Prince William and Kate Middleton current events 6: August-November 2008

[Little_star]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Goodness, Belfast isn't the only major city. London, Manchester, Sheffield, Cheltenham, everywhere you go, stand in the busiest street and count, if you can, the amount of drivers with a phone in their ear. The M1, M4 and M6 are just as packed with mobile users, perhaps the police would like to concentrate on them!

Other people go out murder, rape and steal that doesn't mean that I should use others "standards" for my own.

About a quarter of all accidents are caused by motorists using their mobiles so it is a serious problem.

[Al_bina]

The appropriate changes have been introduced to the post.

[Menarue]

Try Lisbon, Cascais. I have counted about 6 within a few minutes. Yes, it is against the law here but very hard to implement this law - unless there is a little paparazzo waiting to take a photo - even then....
I only hope that no one this forum or their loved ones are killed by someone doing this.
Even when someone pulls over it can be unsafe, it wasn´t that many years ago that a businessman on the main Porto-Lisbon highway pulled over to take a call, became absent minded and stepped out of the car..... well you can imagine the rest.
Let the phones ring, as soon as you are in a safe place you just pick up the phone and call back - simple.

[Duchess]

i've looked at several of the pictures and while a telephoto lens "could" have been used, it wouldn't have had to be a very powerful one as the photographer is quite close by...many of the cameras the average person buys today have a telephoto powerful enough to capture these types of shots. also, if she's on a public road, or in any public place where photography isn't prohibited, unless the laws are vastly different in the UK and i confess i don't know what they are, then taking her picture wouldn't be against the law.

[Skydragon]

Maybe not, but what reasonable excuse could there have been for an uninterested stranger, to be stood at the side of a road, camera in hand? We have in our 'collection', a Canon G9, mine, an EOS, and a rather nice Nikon D2H and on experimenting this morning, the only only IMO that could take the pictures, without glare on the screen or noise, would have to be the Nikon and not many people happen to be standing about with one of those in their pocket. I'm not a professional photographer, so perhaps they can do better with a different camera, the next ploy will probably be to 'bring forth' the innocent amateur, who just happened to be there camera in hand.

Or was it a case of he telephoned the various rags and said he knows Kate travels down road B, (her security advisors would have told her to ensure she varies the route and time she uses it each day) and how much would they pay if he got a shot. He then went to his place in the lane for a couple of weeks until he got the shot, which in my book equals stalking! Taking photographs of anyone without their express consent is illegal in many towns now, some call it PC gone mad, others welcome it.

[zembla]

I don't see the big deal of her driving, on what looks like a desolate road, talking on her cell. The most she would get in America is a ticket for like $75.00...some of the headlines in The UK suggesting jail time for 2 years are just so bizarre...

[Incas]

For some of the anonymouse posters on Daily Mail's site is to be believed, two years jail term is not enough.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by zembla

I don't see the big deal of her driving, on what looks like a desolate road, talking on her cell. The most she would get in America is a ticket for like $75.00...some of the headlines in The UK suggesting jail time for 2 years are just so bizarre...

They are just that. This is the official statement

The offences of using a hand held mobile phone whilst driving and failing to have proper control of a vehicle have now become endorsable. Drivers now automatically have their licence endorsed with three penalty points and receive a £60 fine – double the previous charge. Any cases that reach court could involve discretionary disqualification and a maximum fine of £1,000 - or £2,500 in the case of the driver of a bus, coach or goods vehicle

Sussex Police Online - Mobile phones and the new law

As you can see, the UK papers are not always accurate!

[Isana]

I think jail time only applies if you cause an accident. Which Kate hasn't but it sounds so much better to point out that a maximum sentence of 2 years in jail is possible than to merely mention the rather moderate fine of £60. Otherwise everyone would be like - what's the big deal then?


Thank you for the link, kinga. Good to see William alive and kicking, long time no see. But what is Chelsy doing in London in a nightclub in the middle of the week? Isn't she supposed to be a good law student in Leeds?

[Jo of Palatine]

The article didn't say that Chelsy was there. It only alleged that Chelsy and Paris Hilton (who was there) could become good friends because they're both blondes. And illustrated that opinion with an older pic of Chelsy.

[Isana]

Heiress Paris Hilton and singer Christina Aguilera spent the evening rubbing shoulders with Prince William, Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice and royal girlfriend Chelsy Davy at the Mayfair venue.

Now I am not saying that the DM is alway right but they clearly say that Chelsy was there last night and zimbio has pics of her from last night.

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/n28Vo...XO/Chelsy+Davy

[kinga77]

The night Paris and Christina met Wills, Eugenie and Bea | Mail Online

[Menarue]

From the Sussex police online.

