"Teenage yobs attack pilot of air ambulance"

ch252

Already posted in aviation and aircraft but I figured we would get a response from a different angle here and it would probably spark some good debate about attacks on our emergency services.

An air ambulance was put out of operation for almost a day after two teenage yobs attacked its pilot when he was called to help an injured baby.

The pair, aged 17 and 19, turned on the pilot when he told them to stop swinging on the aircraft's tail fin and door. One grabbed him by the throat.

As a result, the baby had to be rushed to hospital in a road ambulance - increasing the journey time four-fold. The baby had sustained scalding injuries in an accident.
Target: The two teenagers were swinging from the helicopter's tail fin and cockpit door before their altercation with the pilot, who had asked them to move away

Target: The two teenagers were swinging from the helicopter's tail fin and cockpit door before their altercation with the pilot, who had asked them to move away

The incident happened when the Kent Air Ambulance, which is funded by charity donations, landed in a field near The Vine Cricket Ground in Sevenoaks, Kent, on Sunday afternoon.

Kent Police said a 19-year-old male was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage and public order offences, and a 17-year-old youth was arrested on suspicion of common assault and public order offences. Both were released on bail.

Because of the teenagers' interference with the helicopter, it had to be inspected by an engineer before being allowed to take off again and was out of service until 11am on Monday morning - 18 hours after the incident.

John Tickner, chief executive of Kent Air Ambulance Trust, said: 'I find it incredible that anybody would want to attack a charity air ambulance and its crew, whose sole purpose is to help seriously injured people in their time of need.

'It is completely unacceptable that any of our staff are subjected to an assault and we will always fully support the police in any further action.'

The Kent Air Ambulance Trust is a registered charity, established in 1989. It has a highly skilled team of doctors and critical care paramedics who are able to reach the scene of an accident or medical emergency within minutes.

The helicopter can reach speeds of up to 150mph and can get to most emergency locations in Kent within 15 minutes of being called. It is one of 18 independent air ambulance operators in Britain.

Original: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1281486/Teenage-yobs-attack-pilot-air-ambulance-called-help-scorched-baby.html

Holy f*ck.

They attacked him, whilst he was in the process of bringing a SCALDED BABY to hospital!? And they're out on bail?!

That's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.

Hope the pilot is back to 100%.

meathstevie

Too bad the rotor wasn't running, would have been a beauty of a darwin award

msg11

I mean this, scummers like this that go out of there way to attack ES workers, should be giving 10 Years end of story. It just not on too attack any ES worker. Why some people in government think that this type of bollox should be tolerated is amazing.

ART6

msg11 wrote: »

I mean this, scummers like this that go out of there way to attack ES workers, should be giving 10 Years end of story. It just not on too attack any ES worker. Why some people in government think that this type of bollox should be tolerated is amazing.

It's because they have human rights. They can't be punished, only "rehabilitated". The courts must call for "assessments" before making any decision that could be challenged in the European Courts of Human Rights, tried by a group of judges from countries known for their exemplary human rights records. If finally they are found guilty of an offence they must be secured in a cell with TV, broadband, a cocktail bar, and conjugal rights or they may sue the state and will win substantial damages. In law the needs of the helicopter pilot and the scalded baby are irrelevent as they will get over it, but the poor "scummers" will have it on their conscience for life (once they have been rehabilitated).

Shield

You mean they have consciences?

ART6

psni wrote: »

You mean they have consciences?

No. But they will have when they have been rehabiliated. Then, as we are continually assured by the human rights movement, they will grow to deeply regret their actions and will become kind to animals and will help old ladies across the street. There is a quicker solution, but it doesn't acknowledge their human rights unfortunately, and so is not permitted.

bravestar

Those two little scrotes should have pots of boiling water poured over them and driven to the hospital 4 times slower than the speed limit. Lets see how they like it.

Shield

It's interesting that the Human Rights Act comes up again and again in every single case we deal with. David Cameron promised to scrap the HRA if he got in to power, now let's see if he does.

I can't remember who, but a very senior judge, possibly a Law Lord, very recently acknowledged that it needs to be scrapped and re-written, as it is being used in ways it was not intended for, and I recall reading him confessing that he has witnessed "vast injustices" all as a result of the Human Rights Act as it presently stands.

We shall see...

