that across motorists - As
You mentioned in an earlier post that, (in general) Gatso's and speed cameras can't identify the driver, so the means does not exist. All that exists is identification of a probable driver. The basic premise in english law, used to be 'innocent until proven guilty'. It seems that where that could be difficult, that premise is being changed to 'guilty unless you can prove your innocence.' The buttumption of innocence is being eroded IMO. At one time only the IR seemed to be in the position of making a claim, with the onus of proving it was incorrect placed upon the taxpayer. Customs and excise then started doing it in contravention of EU regulations. Seems our legal system wants the same priviledge, just to make it easier to convict suspected lawbreakers. The right to silence has effectively been abolished. All that seems necessary these days to secure a conviction is, probable guilt. Ignoring the fact that that also implies possible innocence. That used to mean that a person should be found not guilty. Now that seems to have changed to 'if you can't prove your innocence, you are guilty'. I'm all for prosecuting lawbreakers, but not when the method chosen also means many innocent people being unjustly convicted. IMO it's up to the law to use methods of securing convictions based more on proof, rather than buttumptions. The law should not be changed just because proof might be difficult. That to my mind is the start of a slippery slope. Mike.
