Well, I have thought long and hard over making this posting-Firstly because I would not like to encourage anyone to carry out what would be considered a reckless piece of flying and secondly because I suspect I am not going to enjoy being flamed!!
I have to say I agree with some bits of both sides of what has become a very polarised argument. On the one side, I can see that merely breaking a rule does not equate to being dangerous. eg I consider it dangerous to break a 30mph speed limit in a built up area where children might be playing etc. however I would not consider it dangerous if someone drove at 85mph on a clear motorway in good conditions, but both involve breaking rules. I can also understand that it would be wrong to risk uninvolved passengers or bystanders in a dangerous rescue attempt. That said I could have nothing but admiration for the pilot of the jetranger attempting to haul survivors from the Potomac crash out of the frozen river!
On the subject of rule breaking then I assume the main concern within the UK is the implication of rule 5 on a rescue attempt-
Rule 5(1)b - endangering persons/property if an engine fails.
Rule 5(1)c - flight over congested cities, towns etc.
Rule 5(1)d - flight over open air assembly of more than 1000 people
Rule 5(1)e - flight within 500ft of persons buildings etc.
Rule 5(2) - is fairly boring, does not affect most people and I suspect most of us stop reading about midway through it- however it is worth continuing to -
Rule 5(3) - Nothing in this rule shall prohibit an aircraft from flying in such a manner as is necessary for the purpose of saving life.
So it does appear that the CAA have actually considered the possibility of flying 'outside the Rules' as we normally consider them.
HEMS and Police pilots within the UK are still constrained by their relevant ops manuals and exemptions which limit the extent of alleviation to rule 5.
Hope that all makes sense and adds something to the discussion.
TeeS