Prangs Andrew (or to give him his official name, Prince Andrew) rams a closed park gate with his £80,000 Range Rover to avoid a one-mile detour home. He forced them open with the 2½-ton motor but they swung back, scraping both sides and leaving a bill of thousands of pounds.
tinyurl.com/zvdvd3w - Daily Wail.
I bet a certain person wasn't amused.
|
Several over the eight, and hotly pursued by the guardians of law and order?
BANG! Graunch graunch graunch...
Sancturary!
|
|
Are we still talking about HRH?
|
"Its not the first time he's been in trouble wirh his Range Rover" Wails the Wail; "He previously got a parking ticket for parking on double yellow lines".
Seriously? That's the best they've got? A parking ticket?
No wonder they go for lookers rather than readers.
|
Like many folk who seem to think they can do as they please.
Certain footballers at Cheltenham and an F1 driver filming himself riding a motorbike spring to mind. I believe they should be prosecuted the same as the rest of us hoi polloi would.
|
Apropos not a lot:
"Yesterday it emerged, that despite his blunders, Prince Andrew is the Queen's favourite son."
And
"He was named after his paternal grandfather, the dissolute gambler Prince Andrew of Greece, who saw little of his son Prince Philip and died penniless on the French Riviera."
Not his fault then!
I've heard it said he's not as intellectually deficient as he appears, maybe it's his EIQ that's lacking.
|
I'd never heard of EIQ before, so a Google led me to a load of online tests. The first I gave up on immediately (imagine that two of your friends...). I don't have two friends, I can't imagine that.
The next took me through ten hypothetical situations, all of which were nothing like I'd ever experienced (imagine you've taken a bunch of four year olds to the park - yeah, right), and the end said my score was "not so good", whatever that means.
I think, as with most things, I shall remain in the thicky corner on EIQ.
|
>> I think, as with most things, I shall remain in the thicky corner on EIQ.
>>
Yahoo says it's this Emotional Intelligence Quotient. Not really sure what it means, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is.
|
|
EIQ measures the intelligence of Yorkshire people.
|
Bah gum, tha maght be reet tha knows
Thick in t'arm an thick in t'ed
|
>> EIQ measures the intelligence of Yorkshire people.
>>
Is he? Not a bad bloke then.
|
>I've heard it said he's not as intellectually deficient as he appears,
He strikes me as pretty smart and aware. I like the man.
|
|
I can't see he has an account here.
|
|
You never know, he might be fluffy, but fluff claims not to drive. Odd for a Motoring forum. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 08:28
|
|
It is claimed man does not have enough blood in his body to serve the brain & his c0ck at the same time. I would like to suggest that in Prince Andrews case the blood flow to the brain is limited.
|
And yet here we are, one terrorist incident/air crash on the way to Klosters/elaborate yachting accident away from him automatically becoming our Head of State.
Hey ho, most of you seem happy to accept that.
|
|
I dont think the queen goes skiing, but if she did and died then it would be charles. Prince andrew is about 5 or 6 down the list.
|
>> I dont think the queen goes skiing, but if she did and died then it
>> would be charles. Prince andrew is about 5 or 6 down the list.
>>
I do know that, I was assuming a country which already The Geranium Whisperer at the helm, sooty. Which can't be that far off now. 10-12 years tops, probably. And even if one of my hypothetical tragedies happened whilst QEII was still warming the seat, then Andy, Destroyer of Gates, Bespoiler of Ranger Rovers, ex-Paramour of Porn Actresses and Friend of American People with Dodgy Relationships to Teenage Girls would be upon said seat fairly soon.
But, of course, he'd be a splendid ambassador for, and totem of, this nation because 'Royal'.
|
|
Like you say it'd need some very weird set of circumstances to end up with him on the throne. Up there with me winning the golden boot at the next world cup.
|
>> Accidents happen.
>>
True, I'd best get that acceptance speech ready ;)
|
>> True, I'd best get that acceptance speech ready ;)
>>
Blimey, he's among us.
What's the respray quote on the Rangie, Andy? Did they quote you happy?
;-)
|
>> >> True, I'd best get that acceptance speech ready ;)
>> >>
>>
>> Blimey, he's among us.
>>
>> What's the respray quote on the Rangie, Andy? Did they quote you happy?
