80 in a 70 - Pointless question

[vonhosen]

NFT said:

BertBert said:

zarjaz1991 said:

By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.

If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.

Completely wrong. You are convicted based on the evidence just like any other crime

But the evidence is often that a car displaying a reg was speeding, and drivers mug isn't even part of any case.

It's not even the case that the registered keepers car was speeding, just, a car displaying a reg of the same likeness.

It's not until driver responds grassing himself up that evidence against him even exists, until then no one has any idea, they're fishing for a name using a cold blooded procedure that even sees past keepers receive a panic inducing letter and stress dealing with it unaware if someone nominated them or it's just because they want any details you have.

The ECtHR have looked at & ruled on s172.
They believe it is a proportionate regulatory requirement that you personally subject yourself to when you get involved with owning/driving motor vehicles.
You don't have to subject yourself to it, you choose to. Because you don't have to own/drive motor vehicles, you choose & apply to, subjecting yourself to the reasonable regulatory requirements when you do so.

Being nominated under s172 does not make you guilty of an offence. The other evidence available determines if you are in fact guilty or not.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 21st November 19:00

[NFT]

vonhosen said:

NFT said:

BertBert said:

zarjaz1991 said:

By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.

If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.

Completely wrong. You are convicted based on the evidence just like any other crime

But the evidence is often that a car displaying a reg was speeding, and drivers mug isn't even part of any case.

It's not even the case that the registered keepers car was speeding, just, a car displaying a reg of the same likeness.

It's not until driver responds grassing himself up that evidence against him even exists, until then no one has any idea, they're fishing for a name using a cold blooded procedure that even sees past keepers receive a panic inducing letter and stress dealing with it unaware if someone nominated them or it's just because they want any details you have.

The ECtHR have looked at & ruled on s172.
They believe it is a proportionate regulatory requirement that you personally subject yourself to when you get involved with owning/driving motor vehicles.
You don't have to subject yourself to it, you choose to. Because you don't have to own/drive motor vehicles, you choose & apply to, subjecting yourself to the reasonable regulatory requirements when you do so.

Being nominated under s172 does not make you guilty of an offence. The other evidence available determines if you are in fact guilty or not.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 21st November 19:00

I see both sides of it,

s172 does not make you guilty, it extracts confirmation both that the car in question (172 sent to keeper due to Reg likeness, often without a face to match), and the name of someone confessing, or believed by the recipient to have been driving for further pursuit.

Your point is certainly valid, as is zarjaz1991's

zarjaz1991 said:

By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.

Edited by NFT on Wednesday 22 November 12:21

[agtlaw]

zarjaz1991 said:

By identifying yourself as the driver, you are confessing to the offence. The subsequent conviction is based entirely on a confession you are compelled to make by law.

If you don’t believe me, get yourself an NIP and let me know how you get on pleading not guilty after identifying yourself as the driver.

Incorrect. The prosecuting authority must prove all elements of the offence. The identity of the driver is only one element. Additionally, there are various defences available.

[LotsOfLaughs]

agtlaw said:

Incorrect. The prosecuting authority must prove all elements of the offence. The identity of the driver is only one element. Additionally, there are various defences available.

Okay well they never sent me any evidence through the post (like the times I passed both cammeras), only one time

[SS2.]

LotsOfLaughs said:

agtlaw said:

Incorrect. The prosecuting authority must prove all elements of the offence. The identity of the driver is only one element. Additionally, there are various defences available.

Okay well they never sent me any evidence through the post (like the times I passed both cammeras), only one time

Unless you'd elected to take the matter to court, there would have been no obligation for any evidence to be disclosed to you.