BoxRec

Deserter wrote:

dekker88 wrote:44mph in a 30 zone....that's what he got done for....

and ultimately he's been banged up for...

No, he was 'banged up' for trying to pervert the course of justice.

a charge which came out of his attempt to deny he was speeding...so ULTIMATELY he was banged up for speeding.

if he hadn't been caught driving 14 miles a hour (SHOCK!!!) faster than the government think he 'should' have been then he would have never tried to fiddle his way out and never been caught doing so...

i wonder how much gatso and the other manufacturers of speed camera equipment spend on lobbying the government every year

Lenny wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:well, I'm so glad to see you taking a firm stand against self-righteousness

The self righteous need to step up

as long as their is a law in front protecting them they will.

dekker88 wrote:

Lenny wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:well, I'm so glad to see you taking a firm stand against self-righteousness

The self righteous need to step up

as long as their is a law in front protecting them they will.

otherwise they would have to watch their step and back off, surely?

Counter-puncher wrote:

dekker88 wrote:

Lenny wrote: The self righteous need to step up

as long as their is a law in front protecting them they will.

otherwise they would have to watch their step and back off, surely?

my point is that some people who don't even think about the logicality or necessity of a law will then defend said law as if it's some holy word of god sent down from the heavens. for those of us who understand how and why laws and made and how some laws are simply 'bad laws' this is very frustrating.

these are the sort of people who would have cheered on blacks being arrested for sitting in a 'whites only' area in segregated US or celebrated when suffragettes were being arrested for wanting the vote for women...

'ooh it's the law' is a cop out with these types of people.

if folk are dumb enough to drive too fast in certain areas or drink and drive then they will ignore the law in any case.....yet the authorities go for the generally law abiding easy targets and ignore the real problems.

it's been shown time and again that speed cameras have little or no effect on road safety yet the self-righteous retards ignore this and come out with anecdotal bollocks about some fella who had a fast car (that the poster was clearly jealous of) and seem to think that proves their point.

i say lock people up when they've actually commited a crime...rather than increasing their chances of commiting one.

fining people for speeding is like fining people for being drunk....it's the potential you're fining them for not the actual act itself.

MachoMan09 wrote:

dekker88 wrote:i wonder how much gatso and the other manufacturers of speed camera equipment spend on lobbying the government every year

Good point because I'm sure Gatsometer and other high-tech speeding technology firms played a crucial part in bringing the 30mph speed limit into force back in 1930 when it was introduced. Their foresight in lobbying for the introduction of a speed-limit over forty years before they introduced a commercially available radar speed gun was quite something.

and in 1930 when those same laws were introduced was the technology behind braking systems anything like it is today? have the speed limits therefore been revised to reflect this?

your point is moot...up until the recent cuts the amount of speed cameras on the road was increasing year on year...THAT's what i'm talking about in reference to gatso lobbying.

i'm not postin on this thread again i'm starting to sound like clarkson now.

<pukes up>

:(

dekker88 wrote:i'm not postin on this thread again i'm starting to sound like clarkson now.

<pukes up>

:(

hahaha. at least you have the self-awareness to notice it, it could be much worse....

you need to watch you step and back off from the Clarksonesque rhetoric, dude.

<gets into car and speeds off into the distance>

dekker88 wrote:i'm not postin on this thread again i'm starting to sound like clarkson now.

<pukes up>

:(

Counter-puncher wrote:

dekker88 wrote:

Lenny wrote: The self righteous need to step up

as long as their is a law in front protecting them they will.

otherwise they would have to watch their step and back off, surely?

Good point

That's what they're there ... for

dekker88 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

dekker88 wrote:44mph in a 30 zone....that's what he got done for....

and ultimately he's been banged up for...

No, he was 'banged up' for trying to pervert the course of justice.

a charge which came out of his attempt to deny he was speeding...so ULTIMATELY he was banged up for speeding.

