+ Visit Barnsley FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Phil Windsor gives us all a driving lesson.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    18,526

    Phil Windsor gives us all a driving lesson.

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10,287
    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

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    Quote Originally Posted by SBRed48 View Post
    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.
    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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    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?
    And what about not wearing a seatbelt?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    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.
    Just as long as that policy applies to the lower classes also.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    If it didn't, it would be unlawful, Ethel.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    18,526
    Quote Originally Posted by KerrAvon View Post
    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?
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    7,296
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    18,526
    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •