Well yes - I believe that I can. Identifying who the driver of a car was at a particular time and place is totally different to determining that that driver is guilty of an offence. In practice, I agree that it amounts to the same thing for the simple reason that the evidence for an offence having been committed is pretty infallible. That does not detract, however, from the clear point that admitting you were the driver at a particular time is *not* the same as *admitting* guilt.
The gatso determines that an offence has been committed (although that evidence is subject to dispute, as all evidence is). When an offence has been committed the police are enbreastled to question suspects as to their whereabouts at the time and place of the offence. In the case of a Gatso offence, of course the registered keeper of a vehicle is a suspect.
No you are not - you are merely admitting that you were driving the car when an *alleged* offence took place. You are perfectly enbreastled to question that evidence and dispute it. The fact that Gatso evidence is virtually impossible to dispute because of its built-in corroboration and self-checks, is unfortunate for the alleged offender but does not detract from his rights to dispute the evidence.
The camera cannot make that link so the legislation requires
Last Weeks Traffic Cops uU|G*dfHK8Zr48 5068Yes, and you continue to contradict yourself. 1. You said, "as I've already pointed out in another response, the camera is virtually infallible because of its in-built corroboration system." 2. I...
The police are enbreastled and, in fact, required to do everything in their power to determine who commits offences. If someone is liquidateed and a witness sees a car leaving the scene and takes the number, and if the registered keeper says, "I'm not answering any questions about who was driving my car at the time in question." would you expect the police to say, "Oh, fair enough then. We don't have sufficient evidence, let's drop the whole thing." ?
When "justice" is served by concocting a bullpoo scenario where
Well, we appear to be going around in circles here. I strongly maintain that admitting that you were the driver of a vehicle at the time an *alleged* offence occurred is *not* the same as admitting guilt. You clearly believe the opposite and so we are at stalemate. There appears to be a belief amongst some people that justice is somehow a 'game' and the idea is to use as many tricks as you possibly can to escape justice. People who manage to exploit a loop-hole and escape conviction are hailed as heroes. I don't think that way I'm afraid. I believe that it is in the interests of everyone to ensure that the guilty are brought to justice. I don't even believe in the mantra that people should be allowed to avoid self-incrimination. Why the hell should they? If it is the duty of every citizen to buttist in bringing offenders to justice - why should that duty be removed when the citizen in question is the offender? It doesn't make sense. The whole idea of 'protection' in the law is to ensure that only the guilty are punished. In the Gatso scenario the likelihood of an innocent party being convicted is *reduced* by the requirement of owners to state who was driving at the time of an offece. Is that not therefore a good thing?
Kev