No he wasn't - that is completely illogical. It's the equivalent of saying someone was jailed for murder because they bought an illegal firearm. It was the act of shooting someone that would see them jailed for murder and anyone who claimed it was ultimately (nice use of caps for emphasis by the way) the purchase of the weapon that saw them get sent down for 15+ years would rightly be laughed at.

dekker88 wrote:

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:

dekker88 wrote: ulitmately that's what it's for...he's been stupid but surely a community service order or a suspended would have sufficed. hardly a danger to the public is he.

is it lick the boxer's bum day? "Not a danger to the public?? He's been caught speeding, routinely by the sounds of it, lied about it and tried to get off. If he had owned up he'd have got his points or his 12 month ban or whatever but he didn't. I have an acquaintance with a porsche, proper arrogant prick. Used to brag that his supercar gadgetry could handle any situation, ice, rain, bad drivers etc etc...You couldn't tell this f*cker a thing because he has an answer for everything...til he wrote the f*cker off this year doing 90 while aqua-planing into a hedge then a ditch. He's selling the soft-roof on ebay as it's the only part of the car that wasn't wrecked. This prick could have easily killed somebody (my acquaintance, not Skelton, although that likely applies to him)....He's bang to rights, get him down, although I can understand why he lied, nobody likes to get done.

nauseating self-righteousness.

speed limits are a f**kin joke in this country.

'oooh someone may die'

ban all cars then. that would save lives.

Most people who love speed limits are the sort of people who panic if they go over 50 mph…Wtf should the government be able to tell me how fast I’m allowed to drive my car?

I know that point will sail far over the heads of most people who seem in love with being told what to do but there is a fundamental point here concerning positive / negative liberty and a nanny state that seems to think it knows better than it’s people.

Treat people like infants and ultimately they will act like them.

Yeah we should all just zoom around whenever wherever and however fast the f*ck we want. And why not legalize drink driving for that matter cos the last thing this Draconian country wants is people telling you of all people that you can't drink and drive you moron

dekker88 wrote:

MachoMan09 wrote:

dekker88 wrote:Wtf should the government be able to tell me how fast I’m allowed to drive my car?

You're just a contrary so and so, aren't you.

Because your car weighs getting on for 2000kg and can potentially travel at in excess of 100mph. Factor in that there are millions of other dimwitted, soft bodied creatures flitting around the country in vehicles of similar proportions and the answer should be abundantly clear. Did you ever study physics at all? D

44mph in a 30 zone....that's what he got done for....

and ultimately he's been banged up for.

criminalising huge chunks of the population is probably the aim of the govt in any case...that way we all end up indebtted to them in some way....they're no better than gangsters.

and yes i did study physics and i believe you'll find that any car goin at pretty much any speed will hurt someone if they are hit by it....should ALL cars then be banned?

what's needed is common sense and some personal responsibility...not ever more draconian legislation.

have a look at what the motoring organisations say....speed cameras are money making machines for the authorities...they don't stop RTA's......swindon abolished theirs over a year ago and accidents have actually gone down.

how about jailing someone when they actually hurt someone else or directly affect someone elses liberty?? novel idea i know but worth a try perhaps...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,,,,,, Let me put you straight on something here. Skelton did not get done for doing 44 in a 30 zone. Skelton got done for perverting the course of justice!!! Each act of which carries a potential 6 month sentence. And guess what? He commited three acts of this, and therefore, can count himself incredibly lucky that he only got 5 months inside, of which he will only likely serve 2.5 months!!!

Had skelton been a decent person, he would have admitted to being the driver, paid the fine, and taken the points, he would not have been put away!!!! he might have been paying slightly higher insurance premiums, but, hey, lets face it, maybe thats what he deserves for being a prize plum!! Whereas, now, he will be lucky to find an insurance company that is willing to cover him for less than the cost of the car he is driving!!! So, will his next offence be driving without insurance???

This thread is probably a psychologist's dream. Y'know, men, cars, phallic symbols, status symbols, jealousies ... I have no idea what a phsychologist would make of it, but things do seem to have divided into two entrenched camps.

There's a section of posters who seem to understand and accept that the perverting of justice is the offence, while another section seems hell bent on defending a 'right' to drive how they see fit, as though they're justiifying something in themselves by refusing to accept what Skelton has actually been sent down for and arguing a completely different case.

Any psychologist members care to comment?

NorthEastBoxingFan wrote:Yeah we should all just zoom around whenever wherever and however fast the f*ck we want. And why not legalize drink driving for that matter cos the last thing this Draconian country wants is people telling you of all people that you can't drink and drive you moron

I always laugh at threads like this. Has anyone actually tried driving the speed limit on every road you drive on? Because the relative speed of every other driver is about 25% over the speed limit it puts you at more danger.

