BoxRec

Andypittcov 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.

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

prohibition.

good law?

If you understood my post you wouldn't be asking my personal opinions of different laws because it's futile, the law is the law today and one chooses to either break it or not, there ain't no good or bad laws

dekker88 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

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

I had a trap but after a near miss with a speeding driver I've just got the pony now...

Andypittcov wrote:If you understood my post you wouldn't be asking my personal opinions of different laws because it's futile, the law is the law today and one chooses to either break it or not, there ain't no good or bad laws

i think most lawyers would disagree entirely with you.

dekker88 wrote:

Andypittcov wrote:If you understood my post you wouldn't be asking my personal opinions of different laws because it's futile, the law is the law today and one chooses to either break it or not, there ain't no good or bad laws

i think most lawyers would disagree entirely with you.

you make me laugh bud....

I just think a laws's a law, really. I might not agree with it, I might not keep it - and I've been done for speeding - but if I get caught breaking it then fair cop, I have to hold my hands up and take what's coming to me because I've broken a law. Certainly got nothing against Matt Skelton, always struck me as a decent fella. But if what's reported to have happened IS what's happened, he's dug himself deeper into a hole here by not just accepting that he's broken the law, three times, and then would not accept responsibility for his own actions, three times.

It's a shame, but I really can't view him as some sort of social victim over this. He's a big boy and he made his own choices, if what's reported to have happened IS what happened, I don't see any grounds for people arguing that he's been stitched up in some way because they might consider it OK to break the particular law he is reported to have broken. A law's a law. If you're going to break it, you have to accept what's coming to you if you get caught. That's just my take on it.

Not that it's got anything to do with boxing, or this case, but the ones who are screaming about speed cameras are usually the same ones complaining about police and courts spending time and money prosecuting drivers when they could be out "catching proper criminals" (presumably "nonces").

And yet they also tell us constantly the speed cameras are just there to make money. If that's the case, surely speed cameras provide money for chasing and capturing nonces, so are therefore a Good Thing?

Less speed cameras would lead to more nonces running free. Is that what you want? 'Cos that's what will happen.

So let me get this straight: If the whole country were to break the speed limit, we would be able to eradicate paedophilia - and we could maybe even use that as a defence in court: 'M'lud, I was just doing my bit to get a noncecase banged up.' Win-win situation!

This is the sort of punishment people normally get for traffic offences, Skelton does not look like he has been dealt an even hand, his sentence certainly is a waste of taxpayers money

Llanelli man who failed to stop after two road accidents picks up £365 fine
By Shaun Greaney

A 59-YEAR-OLD Llanelli man who failed to stop after two road accidents and then resisted arrest has been ordered to pay £365 by town magistrates.

Michael Finnegan, of Havelock Street, admitted two charges of failing to stop after an accident and one of obstructing or resisting a police constable in the execution of their duty.

Gerald Neave, prosecuting, told the court that police received a report of a hit-and-run road traffic collision outside New Dock Road post office on September 20 this year.

Finnegan's Nissan Bluebird was seen to drive away from the scene.


A minute later, police received another report saying the same vehicle had hit the fence of a garden at Ropewalk Road.

A police officer attended the scene and encountered the defendant.

Then, said Mr Neave, Finnegan "became aggressive without provocation".

He told magistrates how Finnegan said to the officer: "What the **** are you doing here? I wasn't driving."

Mr Neave said: "He was showing aggressive behaviour.

"The defendant clenched his left fist, leaving the officer to believe he was going to strike."

The police officer took Finnegan to the floor using a handcuff take down and he continued to struggle, the court was told.

The officer called for assistance, but managed to handcuff Finnegan before help arrived.

Finnegan told police that after the collision in the post office car park he "panicked", and when he got to his home he collided with a fence.

He said he did not answer the door when police called "for fear of being arrested".

Andrew Isaac, in mitigation, said Finnegan told him he panicked.

"There was no malice here whatsoever," said Mr Isaac, who added that Finnegan was insured.