ART6 wrote: »

It's because they have human rights. They can't be punished, only "rehabilitated". The courts must call for "assessments" before making any decision that could be challenged in the European Courts of Human Rights, tried by a group of judges from countries known for their exemplary human rights records. If finally they are found guilty of an offence they must be secured in a cell with TV, broadband, a cocktail bar, and conjugal rights or they may sue the state and will win substantial damages. In law the needs of the helicopter pilot and the scalded baby are irrelevent as they will get over it, but the poor "scummers" will have it on their conscience for life (once they have been rehabilitated).

Finnbar01

psni wrote: »

It's interesting that the Human Rights Act comes up again and again in every single case we deal with. David Cameron promised to scrap the HRA if he got in to power, now let's see if he does.

I can't remember who, but a very senior judge, possibly a Law Lord, very recently acknowledged that it needs to be scrapped and re-written, as it is being used in ways it was not intended for, and I recall reading him confessing that he has witnessed "vast injustices" all as a result of the Human Rights Act as it presently stands.

We shall see...

It's not just HRA that has unintended consequences. Across the board wether it's economics, law, education even the euro for that matter, the politicians never seem to realise the law of unintended consequences.

ART6

Finnbar01 wrote: »

It's not just HRA that has unintended consequences. Across the board wether it's economics, law, education even the euro for that matter, the politicians never seem to realise the law of unintended consequences.

That is very, very true, but it is a characteristic of our democratic (?) system. Bills are proposed by ministers briefed by civil servants who should have thought through the unexpected but often either don't appear to have done so or have been ignored. The bills are then debated by a handfull of those TDs who bother to turn up, and since many of them at least will be ex councillors, union officials, bus drivers etc, they are hardly qualified to properly assess consequences.

Once a bill is passed into law that is where it stays, engraved upon stone. Times change but the law doesn't, so a consequence that could not have been forseen originally may rear its head thirty years on. I would guess that even qualified lawyers, never mind politicians sharing a single brain cell, might have difficulty with a thirty year crystal ball.

Maybe the solution is for every law in the Statute Book, including EU law, to be subject to a five year review with amendments as necessary. Since that would be a mammoth task, it might even discourage the practise of tabling new legislation simply to enhance personal reputations and personal hobby horses (Greens??).

Bob the Builder

ART6 wrote: »

It's because they have human rights. They can't be punished, only "rehabilitated". The courts must call for "assessments" before making any decision that could be challenged in the European Courts of Human Rights, tried by a group of judges from countries known for their exemplary human rights records. If finally they are found guilty of an offence they must be secured in a cell with TV, broadband, a cocktail bar, and conjugal rights or they may sue the state and will win substantial damages. In law the needs of the helicopter pilot and the scalded baby are irrelevent as they will get over it, but the poor "scummers" will have it on their conscience for life (once they have been rehabilitated).

Absolutley agree. I think they use of torture in cases like this should be advocated. Harsh, I know. But once a scum, always a scum. And Mandatory sterilisation.

And no, I don't take back anything I've said. They may have essentially done permanent damage to a baby who could have had 50-70% Second/Third degree burns and will only show regret when they are going to be put in front of a judge. And will probably brag about it to their friends.

Let's see how they like it being scalded.

sdanseo

Absolute scrotes, and while I know I'm generalising 99% of scrotes will always remain just that. I like the mandatory sterilisation idea tbh. These particular pair should be thrown into maximum security for a year or two, on full protection lockdown so they cant take drugs and never see the ****ing sun, see then they won't do it again.

What's scary is that if they didn't actually damage the chopper, in Ireland they probably would have got off as there's no "common assault" - its assault causing harm before you end up being arreseted, am I right?

boomer_ie

sdonn wrote: »

Absolute scrotes, and while I know I'm generalising 99% of scrotes will always remain just that. I like the mandatory sterilisation idea tbh. These particular pair should be thrown into maximum security for a year or two, on full protection lockdown so they cant take drugs and never see the ****ing sun, see then they won't do it again.

What's scary is that if they didn't actually damage the chopper, in Ireland they probably would have got off as there's no "common assault" - its assault causing harm before you end up being arreseted, am I right?

They tried throttling the pilot so Im guessing that would have been covered under assault causing harm charges

meathstevie

Charge with attempted murder and let them contest it and let the DPP and the defence thrash it out.