 10/03/2013 11:20, Andy Champ wrote:
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
Ambulances & FRUs don't usually return to station after a call, they
stay at strategic points (RVPs).

Indeed, although I guess they keep one or two at our local station as
it's fairly central. My callouts have always come from there - 0.5
miles away!

- SWMBO in suddenly accelerated labour - car accident outside - man
driving into bus outside - kid falling under car outside - me
collapsing on floor due to allergic reaction, banging head - and son
vomiting on station platform up the road (less said about that
one...)



Blimey! I'm glad I don't live near you!

Bet your daughter is glad she doesn't work near me!



--
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