Mr Isaac said that while Finnegan did resist arrest, he was frightened and the cuffs were too tight.

The court heard Finnegan had been a self-employed window cleaner in the Morfa area, but had given up work.

For failing to stop he was fined £100 and his licence was endorsed with ten penalty points, and the second failing to stop after an accident resulted in a further fine of £100.

Finnegan was ordered to pay £65 for obstructing a police constable in his duty, prosecution costs of £85 and a victim surcharge of £15.

Apparently, Skelton wouldn't even have lost his licence for the three speeding offences. He was only a tad over the speed limit each time, so I suppose he got away with his valet trick the first time and decided to do it again, by which time there was no going back.
He was stupid but held his hands up in court.

Coco, with all respect that's missing the point mate. Skelton wasn't sent down for three speeding offences, of course that would have been over the top. He's inside because he said it was someone else who did it, three times, and the legal system obviously found out otherwise. It's the perverting the course of justice that got him sent down, not the speeding. You get points on your licence and fines for speeding, Skelton has been more heavily punished because the court believed he had lied to the police and tried to slip the charge, three times. That stuff doesn't go down well with the authorities.

bennie wrote:Apparently, Skelton wouldn't even have lost his licence for the three speeding offences. He was only a tad over the speed limit each time, so I suppose he got away with his valet trick the first time and decided to do it again, by which time there was no going back.
He was stupid but held his hands up in court.

Aye, 'held his hands up' once he wasted money actually going to court in the first place. He should have done so before.

...which is why he's doing time and not paying a fine.

bennie wrote:...which is why he's doing time and not paying a fine.

Exactly

A porsche doesn't suit Skelton, anyway. I see him as a burly truck driver, a poor man's Chris Eubank.

Well he'll have to get used to a pogo stick now!

This thread is brilliant!

He got a spell of Porridge for how he handled the situation: he lied. He perverted the course of justice! End of story.

==============

If a policeman pulls you over, if there is perhaps a brake light out and you didn't know about it, you get told off - told to check your car once a week and get the bulb replaced pronto. You apologise to the copper, promise to get it done etc..... they may take your details and say they will check the car in a week.... generally that is it.

If however, upon getting out of the car you aggresively start a rant about "You f***in pigs aint got nothing on me, I know my rights, f*** off or I'll do you, go arrest some real criminals you c***" - then it's fairly safe to say that you are going to end up in the station: if nothing else for a flagrant "abuse" of some form to a police officer.

However "thrown in the cells for having a brake light out" would not be an accurate description of the events.




best wishes

Colin

It's like those fly-on-the-wall shows where someone gets a bailiff turn up with a court warrant for £850, for what was originally a £30 parking ticket.

I have all the sympathy in the world for the original ticket when someone explains it was "bogus", but if they just ignored it or "refused to pay" out of principle - then what the hell do they expect? The courts will get them eventually.


Skelton should have accepted his speeding fine.

Glyn Leach wrote:Coco, with all respect that's missing the point mate. Skelton wasn't sent down for three speeding offences, of course that would have been over the top. He's inside because he said it was someone else who did it, three times, and the legal system obviously found out otherwise. It's the perverting the course of justice that got him sent down, not the speeding. You get points on your licence and fines for speeding, Skelton has been more heavily punished because the court believed he had lied to the police and tried to slip the charge, three times. That stuff doesn't go down well with the authorities.

I fully appreciate what he was sent to prison for and I still maintain that was well OTT, community service at most would have been appropriate especially in these times of austerity. IMO the man I quoted who was convicted for twice leaving the scene of an accident and assaulting a police officer was guilty of a worse offence than lying about his identity to avoid a speeding ticket.
This man in question received a 300 quid fine and this highlights an inconsistency in sentencing.

No question re the inconsistency in sentencing Coco, embarassing. But one thing the authorities always seem consistent on is slamming people who take the piss out of them, whether it be dodging taxes or a case like this. It seems as though a crime against them is viewed as worse than a crime against an individual, they always go for the throat.

Skelton should stage a dirty protest.