It corroborates the (electronic) allegation that an offence has been committed - and committed by a particular car carrying a particular registration plate. In many cases now, due to the advances in the camera sophistication, it also takes a very clear picture of the driver!
Agreed
Only that an offence has been committed - agreed.
Since the camera cannot do it, the driver must do it
No - the driver is merely admitting to being the driver - not that he accepts the evidence against him. Totally different matter. However, even if I accepted your argument; the aim of justice is to bring offenders to justice, I'm sure that you will agree with that. Please explain just why it is so important that people should be excused from self-incrimination. What useful purpose does that 'right' serve? You snipped that point from my earlier post and didn't answer it!
That *is* self-incrimination by your statement 3. above. Just
There *is* evidence that an offence has been committed and the police are enbreastled to pursue further enquiries to determine who is responsible. As a principle would you not regard that as right and proper?
Well............ !! I would suggest that the general view of the great British public is that offenders are given far too much leeway, are not punished sufficiently, and as a result the country is going to pot. I don't believe that I am in the minority here!
Now that is a total distortion of everything I've said. Please explain to me just how the requirement for a registered keeper to divulge who was driving at the time an offence was committed is likely to result in conviction of an 'innocent'. If anything it does entirely the opposite.
Kev
