Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[TheRambler]

The Queen may not need a driver's license but her husband apparently does.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/uk/princ ... index.html

I'm not familiar with British driving restrictions but I assume that he can still drive on his own properties, just not public roads.

For some unaccountable reason I am reminded of a memento of their time in India, held by a nameless Scottish regiment. The Colonel's notice stated quite succinctly that:

The practice of shooting at mess servants from the balcony is to cease forthwith.


TheRambler

[Burnaby49]

I'm not familiar with British driving restrictions but I assume that he can still drive on his own properties, just not public roads.

Correct.

Shouldn't affect him much then whether he kept or surrendered it. He was hit driving across a public road, not along it, crossing between two sections of their vast estate. I'd doubt that he still needs his license to tootle over to Tesco to pick up a dozen discount ales for Saturday night telly. All he has to do in future is surrender the wheel for a few moments to whoever accompanys him or just stay on the mansion side of Sandringham, the place is 20,000 acres.

[AndyPandy]

Shouldn't affect him much then whether he kept or surrendered it. He was hit driving across a public road, not along it, crossing between two sections of their vast estate. I'd doubt that he still needs his license to tootle over to Tesco to pick up a dozen discount ales for Saturday night telly. All he has to do in future is surrender the wheel for a few moments to whoever accompanys him or just stay on the mansion side of Sandringham, the place is 20,000 acres.

If you're on the public highway (even if you're just crossing it) you have to be taxed, insured and hold a valid licence, includes trail type bikes and agricultural vehicles, never mind an armour plated Range Rovers !

[longdog]

If you're on the public highway (even if you're just crossing it) you have to be taxed, insured and hold a valid licence, includes trail type bikes and agricultural vehicles, never mind an armour plated Range Rovers !

I don't think it actually has to be a public highway for you to need the full nine yards when it comes to licences and insurance. Any land to which the public has access is treated the same as public land or highways.

If you are on your own land and run over a group of trespassing nuns and orphans you're in the clear. Do it in Tesco's car-park and you're in the shit.

[Burnaby49]

If you're on the public highway (even if you're just crossing it) you have to be taxed, insured and hold a valid licence, includes trail type bikes and agricultural vehicles, never mind an armour plated Range Rovers !

Agreed but that's not what I was saying. I was saying he doesn't need to personally drive across the road. I wrote;

All he has to do in future is surrender the wheel for a few moments to whoever accompanys him or just stay on the mansion side of Sandringham, the place is 20,000 acres.

The accident happened when he was trying to cross a public road to get from one part of the Sandringham estate to another. So as I understand it he can rocket around Sandringham all he wants (barring any public access part) as long as he lets somebody else who's licensed take over driving for the, as I wrote, "few moments" that it takes to cross the public road.

[Juisarian]

Last I checked in the Common Law jurisdiction of South Australia a roadway is only exempt from public road laws if it is segregated from the public road by a fence or gate. So in other words, hooning around the Hungry Jacks car park in your vintage land-yatch, a popular pastime in these parts, is still a crime even though it takes place on private land.

[Tevildo]

The Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 192(1), defines (rather tautologically) a "road" as "any highway and any other road to which the public has access". So, if the public can legally access the road, then the fact it's on private property, or that it isn't legally a right of way, is irrelevant. It's illegal to drive on common land, or on a private field without the permission of the landowner (Section 34 of the Act), but I'm not sure what the position is when it comes to driving on a private field with the landowner's permission.

[longdog]

It's illegal to drive on common land, or on a private field without the permission of the landowner (Section 34 of the Act), but I'm not sure what the position is when it comes to driving on a private field with the landowner's permission.

I think it depends on whether or not there's a general right of access or not. The fact that specific people other than the land owner have access doesn't matter as long as the right of access isn't to everybody.

I looked into the meaning of public place a while ago when I was wondering if I could use my longbow in the communal garden to my block of flats. Although all the other tenants and their guests have a right of access and the council have a right of access it's not legally a public place as far as possessing an offensive weapon is concerned. If only certain 'classes' of people are allowed on land it remains private as long as the 'classes' doesn't include everybody. I would imagine the same would apply to the laws on driving.

If you think about it Brands Hatch effectively has public access, even if you have to pay, so the car-park is probably a public highway. But punters aren't allowed on the track so that part of the land isn't... That's why F1 drivers don't need a licence or insurance.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

The thing all you sheeple are missing is that both Prince Philip and Queen Liz drive their own cars. What's car spelled backwards? That's right - RAC, as in a 'rack'. Who used to put people on racks? The custodians in the Tower of London, i.e the ruling class keeping the 'peasants' imprisoned and under torture... but the good news is here, because Philip just had his license revoked. It's a clear sign that the liberal elite are literally loosing control, and the new world order is collapsing in on itself any minute now!

[The Seventh String]

I think it depends on whether or not there's a general right of access or not. The fact that specific people other than the land owner have access doesn't matter as long as the right of access isn't to everybody.

