Tuesday, 18 February 2014

Emergency In The Hamptons


For those wondering what on earth must have been happening in the Hamptons this evening, here is what I have managed to glean: Sometime around 7pm a man was seen walking down towards / into the lake in Mayflower Park (in the Hamptons). Apparently he did not come back out again. The woman who saw him contacted the police and reported the strange behaviour.

Given that it could have been a fatality, the red button was pressed and every emergency service vehicle from here to who knows where converged on the Hamptons. Well there were a lot of them anyway. Someone counted five fire engines and I saw at least 4 other emergency vehicles. A helicopter was brought in with thermal imaging equipment and an inflatable boat was taken out onto the water to search for the man or his body.

The helicopter reported that there was no one in the water and no one else found anything having searched the lake in the boat and also the area surrounding the lake. 

Having done all they could do, they called off the search and presumable all went home. Hopefully that is that and everyone is safe.

Update (around 3pm, Wednesday 19th Feb)

Apparently the man was "naked apart from his socks and t-shirt, running towards the lakes" and was seen just before 5:30pm. For more information see the Sutton Guardian website here.

28 COMMENTS (Add Yours Now!):

Tax paying resident said...

Residents walk or jog around the Hamptons and surrounding area after work (after sunset for most of us, at this time of year) to relax or exercise themselves (or their dogs). After all, that's what this attractive area is for! So why was the sighting of a man at this location considered odd?

The fact that nobody/no body was found confirms that the man must have returned or exited via another route (that's assuming they existed). So basically, someone gave the emergency services a (now known to be) mostly - if not completely fictional story and sent them on a wild goose chase - including a helicopter with thermal imaging!

I do hope this qualifies for a charge of wasting police/the emergency services' time and/or the source of this fiasco receives a very large bill for the expense of last night's misuse of the emergency services.

Hrtless said...

It appears as though the male in question
walked into the actual lake, which most people would consider odd. I
think most would agree that it's better to call the emergency services, even if
nothing is found rather than risk someone actually drowning in the water.
I wasn't witness to this; however that's how the article reads.

simons1000 said...

@tax paying resident, maybe you should just get back to reading the Daily Mail?

Stewart Mackay Conservative WP said...

Harsh... I like the daily mail :-P

guest D said...

Changing your allegiance to UKIP? :-)

Karina said...

That's not even a little bit surprising.

Tax paying resident said...

@simons1000, maybe you should just get back to your spending the jobseeker's allowance and child benefit in the nearest off licence?

Tax paying resident said...

I think most of us would agree that it is quite impossible for someone to be observed entering the lake in Mayflower Park (at a distance allegedly close enough to be identified as male).
And for the witness to claim that the male did not emerge and exit the lake.
And yet, for no trace of the male to be found - even on a thermal imaging equipped helicopter.

Either they somehow managed to dematerialise, or entered a worm hole to another dimension, or (statistically, by far the most likely) the story is bogus and constructed simply for the sake of perverse entertainment!

Stewart Mackay Conservative WP said...

err... no guest D. :)

Stewart Mackay Conservative WP said...

I got friends that might go with the worm hole theory :)

Guest said...

tax paying resident... you will put people off reporting emergencies with your strange attitude! I think the fact that no one was found harmed is a good thing!

simons1000 said...

I've just had my child benefit taken away because I earn too much.

Hrtless said...

My God, you really are an idiot.


By the way, which statistics are you referring to?

Hrtless said...

Please use proper grammar if you wish to insult someone. This link may help: https://www.grammarbook.com/


You're welcome.

Hrtless said...

Why is one of my comments waiting to be moderated? There is nothing written that constitute any offence.

Tax paying resident said...

With a view to filling an obvious gap in Hrtless's education:
Here, within the geographical area of Worcester Park, we use what's generally known as "British English". However, the link Hrtless has selected to demonstrate their superior knowledge of quote, "proper grammar" is actually an American website, where "American English" is the standard.

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of readers will already be aware that the two are notably different. However, unfortunately for Hrtless, their attempt to demonstrate knowledge has only succeeded in revealing a rare, but woefully large knowledge gap.

For those wishing to know more about the specifics, Wikipedia donates a full page to "Comparison of American and British English", with, unsurprisingly, 'proper grammar' being high on the list. [In fact, it's the first section discussed after the introduction].

Hrtless may care to digest the Wikipedia page, in an attempt to fill their knowledge void. Alternatively, they may wish to scrape their knuckles on the floor of their cave, whilst occasionally emitting a low-pitched groan...

Hrtless said...

You learn something new everyday, unless you're a gold fish!

Tax paying resident said...