There's no acceptance speech at the coronation but i suppose you wouldn't know that ;)
I meant the golden boot, sheesh it's hard work round here sometimes ;)
|
>> There's no acceptance speech at the coronation but i suppose you wouldn't know that ;)
>>
>> I meant the golden boot, sheesh it's hard work round here sometimes ;)
You need to know the root of this bitter spleen venting every time the monarchy is mentioned.
Clearly Al is an illegitimate royal love child, the product of some illicit princely fumbling behind the swill bins at the Windsor Castle Tea Rooms.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 14:58
|
|
Not quite. Illegitimate spawn of the Duke of Montrose, as it goes.
|
....OK......the product of some illicit princely fumbling behind the swill bins at the The Duke of Montrose.
Always was an iffy pub.
|
Very good, tyred, I like that one. :-)
I'm going back a few generations, my paternal great great grandfather, whose adoptive father's surname I bear, was an illegitimate son of the Duke of Montrose. Just a plain fact of my family history, don't know why it should have offended someone.
I expect many millions have similar back stories in the family cupboard somewhere. It's hardly important, just an interesting bit of family history to me.
|
>>....don't know why it should have offended someone.
>>
...it wasn't me, Sire!.......
|
>> Sire!
Well, clearly, somebody did.
;-)
|
>> >> Sire!
>>
>> Well, clearly, somebody did.
>>
>> ;-)
Clearly illegitimacy still carries a stigma in some people eyes ;)
|
>> don't know why it should have offended someone.
Looks like you've collected a few red faces below A, I don't think there's any logic behind it.
|
>> ....OK......the product of some illicit princely fumbling behind the swill bins at the The Duke
>> of Montrose.
>>
>> Always was an iffy pub.
Till he got put away.
|
Point taken of course Al. And it's only fate that made him 6th rather than 1st in line.
For a moment I wondered if he would be promoted to the top (male primogeniture still rules for those born before 2011) if Charlie pre-deceased HM, but of course the line is set through him so William would get it. And if Charles and William were killed in the same helicopter crash, it would be George, not yet 3.
I imagine the Princess Royal is quite content that it isn't the next offspring that gets it and that she is subject to primogeniture, but I think she'd be quite good, allowing that she is past pension age herself.
What fun it all is, and you want to get rid of it:)
Bread and circuses.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 14:08
|
>> And yet here we are, one terrorist incident/air crash on the way to Klosters/elaborate yachting
>> accident away from him automatically becoming our Head of State.
Perhaps you should do some reading on absolute primogeniture?
|
|
Perhaps you should do some of my post three up from yours.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 13:52
|
>> It is claimed....
By whom? Reliable sources? The Wail?
I have met him, discussed complicated stuff with him and lunched with him.
He is not thick, not even close. That is not a tabloid rumour, that is my opinion from first hand experience.
|
Andrew lacks the premature baldness of the other royal offspring. I believe there were rumours years ago about his resemblance to race horse trainer Robert Sangster, a friend of the Windsors.
Purely coincidental, of course.
|
|
Tenuous factoid alert. I once rented a winglet of Swettenham Hall for a couple of years ( Sangster's old gaff ) when I first moved to Cheshire. He'd sold it by then but hey y'know...
|
>> Andrew lacks the premature baldness of the other royal offspring.
Does Princess Anne sport a syrup?
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 19:15
|
Not excusing it in any way, but I guess if your title is "Prince" instead of "Mr" and the price of a Range Rover and a gate is more or less loose change to you and it is after all your Range Rover and your gate, and maybe you've had a bad day...well, y'know...
We all see the world through our own eyes and as such our concepts of realities and values can differ.
;-)
|
What a reasonable chap you are Humph.
I'm not going to get worked up about it, but I am always disappointed when those with power or position take advantage - they let themselves down. Most commonly with bullying behaviour of course, not crashing through gates, so perhaps I misjudge him as he didn't actually run over a peasant.
Having the power to throw your weight about also means you have the power NOT to do it.
The quality of mercy, and all that. At least when it comes to people, but perhaps not gates.
|
|
Archaic remnants of the past.
|
Maybe Pug....but still useful.
Mine keeps intruders out of the garden...:-)
|
>> What a reasonable chap you are Humph.
Reasonable maybe, but wrong sadly.