Much depends upon the classification of any road, byway or path.

Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs, a declining resource formerly known as “green lanes”) are public highways open to all traffic and are supposed to be maintained by local authorities along with the rest of the road network.

Bridlepaths are not open to vehicular traffic except with the landowner’s/occupier’s permission. Amongst other things that provision allows agricultural vehicles to use them as a route between fields etc.

Footpaths are closed to all vehicular traffic.

As for fields, entering them without the landowner/occupier’s other than on a publicly open highway or path is trespassing, plus possibly criminal damage if crops or animals are damaged.

[D-C]

It's illegal to drive on common land, or on a private field without the permission of the landowner (Section 34 of the Act), but I'm not sure what the position is when it comes to driving on a private field with the landowner's permission.

I think it depends on whether or not there's a general right of access or not. The fact that specific people other than the land owner have access doesn't matter as long as the right of access isn't to everybody.

I looked into the meaning of public place a while ago when I was wondering if I could use my longbow in the communal garden to my block of flats. Although all the other tenants and their guests have a right of access and the council have a right of access it's not legally a public place as far as possessing an offensive weapon is concerned. If only certain 'classes' of people are allowed on land it remains private as long as the 'classes' doesn't include everybody. I would imagine the same would apply to the laws on driving.

If you think about it Brands Hatch effectively has public access, even if you have to pay, so the car-park is probably a public highway. But punters aren't allowed on the track so that part of the land isn't... That's why F1 drivers don't need a licence or insurance.

F1 drivers do need a license to drive round Brands Hatch on race day, it’s called an FIA Super Lience (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Super_Licence)

[longdog]

Your pedantry does you credit sir!

[NYGman]

Pedantry aside, I thought that in the UK each track is licenced to allow racing events within certain parameters. That and I am betting they either have to carry insurance, or have sufficient reservation set aside to cover. In that way there is nothing license and insurance.

[longdog]

Pedantry aside, I thought that in the UK each track is licenced to allow racing events within certain parameters. That and I am betting they either have to carry insurance, or have sufficient reservation set aside to cover. In that way there is nothing license and insurance.

There's no actual law that requires race tracks to be 'licenced' they just need to be to host certain types of event run under the auspices of the various motor sports groups. I assume it's like NGRC tracks and independent 'flapper' tracks for greyhound racing. NGRC tracks are, obviously, licenced by the National Greyhound Racing Club and 'flapper' tracks aren't. NGRC registered dogs can run at both types of course but unregistered dogs can only race at 'flapper' tracks.

Obviously both types of car race track would need planning consent etc but 'licencing' by the governing bodies of motorsport is entirely optional.

[Footloose52]

Actually, for motor racing, if the event is run under the auspices of Motorsport UK (the largest of the authorising bodies whose powers are governed by law), the venue has to hold a track licence before an event can be held. I believe this will also apply to any ACU event as well, i.e. motorcycle races.

For events on temporary tracks (motocross, stage rallies etc) there are other rules that apply to cover the safety and route authorisation requirements.

[grixit]

The sheep lanes of medieval Spain were under direct royal control because of the importance of sheep in the national economy. Drovers had special rights of passage along them, regardless of local jurisdiction. Perhaps someday we'll see the emergence of spanish sovs who claim immunity from traffic laws because of the lambs strapped to their hoods.

[wanglepin]

UK ROYALS PREPARE TO ABDICATE - Operation Candid Repurposed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMBGmFqln5o

The UK Press is currently rife with scenarios whereby the British Royals, due to threat of Civil disobedience on behalf of the BREXIT betrayed citizenry , must be removed to a "safe-haven" to protect them from their subjects. Hmmm! I believe they know the game is up and are covering their tracks as best the can and using this as an excuse to leave OR more possibly they have been told their days are numbered. I think that this number. could be the No.17

This guy just cannot help himself and it appears he is still still pushing the WeRe bank with freeman legal services.

ReMovement
http://www.removement.net

Rules for Radicals
http://www.rules4radicals.org

BREXIT
http://www.brexit2exit.org

WeRe Bank
https://www.werebank.co.uk

Freeman Legal Services Website:
http://www.freemanlegalservices.com/

Mod note...I've moved this post/topic to the previous PofE thread to avoid clutter...Gregg

[Gregg]

Why does he think they're abdicating just because there are contingency plans to get out of London during potential unrest?

Yes, yes, yes, but first, I'm sure they have plans for any number of unlikely circumstances because that's what governments do. Second, one of the things about the Monarch who 'reigns but does not rule' is they are somewhat insulated from being responsible for what the government does. I'd be much more worried about someone trying to hang Teresa May from Nelson's Column, she's got a lot more to answer for in this shitshow.

[notorial dissent]

Has he been repeatedly hitting himself on the head or something???

[ManontheClaphamBus]

Has he been repeatedly hitting himself on the head or something???

Doubt it, that might have knocked some sense into him