Thank you Prince Philip!

123468

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I thought it was obvious that Prince Phillip doesn't give a shit about anything outside the Royal Family, and naturally he is a dickhead, although the guy is entitled to drive if he holds a valid license. He did order a hit, if Steven Toast is to be believed. I recommend watching Toast of London, series 1, episode 3 - Vanity Project via your streaming service of choice.

    If he was an American, they would have made his President. But he's not, so he married the Queen instead.

    Perhaps you are trying to amuse?

    Far from being a "dickhead" Prince Philip is an intelligent man, passing out top of his course at Dartmouth. Highly regarded by his peers and superiors when he was in the Royal Navy he was being "tipped for the top" before he became engaged to Princess Elizabeth.

    Toad was responding to me, I am the one who called him a dickhead. And apart from the fact that riling up royal apologists like you seem to be does make me piss myself laughing, no, I'm not in jest. Being top of one's class does not exclude one from being a dickhead. Pip's behaviour demonstrates he is one. And not just here - his behaviour many, many times in the past, when he has demonstrated himself a gormless bigot.

    Gosh, the assumptions keep on coming.

    FYI I am far from being a "royal apologist" - but I do regard personal attacks on members of the royal family simply for them being a member of that family as unfair.

    I agree that being top of the class doesn't prelude from being a dickhead: but equally it is unfair to base an opinion on someone's intelligence and character purely on what is reported by a sensationalist media keen to shoehorn events into their preferred template. I think some sections of the media began to find that out after the revelations that came out after the death of the late Princess of Wales...

    Of course, I could be wrong: you may enjoy a close personal friendship with HMQ and her husband and know the wider family intimately?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    who is Pip?

    It's a stupid nickname for Prince Philip, probably coined by members of the anti-royalist Green party.

  • Gosh, the assumptions keep on coming.

    FYI I am far from being a "royal apologist" - but I do regard personal attacks on members of the royal family simply for them being a member of that family as unfair.

    If you read carefully, you will note that people are criticising old Pip for his driving, whether or not he apologized for injuring others, driving without wearing a seatbelt, and in my case, for being a bigot. The latter of which is a fairly well established matter of public record.

    No one is having a crack at the old bloke "simply" because he is a member of the royal family. Misrepresent much?
    I agree that being top of the class doesn't prelude from being a dickhead: but equally it is unfair to base an opinion on someone's intelligence and character purely on what is reported by a sensationalist media keen to shoehorn events into their preferred template. I think some sections of the media began to find that out after the revelations that came out after the death of the late Princess of Wales...

    You do like to circle back to that. Has someone other than you brought it up? Other than in response to you?
    Of course, I could be wrong: you may enjoy a close personal friendship with HMQ and her husband and know the wider family intimately?
    What makes you assume this would be the only basis upon which anyone might speak about a public figure?
  • Prince Phillip, I think.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
    IMO, the problem with a speed trap isn't that it traps speeders, but that a visible presence slows them down more effectively.

    Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
    IMO, the problem with a speed trap isn't that it traps speeders, but that a visible presence slows them down more effectively.

    Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
    IMO, the problem with a speed trap isn't that it traps speeders, but that a visible presence slows them down more effectively.

    Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.

    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
    IMO, the problem with a speed trap isn't that it traps speeders, but that a visible presence slows them down more effectively.

    Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.

    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    There are cameras on the A48 round Cardiff where the limit is now set to 40mph. It's a decent sized dual carriageway and at one time was designated a motorway. There are accidents on the A48 between Cardiff and Newport, but they are on the stretch midway between those two cities, where the limit is 60mph and it is not a dual carriageway.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 30
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ok. Wasn't sure how often it happens in real life. There are also speed traps and revenue corridors where, AIUI, the road and rules and police practice are set up so that the drivers are set up. They may not have any choice but to break a rule/law; and, gee, the local gov't has no choice but to fine them and take the money. Poor local gov't.
    IMO, the problem with a speed trap isn't that it traps speeders, but that a visible presence slows them down more effectively.

    Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.

    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    So criminal driving (in this case speeding) is OK where only a few people are killed?

    We need hidden cameras at random places. Get the speeders to either slow down or lose their licences. At the moment our roads are lawless.


    There is a bit of road on my way home which has a 40 limit and no enforcement. Average speed there is about 60. As a result pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders daren't go near it. They are being bullied off the road by criminal drivers and it needs stopping.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ....Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    So criminal driving (in this case speeding) is OK where only a few people are killed?.....
    No not at all, it's about priorities - there are not unlimited resources for the Police to put cameras everywhere - would you want to pay for them all?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 30
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ....Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    So criminal driving (in this case speeding) is OK where only a few people are killed?.....
    No not at all, it's about priorities - there are not unlimited resources for the Police to put cameras everywhere - would you want to pay for them all?