With a view to filling the obvious gap in Hrtless's education:

Here, within the geographical area of Worcester Park, we use what's generally known as "British English". However, the link Hrtless has selected to demonstrate their superior knowledge of quote, "proper grammar" is actually an American website, where "American English" is the standard.

I'm sure the overwhelming majority of readers will already be aware that the two are notably different. However, unfortunately for Hrtless, their attempt to demonstrate knowledge has only succeeded in revealing an unusually large knowledge gap

For those wishing to know more about the specifics, Wikipedia donates a full page to "Comparison of American and British English", with, unsurprisingly, 'grammar' being high on the list. [In fact, it's the first section discussed after the introduction].

Hrtless may care to digest the Wikipedia page, in an attempt to fill their knowledge void. Alternatively, they may wish to insist they know more about ‘proper grammar’ than the rest of us…

Tax paying resident said...

For those 'goldfish' that are unaware, dialling 999 is exclusively the number used to contact the emergency services, in the event of a genuine emergency.
In the case of a non-emergency, requiring police assistance, dial 101.
In the case of a non-emergency, requiring medical assistance, dial 111.
You can also phone crime stoppers for advice on 0800 555 111.

Unfortunately, some people misuse the emergency services, which causes delays and puts lives at risk. Some readers may have noticed how this story of 'man seen drowning in the lake' (resulting in a thermal imaging equipped helicopter being scrambled to assist) has been modified, to the current 'man seen running in the direction of the lake'. No doubt, the common sight of 'man seen jogging in the vicinity of the lake' will follow...

No doubt, at some point there will also be an article on the WP Blog resulting from the controversy of local 999 emergency response times... and no doubt 'Hrtless' will have a very strong opinion about that too!

guest D said...

You might care to look up the use of the possesive pronoun, on any of those sites. There's actually very little difference in grammar between English and the American variant, so any will do.

Barry said...

I like the Daily Mail too.... It's a mine of mis-information and irrelevance.

Hrtless said...

This coming from the person that stated:



@simons1000, maybe you should just get back to your spending the jobseeker's
allowance and child benefit in the nearest off licence?



Is the above quote a question or a statement? Are you asking @simons1000
to spend his jobseeker's allowance in an off licence, or simply asking whether
this is what you think he is likely to do?

Tax paying resident said...

This is coming from the person who adds links to English language websites on their comments (albeit American ones). I suggest they redirect their focus and click on their own links! Then they might acquire the (primary school level) knowledge that the noun 'goldfish' is one word. [And to make this comment really clear for them, this is both a statement and a suggestion].

Of course, the noun 'goldfish' is a single word in both local British English and their preferred American English, though perhaps Guest D might care to argue otherwise, and at length? [And to again make things really clear for 'Hrtless', this is what's known as a 'rhetorical question'].

guest D said...

As you don't seem to know what was wrong with your sentance, I'll try and explain.

You can use 'your' with a Gerund, when it is used as a noun, as in 'You need to keep a check on your spending' you can't use 'your' with a Gerund used as a verb as in 'maybe you should just get back to your spending the jobseeker's allowance and child benefit in the nearest off licence?' try 'maybe you should just get back to spending your jobseeker's allowance and child benefit in the nearest off licence?

And by the way which of the Englishes used in these Isles is British English?

guest D said...

Bad form to comment to your own post, but I've just noticed that the spelling checker has altered the spelling of sentence.

Tax paying resident said...

So is it seriously bad form to admit misspelling the word 'sentence' with a childlike error?
Do you really have to go to the lengths of denying responsibility for your own spelling? Do you feel you have to upload a tall story that a spelling checker (somehow) misbehaved itself and automatically overwrote your perfect spelling with an alternative that does not even exist?

Do you honestly think nobody in Worcester Park is clever enough to know that spellcheckers correct errors, rather than cause them? Do you believe everyone is so lacking in intelligence that nobody would question how a spellchecker can invent words and utilise them where it sees fit?

Do you imagine that there's no chance of you being rumbled and embarrassed by your own futile fiction? Personally, I think you've underestimated the local community and I can easily foresee that at least one member of it will suggest that the D in Guest D stands for 'Diarrhoea'!

Tax paying resident said...

Quote, "British English is the broad term used to distinguish the forms of the English language used in the United Kingdom from forms used elsewhere". [Wikipedia]

It's a really, really, really simple concept. You appear to be portraying an image that attempts to demonstrate a superior level of knowledge. Somewhat surprising that you are easily confused by something as basic.

Karina said...

Oh my God, how old are you? This is the most pathetically childish argument I've ever seen on this blog, and that's really saying something. Jesus Christ, grow up.

Post a Comment

The Worcester Park Blog welcomes your comments and opinions!