snip
Yes. They are all legislated. Where is legislated that you know where your vehicle is at all times? Where is it legislated that you keep records of who drives it where and when?
snip
Yes. That is the burden of proof. The prosecution must prove that is was the accused that was driving the vehicle that was photographed.
Yes. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Everyone, and yes I mean everyone will try to get out of being prosecuted if they can. Right from when we are children we do not "own up". Is the instinct of self-preservation.
snip
So so I, but only in such a manner that does not require distortion of the roots of our justice system.
Yes, as would anyone else if they thought they could get away with it. That is human nature. Children as young as 4 do it and it is a sign that they are more intellectually advanced than those who do not.
Then why is it not acceptable? Why does the burden of proof then shift to the accused?
example snipped
If the keeper is the driver, he doesn't have to say anything and it is wrong that any inference should be drawn from that.
It's not accepted. The onus then shifts to the accused to show why it is unreasonable for him to know.
snip
The evidence that *an* offence exists, yes. Evidence that a person is guilty, no. The driver is required to make that final link and therefore make the prosecution case for them. That is not on.
snip
Driver Notification forms for MarkUno Hoo! composed the following;: Yes. But it can probably be got around, witness Christine 1 and her husband 2 who 'got off' because they couldn't remember who was driving at...
And the only way to identify the driver is for the driver to confess.
snip
Yes. It makes sure that the burden of proof stays entirely where it should be. Any move away from that and the slope is very steep and very slippery. We are already looking over the top.
snip
Perhaps.
I would try to find any way I could to get out of it. Only as a last resort would I accept it. If the prosecution cannot make the case against me then there is no case to answer.
So do I. But only where they are convicted absolutley, cleanly and beyond any reasonable doubt. Then throw the book at them. Sentencing is way too light for crimes that wreck lives and ridiculously harsh for victimless "crimes".
Driver Notification forms for Mark! 5102Agreed ! The fact that burglars are not going to admit being at the scene of the burglary does not mean that such a situation is beneficial or acceptable. As I say, because we have one...
Of course they should. It's one set of rules for both sides and if one side utilises those rules to their advantage better than the other then so be it. How the "rules" are defined and the balance in favour of one side or the other is another debate.
I agree. But to "protect the innocent" is far more important than to "convict the guilty". I would rather 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent is convicted.
That is what happens when protections are removed.
-- Mark Foster, Brighton, Suslove, UK PGP Fingerprint: 3342 C02C 7BE8 3FE4 AAC5 8BB2 03B7 9263 DDF2 04C1 -------------------------------------------------- "There are no such useless words as...'I didn't have a chance.'" Driving, HMSO