The gate belongs to the Crown Estate, which is owned and managed by the British Government on behalf of the British People. It is not owned by 'Prince' Andrew, nor his mother come to that. Windsor Castle is essentially a large council house inside an exceptionally large public park. We will get the bill. I'd also wonder whether the Range Rover was paid for out of the 'Prince's' taxed, earned income.
The criminal damage has been reported to the Police, however they are refusing to question the alleged miscreant. If it is the case that they were pursuing him at the time, surely they have good video evidence from the following Police car? Open and shut case. Imagine if any one of us drove our cars deliberately into publicly owned property causing material damage, all on camera. What do we think would be the outcome?
It's political incorrectness gone mad.
|
|
You do obsess on this one a bit, don't you?
|
|
Not really. But it's a thread about 'Royals', so an appropriate place for relevant opinion.
|
"Open and shut case."
No the gate was definitely shut.
|
>> It's political incorrectness gone mad.
I gave that one a thumb to offset the frownie:)
No suggestion AFAIK that there was a hot pursuit; the incident was reported to a paper, not the police, by a "park worker".
I wouldn't expect the police to follow it up if the park worker had given them my name, but I see no reason why Crown Estates should not ask him to pay for the damage. I hope he at least has had the sense to pre-empt that by offering, although I doubt it - we would have heard.
If the park worker reported it to the police, then perhaps somebody would have had a word and considered a prosecution for criminal damage if it was warranted. If he has been a vandal, I'd like to see him doing a week's litter picking in a high vis., for bringing our splendid institution into disrepute.
Quite likely that the incident is largely made up or exaggerated of course. We don't actually know whether it was ram-raid style or a nudge intended to wake it up, or indeed what he did about it afterwards.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 10:19
|
Mr Graham Smith, of Republic, has reported the damage to Thames Valley Police who are refusing to investigate. They say that, as Mr Smith was not involved in the incident, nor was his property damaged, that they can not follow up his report.
This is simply an appalling attitude from the Police, who surely have a responsibility to investigate any reported crime, whoever has reported it. Where does this leave someone who reports, say, a murder, which they were not involved in?
This is the danger inherent in having people in the country who are apparently above the law.
|
>> Mr Graham Smith, of Republic, has reported the damage to Thames Valley Police ....
>>
>> This is simply an appalling attitude from the Police, who surely have a responsibility to
>> investigate any reported crime, whoever has reported it.
>>
>> This is the danger inherent in having people in the country who are apparently above
>> the law.
>>
Did Mr Smith witness the incident? Has he seen pictures or video of the incident?
Why should the police waste time and money investigating this?
It's a newspaper wind up for pete's sake! There is no video of the incident, a single witness and no facts available apart from that the gate is "broken"
You can bet the papers have tried to find witnesses, phone pictures etc there are none to be found just a load of people trying furiously to make a mountain out of a molehill.
|
>> Did Mr Smith witness the incident? Has he seen pictures or video of the incident?
Why is that relevant? It's the public's job to report crime, the Police's job to gather evidence.
>> Why should the police waste time and money investigating this?
Because a crime has been reported.
|
>>
>> Because a crime has been reported.
>>
If the owner of the damaged property does not consider it a crime it is not a crime. Without a complaint from the owner the police will not investigate because if it went to court and the owner shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't care less about the incident it would be chucked out.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Because a crime has been reported.
>> >>
>> If the owner of the damaged property does not consider it a crime it is
>> not a crime. Without a complaint from the owner the police will not investigate because
>> if it went to court and the owner shrugged his shoulders and said he couldn't
>> care less about the incident it would be chucked out.
>>
So we're saying that the Crown Estate, publicly owned body, doesn't care about the assets which it manages on the public's behalf?
That's not a good state of affairs and would merit an investigation in and of itself, in the public interests.
|
>> Mr Graham Smith, of Republic, has reported the damage to Thames Valley Police who are
>> refusing to investigate. They say that, as Mr Smith was not involved in the incident,
>> nor was his property damaged, that they can not follow up his report.
>>
>> This is simply an appalling attitude from the Police,
Well maybe it is, but I bet they wouldn't investigate if I said I'd read or heard that somebody had crashed into your gate so why pick on Andy?
I was once attacked, knocked down and kicked while doing my job (trying to collect a debt actually). I reported it to the police who refused even to pick up a pen on the grounds that it was "my word against his".
|
Yep. Sad state of affairs, isn't it M?
