English Law
 

The fundamental principle of English law is that if you break the law and you are caught, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and the onus of proof of your guilt lies with the prosecution. You are NOT FORCED to admit your guilt. In fact you do not even have to say anything at all and that also means not being forced to snitch on someone.

However if you happen to have been flashed for speeding, then the law changes.

When you do get flashed for speeding the registered owner of the vehicle gets the letter and is obliged to name the driver or take the rap themselves.

Not right is it?

Re: English Law
 

Of course it is right. Any car photographed/stopped speeding has a registered owner, so unless the vehicle has been reported stolen, the owner should have full responsibility.

I am sick and tired of reading of motorists responsible for mayhem and carnage on Britain's roads walking away from court because absolute proof could not be made that they were behind the wheel. At the end of the day, it is their car and they have full responsibility.

If you want to defend this nonsense, then go ahead, Jambutty. But I am on the other side - that of the innocent victims.

Re: English Law
 

Yes, if you get caught by a speeding camera it should not be viewed as a challenge to get out of it, it should be a hands up 'I've been caught' moment.

I'm with Tealeaf. If the speed limit says 30, 40 or even 70 and you are doing more than that, it is your fault completely if you get caught. If you are not actually driving at that moment then the real driver should own up. If they refuse to own up then sorry, but you should take the rap - it's your car, what are you doing lending it to someone so dishonest?

Re: English Law
 

If it's your vehicle, then it's a morale dilema for you. If the authorities have the evidence that YOUR vehicle was caught speeding, then it's up to you as the owner to either accept the punishment yourself, or inform the police as to who was driving it.

If you'd been charged with a more serious offence, i.e. murder, but knew who had really commited the crime, would you accept the punishment, or would you inform the police?

Re: English Law
 

I agree with you on that, except too many of the mobile cameras are not being operated correctly so can and do give false reading so people who are not speeding get done.

Re: English Law
 

Taken from the Highway code penalty table

Failing to identify driver of a vehicle £1,000 Discretionary 3

I suppose if they really wanted to make life difficult, by allowing someone to use your car they could probably make it aiding and abetting, if your vehicle is involved in something illegal. Though that would have frightening consequences for all employers out there that supply company vehicles.

Re: English Law
 

Re: English Law
 

I hope the camera gets a fine and points too, can't have these cameras thinking they can get away with speeding can we! :D

(sorry jambutty, I couldn't resist I'll get out of your serious thread now)

Re: English Law
 

Nice one Dr. T.Belle AsBo, its not often we can get one over our Gayle in the old grammer department.

Re: English Law
 

...although it would be nice to get one over in the old grammar department.

Re: English Law
 

Hey up T' I didn't know you fancied my old grandma!:p

Re: English Law
 

I never said I could spell Mr T. I hope you don't mind being called Mr T. its not too personal or anything is it?

Re: English Law
 

That ones easy, it was Murdoch I always had trouble spelling :D

Re: English Law
 

Don't worry, working from your posts he'll just think 'spelling mistake', but when I'm calling it him he will probably take offence!
:D

Think we'd better get back on thread.:eek:

Re: English Law
 

Historians now attribute this to dyslexia. However, his son Murdoch II, who ruled 832 - 865, was known for a prolifigate literary output; thus we can only conclude that his spelling was somewhat superior.