The above statement merely reflects the fact that the evidence from Gatsos is virtually indisputable. It does not alter the fundamental fact that the owner is being required to admit to *nothing* other than the fact that he was driving his car at a particular time and place.
That doesn't answer the question. It may be tradition for the offender to have the right not to incriminate himself - but the mere fact that it is tradition does not mean either that it is sensible or beneficial.
Confess to what? He is not being asked to confess to an offence - he is being asked to confirm who was driving his car at a certain time and place. Again - I argue that those are two entirely different matters. The fact that Gatso evidence is virtually infallible does not alter that fundamental difference.
Again I ask; Confession to what? I admit to you now that I was driving my car along the A49 at Acton Bridge at 14.32 hrs yesterday afternoon. Am I confessing to an offence? No of course not. If my car had been seen at that location and time committing an offence would I be confessing to that offence? No of course not.
No - he waffled a bit with unlikely hypothetical situations but he showed nothing of the sort.
Kev
