Yes, 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 replied, "And as I have pointed out, the camera is no such thing and it corroborates nothing of the sort."
3. You said, "Once the offender has been placed behind the wheel - yes it does!".
The camera is not capable of placing the accused behind the wheel. Therefore there is no corroboration - built-in, expresed, implied or any other kind. Since the camera cannot do it, the driver must do it himself. That *is* self-incrimination by your statement 3. above. Just why do you think the requirement to identify the driver was introduced in the first place? It's because without that last little link there is no evidence and therefore no case to answer.
Last Weeks Traffic Cops 5071The 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...
Your atbreastude makes you a very dangerous man and the fact that there are almost certainly lots more like you in positions of power makes for a very unsavoury situation.
That statement stands in stark contrast to everything else you appear to believe. Get the baddies at all costs and if a few innocents are caught up in it, well that's a fair price to pay.
-- 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