    Pay for them out of the fines.

    This should be a priority. Speeding is killing people and scaring vulnerable road users off of the roads.
  • Prince Philip I presume.
  • What equality before the law is there in England/UK? Are some people more equal than others?

    An Irish friend of mine has a French family link where the father, justly-decorated for valour in WWII, received with his Companion of the Liberation paperwork, a small card signed by the then-president of France, praying in the name of the republic that assistance be given to the bearer. My friend, asking what this meant, was told that he would never receive a summons for driving offences unless there were several corpses as a result. She later witnessed him parking in a strictly forbidden zone and, presenting the card to a gendarme, receiving a salute.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    who is Pip?
    "Pip" is a fairly common nickname for people named Philip or Philippa. (I first encountered it in Dickens's "Great Expectations," but I've known a couple personally since then.)


  • Boogie wrote: »

    I don’t like your flippant tone @Simon Toad. This subject is a matter of life and death.

    Says the person who started a thread literally thanking Prince Phillip for causing a car accident so that it gave us something else to talk about.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ....Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    So criminal driving (in this case speeding) is OK where only a few people are killed?.....
    No not at all, it's about priorities - there are not unlimited resources for the Police to put cameras everywhere - would you want to pay for them all?

    Pay for them out of the fines.

    This should be a priority. Speeding is killing people and scaring vulnerable road users off of the roads.

    It's starting to sound like a UK version of the SS Gestapo.
  • Nazi alert! Nazi Alert! Don't panic! Don't panic!
  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ....Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    So criminal driving (in this case speeding) is OK where only a few people are killed?.....
    No not at all, it's about priorities - there are not unlimited resources for the Police to put cameras everywhere - would you want to pay for them all?

    Pay for them out of the fines.

    This should be a priority. Speeding is killing people and scaring vulnerable road users off of the roads.

    It's starting to sound like a UK version of the SS Gestapo.

    Is there anything in the commandments re breaching Godwin's law? There really should be.
  • Is there anything in the commandments re breaching Godwin's law? There really should be.
    Indeed.

  • Mark Betts wrote: »
    It's starting to sound like a UK version of the SS Gestapo.

    Is there anything in the commandments re breaching Godwin's law? There really should be.
    Pedantry alert: That was not a “breach” of Godwin’s Law.¹ It was a demonstration of Godwin’s Law.

    ¹ Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »

    I don’t like your flippant tone @Simon Toad. This subject is a matter of life and death.

    Says the person who started a thread literally thanking Prince Phillip for causing a car accident so that it gave us something else to talk about.

    True, true!

    (We always criticise in others the things we don’t like in ourselves)


  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    ....Problem? I thought that was the whole idea, otherwise why have warning signs?

    Problem is it only makes people observe the limits when they know there are cameras.

    We should be aiming to make people observe limits all the time. That can only happen if they can't know for certain there isn't a camera.
    Mark Betts wrote: »
    The cameras tend to be at accident black spots - the most important places.

    So criminal driving (in this case speeding) is OK where only a few people are killed?.....
    No not at all, it's about priorities - there are not unlimited resources for the Police to put cameras everywhere - would you want to pay for them all?

    Pay for them out of the fines.

    This should be a priority. Speeding is killing people and scaring vulnerable road users off of the roads.

    It's starting to sound like a UK version of the SS Gestapo.

    Only if you think plain clothes store detectives and CCTV are also the harbingers of the 4th Reich.
  • We'll be hearing "the innocent have nothing to fear" next...
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    TBH, I think the way forward on speeding might end up being financial/technological. Insurance companies will give hefty discounts for having trackers fitted, and the data trackers will have will include speed limits. Then even offences which law enforcement doesn’t pick up will flash a red light for insurers who will want a satisfactory explanation. If that is not forthcoming look for a premium increase, or a refusal to insure. Gross infringements may even be reported to the police.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 31
    We'll be hearing "the innocent have nothing to fear" next...

    Well, in regards to speed cameras that rather seems to be true doesn't it?

    What exactly is the objection to enforcing the law? Nothing else seems to have worked. Drive, you are monitored. Break the law, expect a penalty. Keep on doing it, lose your licence.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    What exactly is the objection to enforcing the law? Nothing else seems to have worked. Drive, you are monitored. Break the law, expect a penalty. Keep on doing it, lose your licence.
    Possibly the unease is about cause and effect. You argue that speeding is scaring vulnerable people off the roads. Maybe sheer volume of traffic is more significant in that respect.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Signaller wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What exactly is the objection to enforcing the law? Nothing else seems to have worked. Drive, you are monitored. Break the law, expect a penalty. Keep on doing it, lose your licence.
    Possibly the unease is about cause and effect. You argue that speeding is scaring vulnerable people off the roads. Maybe sheer volume of traffic is more significant in that respect.