"This is not another bash at the motoring public, it's about helping to prevent people getting injured on our roads. The severity of the penalty reflects the dangers posed through mobile phone use and not maintaining proper control of your car. We will stringently enforce this law and believe it will lead to safer roads and safer communities."

Well I heartily agree with this as any one with any sense would.

[Skydragon]

But my friend, this is the interesting section, IMO.
How can a police officer prove that I was using my hands-free or mobile?
If you drive badly and a police officer suspects you have been using your phone he can stop you and seek a reason for the poor driving. If it goes to court your phone records can be checked to determine whether you were using your phone.

When is a driver allowed to use a hand-held phone?
There is an exception for calls to 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency where it would be unsafe or impractical to stop

[MARG]

I am genuinely astounded at the indignant furour over Kate's flagrant use of a cellphone whilst driving a car. It seems everyone is turning themselves inside out to find an "acceptable" reason to defend the indefensible.

She was snapped doing the crime (or misdemeanor), and whilst I am aware that burglary, rape and murder investigations are the preferred preoccupation of the local Constabulary, try telling that to the mother of a small child or the child of a mother killed by a "distracted" driver.

Whether we admit it or not, statistically it is the "soft" (why don't you go catch a murderer") crimes that make up the bulk of police work. The shopkeeper who calls the Police when someone shoplifts a chocolate bar, or the petrol station owner who reports someone driving off without paying for $75 of petrol, those are the small things that can break a small business and destroy a lifestyle, if not a life. They are the small things that add up to indifference . . . it was only a chocolate bar, a tank of petrol, 10 kilometers over the limit, but everyone does it so what's the big deal.

The big deal is that Kate broke the law and should get a fine and demerit points. That is what the law is for . . . . to protect ordinary, decent people just going about their lives. More people are killed and maimed on the road than by the average homicidal maniac!

Good grief! Take a reality check! The most that can happen to her is that she gets the legal version of a "clip round the ear" and a stern admonishment to not do it again. Which, because she is a high profile personality, should serve as a cautionary reminder that noone is above the law. And that icludes the Wales boys driving without their seatbelts!

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by MARG

She was snapped doing the crime (or misdemeanor),
The big deal is that Kate broke the law and should get a fine and demerit points. That is what the law is for . . . . to protect ordinary, decent people just going about their lives.

I don't think it is clear from the pictures that she was indeed navigating public streets when talking on the phone. Or if she was, who she called. Because if she felt threatened by the paps and called the police, it would be perfectly legal.

I see with interest how the Mail sztopped printing new comments and shortened the article as much as possible on taking out a lot of pre-judgmental phrases, how the pics have disappeared from the agencies, how the quotes from the police can be interpreted in two ways, how the reporting stopped about the topic.

There's something going on behind the scenes and I wonder why if all is so absolutely clear. Of course, if Catherine drove and talked without a hands-free unit, she should be fined. nobody thinks otherwise. Quite some people here only question the evidence that she did in fact transgressed.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by MARG

I am genuinely astounded at the indignant furour over Kate's flagrant use of a cellphone whilst driving a car. It seems everyone is turning themselves inside out to find an "acceptable" reason to defend the indefensible.
The big deal is that Kate broke the law and should get a fine and demerit points. That is what the law is for . . . . to protect ordinary, decent people just going about their lives. More people are killed and maimed on the road than by the average homicidal maniac!

However, we have nothing to prove or say she had not stopped her car, at the side of a quiet road, to make or receive such a call, as 100's of law abiding citizens do every hour.

If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she was moving i.e driving and therefore broke the law, the police will deal with it in an appropriate manner, but they have as little as we have (AFAWK).

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Skydragon

However, we have nothing to prove or say she had not stopped her car, at the side of a quiet road, to make or receive such a call, as 100's of law abiding citizens do every hour.

Just so. I am willing to wait the slow wheels of justice, guilty or innocent. But, I am also willing to bet that a ticket could only be issued if there was an actual witness, that is to say, the photographer, and I don't see him/her "outing" themselves.

. . . . . (AFAWK).[/quote]Huh? Translation please. I am suffering from advanced brain fade just the now!

[Menarue]

I agree that it can be difficult to prove but my point was really to say to anyone that is saying it is ridiculous or unfair to fine someone for doing this - what really matters is that they are trying to prevent road deaths and for me that is number one priority.
Actually I doubt that they will have much success but the idea of preventing road deaths is commendable.

[Skydragon]

I agree 100%. If they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was talking whilst driving, she needs to be dealt with appropriately. Most people seem to be ignoring the ban, unfortunately.