Why pick on Andy? Why indeed pick on anyone. That's the point, reported crimes should be investigated whoever is alleged to have committed them. In the case of reported criminal damage against public assets, surely a Police investigation should be mandatory.
I can see that in the real world damage to my gates by persons unspecified and uncorroborated would most likely result in a 'meh' from TVP. Which is sad, but there we go.
But in the case under discussion I don't see why it shouldn't be investigated where there is material damage to public property and a named individual having been reported as responsible for such.
|
>> But in the case under discussion I don't see why it shouldn't be investigated where
>> there is material damage to public property and a named individual having been reported as
>> responsible for such.
In the ordinary way maybe not an unreasonable view, but here we have a political organisation trying to use the police as a weapon in their campaign to stir up anti-royalist feeling. If I were Sergeant Dixon I'd be inclined to tell them to do their own dirty work.
If the Duke has any sense, which we are told he has, then he has probably made amends already and plod may well be aware of this - I imagine the response originated from higher up than the front desk.
|
Then perhaps it would be in everyone's best interest if we were told, if that's the case. But of course we won't be, because what the 'Royals' prize most is their secrecy, and the Government tirelessly colludes in this, see the recent tightening of 'Royal' secrecy laws following the Black Spider memos. They are not subject to FOI requests. They wish to operate entirely as they please, free from public scrutiny or accountability. They are being allowed free reign to do so.
What Republic are doing is entirely reasonable in raising awareness of their agenda. They are completely entitled to stir it up, as you put it. Why not? They have a valid point.
|
>>They are being allowed free reign
Very good!
Of course Republic is entitled to campaign and should be, within the law.
I said IIRC "stir up anti-royalist feeling" which was paraphrasing their stated aim "must build a large, broad-based movement". In other words, they know that most people aren't really bothered, so they have to make them bothered.
They have got their name in the paper, fine. But the police have better things to do than to allow themselves to be used by Republic or anybody else with an axe to grind.
If they got a complaint from the landowner they might - just might - think differently, but even then I expect they would suggest that they go and have a word with Andy and see if they can resolve it, given he is unlikely to deny it if it's true.
I would expect no more if it was my gate, and my tenant, and frankly I would consider it a waste of time going to the police unless I had (a) spoken to him first, and (b) got nowhere. Even then, I wouldn't expect them to start jumping around.
|
The subtlety of this case though, which most seem to be missing with their erroneous belief that the Queen owns the Crown Estate, is that a large public organisation is not reporting what appears to be criminal damage to its, i.e. our, property, because of who it is that is alleged to have inflicted the damage. A member of the public doing what the Crown Estate officials should be doing is subsequently being ignored.
Beyond the matter of the gates themselves we have a clear case of officially sanctioned corruption in public office - don't MPs go to jail for that nowadays? Didn't we all jump up and down about them and their expenses?
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 12:19
|
|
I don't think I ever seen such faith put in a DM report on here ever. As you were.
|
That is an excellent point sooty, and I give way to the honourable gentleman.
Of course, other news sources are available and I didn't click the Wail link given by the OP.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/17/prince-andrew-reported-to-police-for-ramming-windsor-great-park-gates
|
Why thank you.
Likewise, although in fairness I didn't know that, not being one for Royality scurrrilous rumour, I can't say I seached for it ;)
I guess for most people it's a shrug of the shoulders, at best. NFI.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 12:45
|
OK, so we've now moved on from why haven't the police taken action to why hasn't Crown Estates reported it as criminal damage.
I know you are anti, and I am generally happy with, the monarchy but I'm trying to be objective here.
We don't know all that has happened, or what hasn't happened. What we probably know and I take as fact for the sake of the discussion is that
- PA has had a contretemps with the gate, resulting in damage to his car and the gate.
- a park worker told the story to a paper. As far as we know, he has not made a report to the police and he is the only witness we know of. If he has been paid for the story, some might think he is not a very strong witness.
- The gate has been repaired at a cost of £2,000 odd.
- A third party who was neither a witness or a party has reported that it has heard of PA damaging the gate, in the hope that the police will investigate it and, presumably, take action against PA.
- The police don't think they should investigate.
We don't know whether PA reported it. We don't know whether the park management contacted PA. We don't know who paid, or has agreed to pay.
It's certainly true that the police are very reluctant at the very best to get involved in a non-injury collision that might or might not be an accident and which they (and Republic) have read about in the paper.
