francis / right to silence

They were just a bunch of idiots trying it on.

No, not quite. They were a couple of people trying to resist something they felt was unreasonable. I feared their prospects of success were not good, and they have lost, and I'm sorry about that.

Everybody should be free to fight for what they believe in.

There may come a day when you wish to fight for or against something. Would you then be happy to have people regarding you as an idiot, trying it on?

Best wishes all, Dave.

The law *is* a word game.

Don't be a pompous arse all your life.

I don't think they were. It was a test case questioning the legality of drivers having to self incriminate themselves, and confess to being guilty of speeding, despite the absence of any factual evidence. And the assumption that the owner of the car is guilty unless he can prove otherwise, which doesn't agree with a basic principle in british law, that of 'innocent until proven guilty'. That it's up to the prosecution to prove it's case, rather than the defendant having to prove their innocence.

I certainly don't believe it was a simple case of 2 drivers trying to avoid being convicted of speeding.. Mike.

Many years ago, I was done for exceeding the speed limit and I could have happily seen whoever was responsible tortured to the point of death and beyond, so I uderstand the resentment.

The problem I have with this is, even if they won, all they would have done is forced the Government to close the loophole when what they should be doing is protesting against the stupid law in the first place, not how it's enforced.

Many years ago, I was done for exceeding the speed limit and I could have happily seen whomever was responsible tortured to the point of death and beyond, so I understand the resentment.

The problem I have with this is, even if they won, all they would have done is forced the Government to close the loophole when what they should be doing is protesting against the stupid law in the first place, not how it's enforced.

Protests have been made about this law since it was enacted, with little or no effect. The only possibility of a change was/is by a ruling in the European Court of Human rights. That is why I believe it was right to have the case heard. Unfortunately it was upheld, so unless a different argument can be found, we're stuck with it, and no amount of protesting is going to change it. Mike.

They are they are protesting not against speed limits but that the law has removed a basic human right, along with the RIP bill.

Then it's off-topic in uk.rec.driving.

just found this elsewhere -

first they came for the (alleged) speeders but i was not a speeder so i did not speak

then they came for the druggies but i was not a druggie so i did not speak out

then they came for the thieves but i was not a thief so i did not speak out

then they came for the tax dodgers, the noisy neighbours

then the critics, the satirists, the opposition

then they came for me

(with apologies to niemoller)

So?

Nobody is forced to "confess to being guilty of speeding". They may on occasion have to admit that they were driving a particular car at a particular time, by virtue of being the registered keeper of the car, but that's all.

The "factual evidence" comes from the speed-measuring equipment used, and is open to questioning, like all factual evidence.

Ian

snipped-for-privacy@picturesk.net declared for all the world to hear...

Bollocks. They were trying to get off after getting caught speeding.

Thanks Christ.

Why are you sorry? They got caught speeding, tried to wriggle out of it and got rumbled. No-ones bloody "human rights" have been infringed.

Within reason, yes. On this occasion however it was nothing more than an attempt to get off a poxy speeding fine.

That entirely depends on the circumstances doesn't it. Get off your high horse for crying out loud.

And best wishes to you too. Nothing personal, just voicing my opinion.

I wonder if he has fixed his brake problem?