I read that he stated to a police officer that he swerved to avoid a pheasant
Don't you mean a peasant sir?
Don't be stupid man I wouldn't swerve to avoid a peasant
Betty Windsor's husband Phil, 97, has been a bit of a menace on the public roads of Norfolk.
From views at the scene he has apparently pulled out from a side road at a junction onto a busy 60 mph main road and either not seen the other car, or misjudged the speed or stalled and the oncoming car has hit his Landrover side on flipping it over. Luckily the two women and bairn in the other car were not hurt beyond a broken wrist.
As would happen with us all a brand new Landrover was immediately provided for Phil and he decided he was above the law and went out driving in it not wearing a seatbelt on public roads.
The Palace PR Machine has failed on this occasion as the two women have been complaining about the lack of concern from the "Royals" over their and their child's welfare. They should get Goat on the staff.
No doubt the police will be prosecuting Phil for driving without due care and attention and not wearing a seatbelt as they will wish to treat all drivers in an equal manner.
Last edited by SBRed48; 20-01-2019 at 10:04 AM.
I read that he stated to a police officer that he swerved to avoid a pheasant
Don't you mean a peasant sir?
Don't be stupid man I wouldn't swerve to avoid a peasant
Junction bumps and shunts are often left to the insurance companies to sort out without a prosecution. If that were not the case, the police would have time to do little else and the courts would be clogged up with them. The key factor that the police take into account when making a prosecution decision is the level of culpability of the parties. If in a junction collision there is evidence, for example, that the junction is a difficult one with limited visibility or there is evidence that the other party was speeding, then that might cause the police to conclude that the level of culpability of the person emerging from the junction is too low to justify prosecuting. As for stalling, how many drivers can honestly say that it has never happened to them?
As I understand it from the news reports, the Norfolk police say that they have given words of advice in accordance with their policy for such matters that are reported via photographic evidence. I can see why they might have such a policy, but I am not a Norfolk police officer and so cannot comment upon whether they do or its precise terms.
If it didn't, it would be unlawful, Ethel.
Good effort Kerr. A little bit more than a "bump or shunt" I think.
We all know no further action will be taken. Any sniff of a prosecution will have been stopped with "high level" intervention, at Chief Constable/Lord Lieutenant/Security Service/ Justice Office level. The Ordinary Joe would be prosecuted and the evidence tested in Court.
Ah... 'What we all know'.
There's just no arguing with good old fashioned prejudice.
I'm no supporter of the monarchy. I just think people should be treated the same irrespective of their 'station' in life. Assuming guilt and that someone will be treated differently because they are a royal just doesn't sit well with me. Who needs the evidence testing in court, when you've tested it on here?
Last edited by KerrAvon; 20-01-2019 at 12:53 PM.
Can I conclude from that you are of the opinion that the Royal family, in this case Phil, will be treated the same as the Ordinary Joe? You have a greater respect for the workings of the "system" than me and we shall just have to agree to differ.
Last edited by SBRed48; 20-01-2019 at 04:11 PM.