Re: Speed Camera Fine/NSW-wrong Driver?HELP!

"Toby" <me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:g1eks7$8ee$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Kwyjibo blathered on in Kwyjibo:
>
>>
>> "Snapper" <snapper1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:e5sj34t0ge6qs2e08j1ikdgdjq0ckintd1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Kwyjibo wrote...
>>>
>>>> Why would I bother imagining that when it doesn't happen in the case
of
>>>> speeding motorists?
>>>
>>> Because it does.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> If your vehicle is snapped by a speed or red light camera you,
>>> as the registered owner are deemed to be guilty, unless YOU can prove 
>>> that
>>> someone else was driving, and to name that person. If you can't, then 
>>> you
>>> wear
>>> the penalties.
>>
>> And you can provide a link to the specific section of legislation that
>> states this?
>>
>>> It doesn't matter if, in the case of the OP, you were overseas at
>>> the time, unless they snapped a different car and got the rego details
>>> wrong.
>>> Even then there have been many do***ented cases where Victoria Police 
>>> has
>>> dug
>>> its heels in and refused to acknowledge that it ****ed up, thus
forcing
>>> the
>>> victims into protracted and costly legal action.
>>
>> Ahh. You mean you can go to court, just like you can when the police
use
>> cir***stantial evidence to suspect you of ANY crime?
>> You and Toby both need to get it through your thick heads that
receiving 
>> a
>> fine is not an indication that the legal system has removed your 
>> presumption
>> of innocence. The police are making an accusation - the same as they do

>> with
>> rapists, murderers and any other offence. The only difference is that 
>> they
>> provide you the option to own up and pay a fine without the need to go
to
>> court to declare yourself guilty. The only time you need to go to court

>> is
>> if you want to dispute their evidence - the same as you would in any 
>> other
>> case.
>> Speed offences are no different to anything else.
>>
>
> Such an abidingly stupid ****....still.
> Lets get it clear - just for you

Here we go.......

> The idea with this legislation is that you can plead guilty to the
> offence allegation simply by paying the fine.
> That is as it is with all other on-the-spot allegations.

Correct (for once)

> That's as far as it gets in terms of similarities.

Wrong.

> Because when you get to court, you have to prove it was not you driving
> the vehicle involved in that allegation.
> The prosecution side does not have to prove you were the offender, at
> all.

<sigh>
Not very good with logical thought, are you Toby.....
The police have cir***stantial evidence that you were involved in the 
offence - The photo.
It's your job to refute that eveidence - EXACTLY THE SAME WAY YOU WOULD
FOR 
ANY OTHER OFFENCE.

>
> And herein lies the DIFFERENCE.

There is no difference, stupid.

> THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE DOING WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE
> ALLEGATIONS WERE BROUGHT FOR.

Lot's of people have been convicted of murder on cir***stantial evidence 
too. What's your point?

> There is only evidence is of a form that the the vehicle you have
> registered has been involved in some manner. That material is entirely
> irrelevant to the practical matter of the offence.

Wrong. It's cir***stantial evidence.

>
> In all other on-the-spot offences there is direct evidence, gathered at
> the scene, by an officer entitled to do just that.

Lie. Have fun explaining littering, breaching water restrictions etc.

<snip remaining loony ****>

-- 
Kwyj.