    Both. One could also point out that getting the habitually criminal drivers off the road addresses both issues. But I still don't get the objection. Speeding is a criminal offence. The police's job is to detect criminal offences. Why do people seem to think it's wrong that they do that?

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    What exactly is the objection to enforcing the law? Nothing else seems to have worked. Drive, you are monitored. Break the law, expect a penalty. Keep on doing it, lose your licence.

    Would you agree so readily to such monitoring in any other parts of life? Should people be constantly monitored 24 hours a day to ensure that if they break the law they are appropriately punished? They're making wonderful advances in the area of microdrone technology - maybe someday soon we will all have our very own government-controlled microdrone constantly hovering over us and watching, watching, watching to ensure we Obey The Law. What could possibly be wrong with that - it's only enforcing the law after all. The innocent have nothing to fear.

    Of course, I know you wouldn't agree with that. I mean, I know from other threads that you don't even think traffic laws should be rigorously applied to every road user.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 31
    When people are engaged in a potentially dangerous activity, one which kills 2000 people every year in the UK, I think they have no cause to complain if the laws governing that activity are enforced. I am not arguing for constant surveillance, but for a situation where criminal drivers cannot ever know that they are entirely safe from enforcement, as is the current situation with our ludicrous "speed cameras must be painted bright yellow" rules which merely serve to give the impression that ignoring speed limits is fine anywhere else.

    And contrary to your final paragraph I have never claimed that any group of road users should be above the law. I have argued that those presenting the greatest danger should be under the greatest scrutiny however.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    ...And contrary to your final paragraph I have never claimed that any group of road users should be above the law. I have argued that those presenting the greatest danger should be under the greatest scrutiny however.
    I seem to remember something about it being fine for bicyclists to pick and choose which aspects of the traffic laws to obey...

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    ...And contrary to your final paragraph I have never claimed that any group of road users should be above the law. I have argued that those presenting the greatest danger should be under the greatest scrutiny however.
    I seem to remember something about it being fine for bicyclists to pick and choose which aspects of the traffic laws to obey...

    You remember wrong. It's what several people desperately wanted me to be saying but it is not something I said.
  • A note of gloom: all too often we read about banned, uninsured drivers causing serious, sometimes fatal, crashes in stolen cars.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 31
    SusanDoris wrote: »
    A note of gloom: all too often we read about banned, uninsured drivers causing serious, sometimes fatal, crashes in stolen cars.

    Yes we do. I've long felt that the penalty for driving whilst disqualified should be to serve the rest of the period of the ban in custody. Could be tricky as I'm also in favour of wider use of life bans but we can always have a release on licence system as we do for lifers.

    Most of the people involved in these particularly bad incidents have a string of motoring convictions and we ought to focus on ensuring that people who should not be, or are not, allowed to drive cannot or dare not get behind the wheel.
  • Well, Karl, there's this from March 2018 (just to grab something from near the top of the "Share the Road" thread):
    ...whenever the causes have been subject to meta-analysis, drivers are found to be solely at fault in some 60% of cycle/motor vehicle collisions. So while the zipping in and out may look alarming, we're generally really good at it. I don't condone failure to observe red lights, but it's very seldom a cause of collisions. ...
    Weaving in and out is unsafe and, at least in this country, illegal. Running red lights is illegal. That's for starters.




  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    Well, Karl, there's this from March 2018 (just to grab something from near the top of the "Share the Road" thread):
    ...whenever the causes have been subject to meta-analysis, drivers are found to be solely at fault in some 60% of cycle/motor vehicle collisions. So while the zipping in and out may look alarming, we're generally really good at it. I don't condone failure to observe red lights, but it's very seldom a cause of collisions. ...
    Weaving in and out is unsafe and, at least in this country, illegal. Running red lights is illegal. That's for starters.




    And I said I didn't condone it. Filtering, which I take to be what you mean by "weaving in and out", is perfectly legal in the UK. I can't be expected to know the laws where you are.

    Any more whataboutery and playing the man instead of the ball, or can we get back to the topic?
  • ...playing the man instead of the ball....
    I have no idea what you mean by that, but while weaving in and out in traffic is terribly dangerous, even if legal in some places, I'm happy to let the subject go.

  • One of my fellow Australians spoke about our multi-pronged attack on the Road Toll upthread, now approaching the start of its fifth decade in Victoria. Despite us having more people, more road users, more congestion and me, Victoria had its lowest road toll for 30 years in 2018.

    It really is a multi-pronged long term campaign aimed successively at different targets as the years roll on, based on research as to the causes of road death. This includes advertising aimed at changing driver behavior, changing road design and installing safety barriers, again research-based not only on the technology used but also on where the technology will be most effective. Enforcing standards on cars about safety features has also been significant, as has enforcement.

