Nope. but not in a good way.
riverghost servicing your mum since,
Wed 16 May 2007, 17:59,
archived)
YeahI suppose if he was OK he'd be off the tarmac :(
(
in vino veritas,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:02,
archived)
even if he seems okit's still probably not a good idea to just move someone that's been whacked by a van I would have thought unless it was some kind of crazy traffic situation
(
discomeats This canoe,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:03,
archived)
like if the van was on fireand was transporting rage infected kitties
who were on fire.
(who were on fire.
AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:05,
archived)
and it was a really urgent"12 HOURS GUARRANTEED DELIVERY" to a fire factory?
( discomeats This canoe,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:07,
archived)
Now thats urgency! AutoPrawn is glad we're living in the future now,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:18,
archived)
whilst lightly pepperring the vacinity with anthrax
monkdagola but how do you TURN a phrase?,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:08,
archived)
This pic looks likehis head's come off and the copper's holding it in his hands.
(
kinks rock over London, rock on Chicago,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:08,
archived)
^thisunless a person's life is in immediate danger do not move them. especially if you know they've had an accident that could have caused a spinal injury/haven't seen what happened to them.
i work as a lifeguard, and whilst at another pool got chatting to one of their supervisors about spinal techniques, the golden rule is keep their neck still in order to prevent paralysis, but if that's not possible preserving life is the most important thing
(,
Wed 16 May 2007, 18:35,
archived)
i work as a lifeguard, and whilst at another pool got chatting to one of their supervisors about spinal techniques, the golden rule is keep their neck still in order to prevent paralysis, but if that's not possible preserving life is the most important thing