DS Forums

 
 

EE: Ian claims to be driving.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-12-2015, 00:48
roverboy1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 736

Phil's Range Rover crashes causing life threatening injuries to a child and someone, other than the drunk alcoholic owner, also in the vehicle, claims to have been driving.

The police would be super suspicious and not take Ian's claim at face value.

They would according to my police officer son,

Arrested both ian and Phil at the scene and taken them to be interviewed seperatly to see if their stories tallied.

Seized the vehicle for examination, you can tell a lot about who was driving by things such as seat position etc even DNA testing the seats/steering wheel for Ian's DNA.

See if ian was insured to drive, if nothing else its a charge of permitting for Phil and uninsured driving for Ian.

The police would not just take Ian's word for it especially in this case where the vehicle is owned by a known alcoholic drunk at the time (both would have been breath tested at the scene, and involved in a serious injury collision.
roverboy1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-12-2015, 00:50
emma daily
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 716
It's not all supposed to be real that's why it is a serial (surreal)
emma daily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 01:18
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 48,128
yes given that it is Phils car, the police would question why Ian was driving, and I do not believe Ian has touched the steering wheel, to say nothing of the fact whilst his seat belt injury might match Phils, as he was sitting behind, there would not be marks from the steering wheel on him, which would rise further questions.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 03:59
MinaH
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
The driver would also be responsible for failing to ensure a minor had his seat belt on. Dennis didn't have his seat belt on. [While Ian was manhandling him by his jacket pulling him out of his seat - but that is a separate issue].
MinaH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 04:02
Desert_Rain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,034
The driver would also be responsible for failing to ensure a minor had his seat belt on. Dennis didn't have his seat belt on. [While Ian was manhandling him by his jacket pulling him out of his seat].
Denny is going to say what really happened too when he's awake.

The police will want his statement. Ian and Phils game could be over very soon.
Desert_Rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 04:05
MinaH
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
Ps: The police by checking mobile phones would find Ian was in a phone call to Jane before, during and after the accident.
MinaH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 04:07
MinaH
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
Denny is going to say what really happened too when he's awake.

The police will want his statement. Ian and Phils game could be over very soon.
I think they have that one covered. Denny won't remember anything and it seems he is going to spend time in a coma. How many EE characters have spent time in coma - there must be quite a few now.
MinaH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 04:08
Desert_Rain
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,034
I think they have that one covered. Denny won't remember anything and it seems he is going to spend time in a coma. How many EE characters have spent time in coma - there must be quite a few now.
Ahh of course.

I wonder if he will forget about Bobby and Lucy too? I hope he doesn't.
Desert_Rain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 04:17
miaow_sponge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,550
If Marsden was involved then Phil would definitely be in the firing line!
miaow_sponge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 06:22
chewstick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 568
Ps: The police by checking mobile phones would find Ian was in a phone call to Jane before, during and after the accident.

Don't mean much, unless they have proof it was definitely Ian using his phone and not Phil, or Ian could say he was using the cars hands free system.
chewstick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 08:39
lewisktfc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 760
They wouldn't arrest both Ian and Phil, they'd first take all the statements, THEN take action if there was a problem. They also had no reason at this stage to doubt Ian, as there's no obvious reason why he'd lie, so at first they would accept what he says, just with a pinch of salt.
lewisktfc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 08:47
Ouroboros
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,603
The scriptwriters write the story of a fictional serial drama (soap) essentially they make it up they might include some real bits and they might include some fantasy bits also it's what they do.
Ouroboros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 08:55
roverboy1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 736
The police would not let this drop without a thorough investigation if they think a drunk driver (and a crim known to them) has crashed his car almost killing a child.

As said they would be interviewed separately,
are Ian's seat belt marks (if any) consistant with wearing the driver's belt,

Would the drivers seat be in a position Ian would have it for his height

Blood, Phil had cuts and bruises and they would DNA test blood found in the drivers area and would want to know if Phil claimed to be in the back how his blood came to be in the front and not Ians and vice versa

They would swab things like steering wheel and drivers door handle for DNA and question why none of Ian's there if driving.