The professional agitator from Republic wants PA to be treated as an ordinary member of the public. As far as I can see, he has been.
|
Well I 've not moved on from anything to anything, it was always part of the picture even if I failed to include the latter problem immediately.
After that, your post is reasonable, right up to your final assertion. I am minded to believe that an ordinary member of the public ramming the gates to a Crown Estate park with a Range Rover might well be treated to a bit of the old anti-Terrorist Police attention, Jean Charles de Menezes stylee.
At the very least I don't believe for one minute that if you or I had done it we'd not now be enjoying a bit of Her Majesty's pleasure, pending a court appearance.
|
>> The subtlety of this case though, which most seem to be missing with their erroneous
>> belief that the Queen owns the Crown Estate, is that a large public organisation is
>> not reporting what appears to be criminal damage to its, i.e. our, property,
Its not "our" property. Its not the governments property, its not the queens property.
Think you need to check out exactly what the crown estates is.
|
|
I can imagine the Royal transport manager phoning Land Rover with the news that we have scratched the car you lent us as product placement, could we have another one?
|
|
They'll be falling over themselves to hand out another. It's really cheap advertising when these sorts of companies give out free cars.
|
"The Crown Estate is not the personal property of Her Majesty the Queen but is owned by the Sovereign in right of the Crown.
The Sovereign is the legal owner, but does not have any powers of management or control"
and
"All our net surplus (profit) goes to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation".
So I would say the beneficial owner is the taxpayer.
|
Exactly, Manatee.
I don't think I've said anything incorrect about the Crown estate, Zero. I'm fairly sure I broadly understand its origina, its remit and what it is supposed to be and do, and I'm also aware of the brazen abuse of it by some and the widespread belief in the general population that because it says "Crown" it must be the Queen's property, a belief convenient to those who would like to feel it's their prerogative to literally batter down its gates.
The Crown Estate is owned by the state and not by the royal family in a private capacity.
|
>> The Crown Estate is owned by the state and not by the royal family in
>> a private capacity.
No it isn't. Much as you insist it is, and much as you would love to believe it because its suits your purpose and beliefs you are deliberately misrepresenting it
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 15:22
|
Sigh. It is owned by the state as the 'sovereign' is a role of state, a concept, and not a person. Its revenues accrue to the taxpayer, i.e. the state.
I'm not misrepresenting anything I don't think. If I said it's owned by the government at any stage, I take that back as yes, it's incorrect, but it is clearly owned by the state, the sovereign being a mechanism of the state and not an individual.
Anyway, nobody's really got the right to smash it up without being banged to rights.
Who or what do you say owns it, Zero? Fl's link is quite clear, it isn't the Queen as a private entity.
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 15:35
|
>> Sigh. It is owned by the state as the 'sovereign' is a role of state,
>> a concept, and not a person. Its revenues accrue to the taxpayer, i.e. the state.
It is NOT owned by the Sovereign It is NOT owned by the state, nor is it controlled by either. Profits not revenue accrue to the state, think of it as taxes. Its actually a corporation. Think City of London.
I'm sorry you can bleat as much as you like but do stop misrepresenting the royal estate as belonging to the people.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 15:45
|
Yes, profits, not revenues, poor choice of word.
I am aware who it belongs to, as would anyone be who reads Fl's link.
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 18 Mar 16 at 15:48
|
Is there any real indication of the cost of the damage apart from newspaper guesses?
Are we talking thousands of pounds or 5 minutes and a can of T cut?
|
>>Are we talking thousands of pounds or 5 minutes and a can of T cut? <<
I would say both...an insurance claim for thousands but repaired with a can of T cut
Pat
|
>>>>
>> I would say both...an insurance claim for thousands but repaired with a can of T
>> cut
>>
>> Pat
>>
The young lass has nailed it.
|
>>The young lass has nailed it<<
Young?...that's put a smile on my face for the weekend:)
Pat
|
I should reckon it's put a smile on everyone's face who's met you.
;>)
|
They are his gate and Landrover.We pay for it.
Our Holland King used to take a leak in full view when he got bored.Less damage do.
|
Let's get this into perspective.
Wher I live you can report a crime but if there is no immediate danger to anyone and no-one has been injured you will get a crime number.
That's all, not even a visit.
I would say Prince Andrew has been treated exactly as any of us would be.
Pat
|
Royal road hog - Alanovich