Yes Matt has been a naughty boy telling a porky 'it wasn't me' line and technically its a porky and a waste of police time. But jail time is harsh and he isn't really the type we need to bang up when Pedos are picking up suspended sentences. Something wrong there

What's interesting is that this thread has produced more replies than any other on the first page of this board and it's got f**k all to do with

Glyn Leach wrote:This thread is probably a psychologist's dream. Y'know, men, cars, phallic symbols, status symbols, jealousies ... I have no idea what a phsychologist would make of it, but things do seem to have divided into two entrenched camps.

There's a section of posters who seem to understand and accept that the perverting of justice is the offence, while another section seems hell bent on defending a 'right' to drive how they see fit, as though they're justiifying something in themselves by refusing to accept what Skelton has actually been sent down for and arguing a completely different case.

Any psychologist members care to comment?

glyn there's a nuance there that you're missing...i'm not talking about north-east boxing fan (nuance with an 'ua' not an 'o')...which is that whilst i fully understand the actual offence committed (perverting the course of justice) my point is that the law concerning speeding is such a stupid law that no-one takes it seriously....hence skelton then not taking the offence seriously....hence his stupidity in trying to blag it...hence his jail sentence..

bad laws destroy respect for ALL laws...and this is a fine example of such. the charge he went down for is as serious for speeding as it would be for destroying evidence in a murder case...yet because the initial offence was speeding he hasn't taken it seriously...i very much doubt he would have blagged it were he a witness or something in a murder case..

Yeah we should all just zoom around whenever wherever and however fast the f*ck we want. And why not legalize drink driving for that matter cos the last thing this Draconian country wants is people telling you of all people that you can't drink and drive you moron

have they got cars on tyneside yet or are you still plodding around in a pony and trap?

dekker88 wrote:bad laws destroy respect for ALL laws

For you, maybe. I wouldn't say this is true for most people.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

dekker88 wrote:bad laws destroy respect for ALL laws

For you, maybe. I wouldn't say this is true for most people.

it's not opinion that's fact.

whether speed laws are truly 'bad' laws is debatable but it's certainly a fact that bad laws erode respect for the law in general.

dekker88 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

dekker88 wrote:bad laws destroy respect for ALL laws

For you, maybe. I wouldn't say this is true for most people.

it's not opinion that's fact.

whether speed laws are truly 'bad' laws is debatable but it's certainly a fact that bad laws erode respect for the law in general.

You already appear to have changed 'the fact'.

First it was 'destroy'. Now it's 'erode'. These are different.

Although something can be destroyed by erosion

I don't agree with your initial comment and I doubt anyone else would too. Libel is a f**king dreadful law...but it doesn't destroy the respect I have for other laws. In fact it might actually strengthen the respect I have for some (e.g. freedom of expression).

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

dekker88 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: For you, maybe. I wouldn't say this is true for most people.

it's not opinion that's fact.

whether speed laws are truly 'bad' laws is debatable but it's certainly a fact that bad laws erode respect for the law in general.

You already appear to have changed 'the fact'.

First it was 'destroy'. Now it's 'erode'. These are different.

Although something can be destroyed by erosion

I don't agree with your initial comment and I doubt anyone else would too. Libel is a f**king dreadful law...but it doesn't destroy the respect I have for other laws. In fact it might actually strengthen the respect I have for some (e.g. freedom of expression).

then libel is not a 'bad' law....it's an awkward pain in the ass law...but not a bad one.

Dekker - your logic is poor jurisprudence. So

1.It is "fact" that all bad laws lead to erosion of respect for "non" bad laws.
2. Ian thinks libel is a bad law, but it doesn't erode his respect for good laws.
3. Due to 1 and 2 being incompatible, Ian must be wrong, and libel isn't a bad law......

I'd say statement 1 if the one open to debate, not 2....

dekker88 wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

dekker88 wrote:bad laws destroy respect for ALL laws

For you, maybe. I wouldn't say this is true for most people.

it's not opinion that's fact.

whether speed laws are truly 'bad' laws is debatable but it's certainly a fact that bad laws erode respect for the law in general.

How can bad laws destroy or erode respect for all laws??

Take into consideration that bad laws don't exist, your talking about peoples perception of different laws and that's got nothing to do with the law it's about individual character