I don't think that it is unreasonable for a government to say: "Ownership of a motor vehicle carries with it grave responsibilities and the use of motor vehicles on public roads is covered by much legislation. In order that that legislation is effectively enforced it is essential that the authorities are able to determine who is using a motor vehicle at any given time - particularly when an offence is alleged to have occurred. If you wish to own a motor vehicle then you must also accept the responsibility of providing information to the authorities as to who was using it under such circumstances. Failure to do so will be an offence in itself." I certainly have no problems with that responsibility. Why do you?
Why? Because it would make it harder for you to avoid responsibility for your illegal actions?
The right to silence has effectively been removed across the whole of the UK judicial system of course - not just in relation to traffic offences. No-one can force anyone to talk - but the prosecution can now comment upon such refusal and suggest to a jury that refusal to answer questions is an indication of guilt. Personally I have no problem with that either.
Hmm - I'm not so sure on that. You talk about basic legal principles - but is it not such a principle that insists that no-one should be convicted of an offence for which they are innocent? It would be wrong to convict a car owner of, say, speeding, without real evidence that he was in fact the driver. Making it an offence to provide details of the driver is, to my mind, the better alternative.
I don't - but for the sound reasons I've given above!
Well of course that is your prerogative - but please don't come whingeing and moaning when the inevitable happens!!
Kev
