In article , 
JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
> 
> >>>> Any idea of the deceased councillor's position on ambulances?
> 
> >>> You are a sick troll!
> 
> >> Really? Just because I have rather obliquely made reference to 
> >> something about which you are quite right to be deeply embarrassed? 
> >> Something for which you were rightly criticised by the relevant 
> >> authority? Something which means you are unfit to hold public office?
> 
> > You are relying on an inaccurate press report and not on the 
> > decisions of both the Standards Board for England and the local 
> > Standards Committee. They accepted that I was not intending to 
> > obstruct an ambulance on an emergency call.
> 
> Why so precise?
> 
> The Board did not exonerate you - did it?

No because I did make a mistake in the confused situation and offered to 
apologise. This was agreed and I did indeed apologise as required by the 
panel.

> If they did, let's have some evidence of your complete acquittal.
> 
> <drums fingers on desk>
> 
> But I'm not holding my breath...
> 
> After all, the press report is not likely to be wrong when it said:
> 
> STARTQUOTE:
> "The Board found Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City Council, 
> *had* failed to comply with the code of conduct and *brought his 
> office into disrepute*.
> Hazel Salisbury, Ethical Standards Officer for the Board, reported: 
> "While I understand Cllr Rosenstiel's concern over the parking 
> situation, there can be *no excuse for preventing such a 
> representative from administering treatment*.
> "Fortunately, the injury that Mr Austine was treating turned out 
> not to be life-threatening but Councillor Rosenstiel was *not aware 
> of that* at the time."
> ENDQUOTE
> 
> [My emphasis in each instance.]
> 
> Do you see what they said there?
> 
> Contrary to what you claim, Hazel Salisbury *didn't* agree that you 
> didn't know the ambulance was on an emergency call. The most they 
> allow is that you weren't aware of the *lightness* of the victim's 
> injuries.

Were you at the hearing? That's where her representative said that they 
accepted that I did not realise the ambulance was on an emergency call. 
The hearing panel accepted that too.

> Or alternatively, are you trying to spin the line that it's OK to 
> obstruct the operations of an ambulance on an emergency call as 
> long as you claim that you didn't realise it was on an emergency 
> call? What would you say if a Conservative or Labour councillor had 
> tried the same line? For shame, don't try an undignified wriggle 
> along the lines "I would have supported it", because you wouldn't 
> have done.

The ambulance should not have been able to do what he did in fact do 
because someone had left open a gate which should have been locked. The 
driver would have been able to obtain access but it would have taken him 
longer to get access than it in fact did in actuality.

> Even if you are relying on that the far-fetched "defence" you 
> mention, you surely aren't claiming that you have some sort of 
> right to obstruct ambulances which don't happen to be on an 
> emergency call, are you?
> 
> When are you going to resign as a councillor?

It was a misunderstanding in a confused situation. You clearly have no 
idea of what actually happened but are happy to make grubby politically 
motivated attacks.

Everyone who knows me, including many of my constituents. have been 
entirely supportive of me because they know I work very hard to support 
them as a councillor. I am not resigning.

How many times have you been elected to anything? What have you ever done 
to support constituents with their problems?

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:
>> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>> JN@noparticularplacetogo.com (JNugent) wrote:

>>>>>> Any idea of the deceased councillor's position on ambulances?

>>>>> You are a sick troll!

>>>> Really? Just because I have rather obliquely made reference to 
>>>> something about which you are quite right to be deeply embarrassed? 
>>>> Something for which you were rightly criticised by the relevant 
>>>> authority? Something which means you are unfit to hold public office?

>>> You are relying on an inaccurate press report and not on the 
>>> decisions of both the Standards Board for England and the local 
>>> Standards Committee. They accepted that I was not intending to 
>>> obstruct an ambulance on an emergency call.

>> Why so precise?
>> The Board did not exonerate you - did it?

> No because I did make a mistake in the confused situation and offered to 
> apologise. This was agreed and I did indeed apologise as required by the 
> panel.

That's a heck of an over-elaborate way of spelling "No".

The Board did not exonerate you. You were found guilty.

All the other words are window-dressing. Why not just say so instead of 
wriggling so shamelessly on the hook?