    While there are fixed speed cameras warnings are sporadic. If you have a modern vehicle, and a Michael Caine voiced GPS, it will tell you when approaching the camera, and then start screaming something in Cockney at you if you fail to comply.

    But we also have a large number of speed cameras which move from day to day. They are usually mounted on the dashboard of a parked car with tinted windows. There are all sorts of myths and legends about these cameras. People claim that they are only in certain cars, usually late model, and that is usually true. But the cops don't have to put them in the usual car, and sometimes they will mix things up. This makes it difficult.

    Our penalties for drink and drug driving are quite heavy and I think people can lose their license for a first offence. You can't have any alcohol in your system when driving for the first two years I think. I have lost count of the number of times I have been breath tested on the road. Also, people are prosecuted for dangerous driving when there is an accident, and people have been jailed for accidents causing death or serious injury.

    The big thing at the moment is mobile phones. The cops are now letting it be known that if you are photographed using your phone, by a speed camera or other device, they will prosecute. I think that's a strategic announcement, but they are really hot to trot on it. In the accompanying article you will see that the stated aim is no road deaths.
  • Here's David Mitchell's take on rage, using the recent kerfuffle over Prince Philip's driving as his launching point. I thought this paragraph would appeal to many of you:
    I haven’t got a problem with the royals myself – I think they’re harmless and well-meaning. And to replace them we’d need a new constitution, which would have to be framed by contemporary politicians – you know, the same ones who currently can’t even agree on the means by which the country should commit economic suicide. So leaving the constitution alone seems prudent. But there’s no doubt that the whole royal aesthetic is looking increasingly dated.

    I don’t mean that in the way you might assume. I don’t think that having a gilded medieval institution as the country’s nominal figurehead is inappropriate to a dynamic, egalitarian and socially mobile democracy. When Britain still had serious claims in that direction, when there was a general sense that the nation, if not yet fair, was becoming fairer, the monarchy was a picturesque adornment – a benign but spectacular link to a more brutal past, the innocuous unfair old exception that proved the new rule.

    But that’s not what this country really is any more. The gap between rich and poor is widening; privilege and want are on the rise again. In that context, the image of the sovereign sitting beside a gold piano, telling us to try to rub along, becomes more problematic. Gradually the trappings of royalty – whether it’s the coaches and palaces, the skiing and designer clothes, or the well-meaning charitable platitudes – start to seem, through no fault of the royals themselves, like a sick joke at poor people’s expense.

  • Well, yes. Thanks for posting that.
  • I have just bought a birthday card which reads Always look on the bright side. That way, if something goes wrong, you can say the sun was in your eyes

    When's Chookie's birthday?
  • 10th June.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    It took a while but he’s done it now.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    And here's what Private Eye thinks of it on its issue no 1488 cover... or do they? :)
  • Boogie wrote: »
    It took a while but he’s done it now.

    Ridiculous really. Buddy needs to continue to drive forever. The news report was also right on. Big focus on greek god voluntarily giving up diving. And oh yes, he hurt people in this #CrashNotAccident he is at fault for. But that's no the important bit.

    When I saw Pip, my thought was Pippi Longstocking. 'bout right. What a pippi!
  • The Queen has spoken. Philip is now in the passenger seat. At least that is what they reported on this side of the pond.
  • Boogie wrote: »
    It took a while but he’s done it now.

    I hope though that this action will not be considered by the Police as any alternative to rightful prosecution. You shouldn't be able to wriggle out of it that way.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    If it is, it won’t be the first time.
    It was being suggested immediately after the accident that he might avoid prosecution by surrendering his licence as it considerably reduces the public interest in prosecuting. It’s not uncommon where elderly drivers are concerned, and is rarely seen as newsworthy.
  • Can P still drive around on the grounds of a royal estate, as long as he doesn't stray onto a public road?
  • edited February 11
    It's not an accident.

    Definitions

    Crash or collision: caused by being drunk, drugged, distracted, excessive speed, aggressive driving, road rage, suicide by car, desire to murder with a car.

    Accident: act of God.

    This elderly man had sunlight in his eyes. And was otherwise distracted. He caused a crash. God did not do it. He should have stopped, slowed down: done anything to not crash. I get he's an entitled rich royal dude. It still doesn't make him a special agent of God. Even if his wife is defender of the faith.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    Is that a specific legal definition @NOprophet_NØprofit?

    Here (UK) accident means not deliberate, possibly due to carelessness, inattention etc. The contrast is with a deliberate action - like the driver you posted about on the ‘Share the road’ thread.

    Crash or collision is an impact between two objects without indication of blame or cause.

    (In inquest verdicts ‘misadventure’ is used where the cause is a risk deliberately taken by contrast with accident which implies no unreasonable wilful risk.)
Sign In or Register to comment.