Although no single one proves Ian wasn't driving conclusively it would be enough to put before a jury charging Ian with PCOJ and Phil with DD and any others they can think of such as uninsured driving for Ian and permitting for Phil.

Believe me lewisktfc the police faced with a serious RTC involving life threatening injuries to a child, involving a car owned by a drunk who claims not to have been driving but a passenger and in drink driving season would not take anything with a "pinch of salt".
roverboy1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 09:13
bean_of_sb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 4,618
Didn't Phil say he had seatbelt bruising? Surely they would see what side of his body the bruising was, and be able to determine which side of car he was sitting in?
bean_of_sb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 09:17
roddydogs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,355
This is EE, any connection between it & real life are entirely coincidental, been the same since it started.
roddydogs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 09:18
Ouroboros
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,603
This is EE, any connection between it & real life are entirely coincidental, been the same since it started.
That's the way I see it too.
Ouroboros is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 09:19
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,714
It's not all supposed to be real that's why it is a serial (surreal)
It should have at least some grounding in reality (after all, EE has always prided itself on it research and being realistic).

To ignore the most basic of police and accident investigation procedures is bewildering
mossy2103 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 10:54
roverboy1965
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 736
This is EE, any connection between it & real life are entirely coincidental, been the same since it started.
Plus the chances of surviving being thrown through the side window of a large rolling vehicle are tiny, in fact it would be a miracle !!!!!
roverboy1965 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 11:31
Lady Voldemort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: here
Posts: 4,814
To be fair, Ian has only just been taken off by the police. That fact that Phil was really driving *could* all be done and dusted by the next duff duff.
Lady Voldemort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 12:11
stidds
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 70
Didn't Phil say he had seatbelt bruising? Surely they would see what side of his body the bruising was, and be able to determine which side of car he was sitting in?
Weren't both Ian and Phil on the same side? Ian was sat behind Phil so they would both have seatbelt bruising on the same side.
stidds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 12:25
Sunnydays
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,727
What happened to the airbags......I didn't see any.....
Sunnydays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 12:39
LakieLady
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,204
Ian's going to be in a bit of doo-doo either way.

If they work out he wasn't driving, he'll be done for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If they don't, he'll be done for dangerous driving and/or using his phone while driving.

Given that Steve Mc Fadden needs a break so he can do his panto season, I reckon the Old Bill will work it out and Phil will be locked up for a while.
LakieLady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 12:41
bean_of_sb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 4,618
Weren't both Ian and Phil on the same side? Ian was sat behind Phil so they would both have seatbelt bruising on the same side.
Ah, of course
bean_of_sb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 13:25
Miss C. DeVille
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Folkestone
Posts: 1,648
As no breath test was taken at the scene all Phil has got to do is say he had a drink afterwards to steady his nerves or something. That would void a later breath test and he wouldn't need Ian to cover for him. Seems pretty obvious to me.
He would still get done for Denny not wearing a seat belt though. If Denny dies would it be manslaughter?
Miss C. DeVille is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-12-2015, 13:28
soap-lea
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: With MyAndy!
Posts: 15,202
The police would not let this drop without a thorough investigation if they think a drunk driver (and a crim known to them) has crashed his car almost killing a child.

As said they would be interviewed separately,
are Ian's seat belt marks (if any) consistant with wearing the driver's belt,

Would the drivers seat be in a position Ian would have it for his height

Blood, Phil had cuts and bruises and they would DNA test blood found in the drivers area and would want to know if Phil claimed to be in the back how his blood came to be in the front and not Ians and vice versa

They would swab things like steering wheel and drivers door handle for DNA and question why none of Ian's there if driving.

Although no single one proves Ian wasn't driving conclusively it would be enough to put before a jury charging Ian with PCOJ and Phil with DD and any others they can think of such as uninsured driving for Ian and permitting for Phil.

Believe me lewisktfc the police faced with a serious RTC involving life threatening injuries to a child, involving a car owned by a drunk who claims not to have been driving but a passenger and in drink driving season would not take anything with a "pinch of salt".
Didn't Phil say he had seatbelt bruising? Surely they would see what side of his body the bruising was, and be able to determine which side of car he was sitting in?
Ian was sat behind Phil and so their seatbelts both went in the same direction
soap-lea is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:22.