>> If they did, let's have some evidence of your complete acquittal.
>> <drums fingers on desk>
>> But I'm not holding my breath...
>> After all, the press report is not likely to be wrong when it said:
>> STARTQUOTE:
>> "The Board found Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City Council, 
>> *had* failed to comply with the code of conduct and *brought his 
>> office into disrepute*.
>> Hazel Salisbury, Ethical Standards Officer for the Board, reported: 
>> "While I understand Cllr Rosenstiel's concern over the parking 
>> situation, there can be *no excuse for preventing such a 
>> representative from administering treatment*.
>> "Fortunately, the injury that Mr Austine was treating turned out 
>> not to be life-threatening but Councillor Rosenstiel was *not aware 
>> of that* at the time."
>> ENDQUOTE

>> Do you see what they said there?
>> Contrary to what you claim, Hazel Salisbury *didn't* agree that you 
>> didn't know the ambulance was on an emergency call. The most they 
>> allow is that you weren't aware of the *lightness* of the victim's 
>> injuries.

> Were you at the hearing? That's where her representative said that they 
> accepted that I did not realise the ambulance was on an emergency call. 
> The hearing panel accepted that too.

Had Hazel Salisbury accepted that, she wouldn't have said the opposite of 
what you say she said.

Nil points. Very poor attempt at diversion. Total failure.

>> Or alternatively, are you trying to spin the line that it's OK to 
>> obstruct the operations of an ambulance on an emergency call as 
>> long as you claim that you didn't realise it was on an emergency 
>> call? What would you say if a Conservative or Labour councillor had 
>> tried the same line? For shame, don't try an undignified wriggle 
>> along the lines "I would have supported it", because you wouldn't 
>> have done.

> The ambulance should not have been able to do what he did in fact do 
> because someone had left open a gate which should have been locked. The 
> driver would have been able to obtain access but it would have taken him 
> longer to get access than it in fact did in actuality.

"The ambulance should not have been able to do what he did in fact do 
because someone had left open a gate which should have been locked".

Un-bloody-believable!

Who in their right mind would object to an emergency ambulance and crew 
getting through to an injured person by whatever means proved necessary 
(including driving through an open gate)? Who, with an ounce of compassion 
and/or common sense, would object to the fact that the ambulance driver got 
to the victim more quickly than you think the victim deserved?

Just listen to yourself, trying to justify your shameful behaviour by 
complaining that the ambulance was able to the victim too soon for your 
liking. You really are a gold-plated loony, aren't you?

[You and other regular readers here and elsewhere on Usenet will be aware of 
my self-imposed rule of never being abusive to other posters. It is therefore 
significant that my remarks about you just above are so strongly worded. 
Unlike yourself, I am not given to the light deployment of abuse. You can be 
sure that this was considered and weighed before typing.]

>> Even if you are relying on that the far-fetched "defence" you 
>> mention, you surely aren't claiming that you have some sort of 
>> right to obstruct ambulances which don't happen to be on an 
>> emergency call, are you?

>> When are you going to resign as a councillor?

> It was a misunderstanding in a confused situation.

What "confusion" was that?

Someone was injured. An ambulance crew were on their way to help him. There's 
nothing "confused" about that. It happens many times every hour of the day 
and night.

> You clearly have no 
> idea of what actually happened but are happy to make grubby politically 
> motivated attacks.

We all know what happened. It's in the report.

Some of it bears repetition:

"The Board found Mr Rosenstiel, who sits on Cambridge City Council, *had* 
failed to comply with the code of conduct and *brought his office into 
disrepute*.

That's not "confused", is it?

"Hazel Salisbury, Ethical Standards Officer for the Board, reported: "While I 
understand Cllr Rosenstiel's concern over the parking situation, there can be 
*no excuse for preventing such a representative from administering treatment*.

There's nothing "confused" there either, is there?

"No excuse" it says. So there's no point in offering excuses, but you're 
still trying to.

And finally: "Fortunately, the injury that Mr Austine was treating turned out 
not to be life-threatening but Councillor Rosenstiel was *not aware of that* 
at the time."

See? What she says is *not* that you were not aware of the emergency 
situation (which is your excuse). The import of what she says is that for all 
you knew, the victim could have been seriously injured and in need of 
immediate hospital treatment - but so far from assisting, you did your utmost 
to prevent the ambulance from getting to the hospital or anywhere else.

See... your excuses are not even congruous with the facts as reported, are they?

> Everyone who knows me, including many of my constituents. have been 
> entirely supportive of me because they know I work very hard to support 
> them as a councillor. I am not resigning.

Why not? Your behaviour was atrocious.

> How many times have you been elected to anything? What have you ever done 
> to support constituents with their problems?

This isn't about me.

It's about you and your sociopathy.

And the funniest thing about this (if there is anything funny about it at all 
- so let's call it "ironic" instead) is that you, of all posters here, love 
to lecture others from what you feel to be the moral high ground.

For very shame, let's her no more of that sort of nonsense from you, ever again.