[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

It is, it’s making an assumption.

My post wasn't making any assumptions at all actually. I didn't say he was in the wrong but he got off because he's the Queens husband what I said was whether he was right or wrong I would highly doubt he would be charged with anything as he's the Queens husband, totally different statements and not at all similar to what you compared it with

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yes. An accident caused by his recklessness.

Nobody is saying he did it deliberately () but it was an accident caused by him.

If the sun is in your eyes, you simply don't go.

Do we know at what point the sun was in his eyes,no

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Do we know at what point the sun was in his eyes,no

Well there's only one point it would cause this crash so...

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

My post wasn't making any assumptions at all actually. I didn't say he was in the wrong but he got off because he's the Queens husband what I said was whether he was right or wrong I would highly doubt he would be charged with anything as he's the Queens husband, totally different statements and not at all similar to what you compared it with

You are making the assumption that he won’t be charged because he is the queens husband.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Well there's only one point it would cause this crash so...

You can be driving happily down the road and out of no we’re get caught out by the sun a dog a cat a bike or car.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You can be driving happily down the road and out of no we’re get caught out by the sun a dog a cat a bike or car.

He was hit side on as he was pulling out.

Again. HE. PULLED. OUT. (No mucky jokes please).

Talking about swerving to avoid an animal has no relevance.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You are making the assumption that he won’t be charged because he is the queens husband.

And you think he would ever be charged? Seriously That's quite naive imo

Still not at all similar to the casual sexism woman driver comment

[arista]

They would never Charge Philip

But ban him for his own safety

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

And you think he would ever be charged? Seriously That's quite naive imo

Still not at all similar to the casual sexism woman driver comment

You got no proof, same as the female driver comment there is no proof of it being a woman’s fault if she is driving

[smudgie]

He can drive around for the fun of it all he likes on the Royal estates, but time he kept off public roads.
Not like he can’t still go wherever he likes, his protection officers can drive him...protect the public at the same time.
He is a frail old man, he is a danger driving on the roads.

[arista]

Police Reports the other car that hit him
had a 9 month year old baby
in it , but its fine.

https://news.sky.com/story/duke-of-e...state-11610133


Also
[Duke's collision sparks debate on whether he is too old to drive at 97]
https://news.sky.com/story/obama-pra...at-97-11610278

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You got no proof, same as the female driver comment there is no proof of it being a woman’s fault if she is driving

I never said I had proof of anything I never said it was his fault, again women drivers are not at all similar to what you're saying, just some sexist comment

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by arista

They would never Charge Philip

But ban him for his own safety

.

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I never said I had proof of anything I never said it was his fault, again women drivers are not at all similar to what you're saying, just some sexist comment

It’s you making an assumption without proof

The sexist comment is me making an assumption without proof.

The comment I made about women drivers is of an example of an assumption.

I love woman by the way!

[thesheriff443]

Just to say I’m not here to take the truths place.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Just to say I’m not here to take the truths place.

just as well as you can see where he is sat

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

It’s you making an assumption without proof

The sexist comment is me making an assumption without proof.

The comment I made about women drivers is of an example of an assumption.

I love woman by the way!

So you actually think that a woman being arrested for being in the wrong just because she's a woman is a similar example and on par with thinking that Prince Phillip, the Queens husband, the "ruler" of your country would not be arrested for being in the wrong in a situation like this. Behave.

[Withano]

Boy racers gotta race, boy

[Livia]

As everyone knows, young drivers, males especially, between 17 an 30 are involved in far more accidents than any other group. Hence why their insurance is astronomical.

Also, I'd like to post this: https://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/ne...test-1-5202613

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So you actually think that a woman being arrested for being in the wrong just because she's a woman is a similar example and on par with thinking that Prince Phillip, the Queens husband, the "ruler" of your country would not be arrested for being in the wrong in a situation like this. Behave.

The problem you have, is you believe your opinion to be true without proof.

He took a breathalyser like every one else involved in a road traffic accident.

He the royals got,a I’m the queens husband get me out of here then he would of been wished away.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

The problem you have, is you believe your opinion to be true without proof.

He took a breathalyser like every one else involved in a road traffic accident.

He the royals got,a I’m the queens husband get me out of here then he would of been wished away.

I don't have any problem at all thanks

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I don't have any problem at all thanks

Well, I believe in facts no assumptions.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Well, I believe in facts no assumptions.

What a boring life that would be if none of us could ever speculate or dare to voice any educated opinions

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

You talking like someone running driving a awareness course.

Thes things happen, with driving it’s not if but when you gonna have a bump.

Yes accidents happen but that doesn't mean neither person is at fault? I'm not saying he's guilty of dangerous driving / would be up for any sort of charge but it's just a fact that the driver that is breaking the normal flow of traffic is the one responsible... the car already on the road has right of way, the car turning onto that road is responsible for not hitting or obstructing the vehicles already travelling.

Like I said it's just an accident and nothing criminal would be likely to come from it but - for example - he will be held responsible for insurance purposes by any insurance investigator. Not that it'll be much of a problem for a royal to pay a higher insurance premium, I'm sure .

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes accidents happen but that doesn't mean neither person is at fault? I'm not saying he's guilty of dangerous driving / would be up for any sort of charge but it's just a fact that the driver that is breaking the normal flow of traffic is the one responsible... the car already on the road has right of way, the car turning onto that road is responsible for not hitting or obstructing the vehicles already travelling.

Like I said it's just an accident and nothing criminal would be likely to come from it but - for example - he will be held responsible for insurance purposes by any insurance investigator. Not that it'll be much of a problem for a royal to pay a higher insurance premium, I'm sure .

For all you to pay more like