BoxRec

Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence and a custodial sentence is to be expected. At the end of the day if its one thing that the courts take seriously its people lying to the police or in court. A custodial sentence is there to act as a deterrent. The threat of jail might not stop robbers taking a chance or prevent gangbangers from knifing someone, but it might think people twice before lying in court.

Sprott's stupidity is mindblowing. He named someone that didn't exist as the driver of the car - how long did he think that would last?

haha, at least he knew who he was.

Moshe_Crescas wrote:Scott, how much do you think what should've been a total of £120 in fines has already cost the system because of Skelton's repeated perversion of justice? Man hours, court time etc... As I said earlier, people like Skelton --whilst not a 'bad' bloke-- are guilty of wasting more time and 'tax payers' money' than all the paedos, murderers and rapists put together.

Why didn't the fool just pay the fines ? Surely he could afford them. He should be able to pay somebody to drive him around. What makes a boxer think he can beat the legal system? Magistrates and Judges do not tolerate liars.

Scottrf wrote:

Moshe_Crescas wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Dunno, but I think they would get more back from having him give something back through community service?

I've never seen evidence that prison is any kind of deterrent for reoffending.

The minimum sentence for perverting the course of justice is four months, though. So what are you on about community service for?

Wasn't familiar with the exact charges or minimums (which I don't agree with), was talking in theory. I'm not pretending like it's a black and white issue, I see it as a serious offense. Just not that imprisoning him will have any benefit, except perhaps as an example.

But he was found guilty of perverting the course of justice --more than once-- and the minimum sentence is four months imprisonment. I don't think he has done too badly.

A whimmish theoretical opinion wouldn't have been much good to the judge, now, would it?

Do you think Matt Skelton, if caught speeding in the future, is likely to pay his £40 fine or attempt to pervert the course of justice again and run the risk of another spell in the nick?

Maybe the law should be harder on ALL convicted criminals. Not just some.

carlbcfc wrote:Maybe the law should be harder on ALL convicted criminals. Not just some.

Carl, on this we agree.

Moshe_Crescas wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Moshe_Crescas wrote: The minimum sentence for perverting the course of justice is four months, though. So what are you on about community service for?

Wasn't familiar with the exact charges or minimums (which I don't agree with), was talking in theory. I'm not pretending like it's a black and white issue, I see it as a serious offense. Just not that imprisoning him will have any benefit, except perhaps as an example.

But he was found guilty of perverting the course of justice --more than once-- and the minimum sentence is four months imprisonment. I don't think he has done too badly.

A whimmish theoretical opinion wouldn't have been much good to the judge, now, would it?

Do you think Matt Skelton, if caught speeding in the future, is likely to pay his £40 fine or attempt to pervert the course of justice again and run the risk of another spell in the nick?

Matt Skelton was never caught speeding, it was Brian Williams ;;-)
I'm not arguing with the actual sentence that got passed down, I'm not a law expert. The judge had more facts to hand and a better knowledge in the area. I'm just saying there are perhaps better ways to deal with this type of case.
You think if (in theory) he was given 100 hours community service he would do it again? Anyway, I just like to play devils advocate and get another opinion.

Scottrf wrote:

Moshe_Crescas wrote:

Scottrf wrote: Wasn't familiar with the exact charges or minimums (which I don't agree with), was talking in theory. I'm not pretending like it's a black and white issue, I see it as a serious offense. Just not that imprisoning him will have any benefit, except perhaps as an example.

But he was found guilty of perverting the course of justice --more than once-- and the minimum sentence is four months imprisonment. I don't think he has done too badly.

A whimmish theoretical opinion wouldn't have been much good to the judge, now, would it?

Do you think Matt Skelton, if caught speeding in the future, is likely to pay his £40 fine or attempt to pervert the course of justice again and run the risk of another spell in the nick?

Matt Skelton was never caught speeding, it was Brian Williams ;;-)
I'm not arguing with the actual sentence that got passed down, I'm not a law expert. The judge had more facts to hand and a better knowledge in the area. I'm just saying there are perhaps better ways to deal with this type of case.
You think if (in theory) he was given 100 hours community service he would do it again? Anyway, I just like to play devils advocate and get another opinion.

Perhaps a 100 hour community order would have prevented Skelton from re-offending. It would've bee a punishment that the judge would've had to deviate significantly from the guidelines he is meant to work to, though. I am almost certain, however, that Skelton will not make conduct the same offence in the future if the threat of losing his liberty looms large. Prison works, don't believe the lefties who shout out otherwise.

Habitual re-offenders are typically smack fiends. They are a different kettle of fish and an alternative approach and/or a significant re-think should perhaps be looked at to deal with them.

If he'd have got community service, it probably wouldn't even be being discussed. I think the judge has made his point and made it well. I doubt anyone else will be giving out false names any time soon when they get caught speeding.

because police are so slow in gathering information people take them being blase literally & alot of the time escape charges. skelton took a chance & has come unstuck.

at the end of the day he wont be in to much of a hurry in future will he and i hope the board take his licence away

1southpaw wrote:at the end of the day he wont be in to much of a hurry in future will he and i hope the board take his licence away

Hope the Board take his licence away? Why would you hope that?

Des1 wrote:

1southpaw wrote:at the end of the day he wont be in to much of a hurry in future will he and i hope the board take his licence away

Hope the Board take his licence away? Why would you hope that?

because as a professional person he has to conduct himself in a professional manor at all times ??

My guess is some previous had some influence upon the case.

1southpaw wrote:at the end of the day he wont be in to much of a hurry in future will he and i hope the board take his licence away

Take away a persons living for lying to the police? How do you suppose he feeds his family... Crime? You really are a nob ain't you? I think your ISP should ban you for talking out of your hoop!

dekker88 wrote:

gobbles wrote:

dekker88 wrote: what a complete pisstake....6 months for basically a motoring offence.....he'd have got less if he'd have been noncing.

'justice' in this country is a joke...he's hardly a danger to society.

anyone know if he had any previous?

The sentence is oviously not for a motoring offence. He should have just paid the fine

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.

Stupid move by Skelton.

Prison seems a harsh sentance for the offence, but all he had to do was own up to it and take his punishment and be done with it

carlbcfc wrote:

Coco wrote:

Moshe_Crescas wrote: What is with all the ridiculous comparisons? You are blatantly missing the point and reasoning behing Skelton's sentence. The fact he has been sent down for this should tell you that what is 'not right here' was Skelton's lousy, yet extremely superior attitude.

I reckon this Moshe might be the fella Skelton digged for following his missus about!

Or somebody from his town?

Glyn Leach wrote:

winkveron wrote:Not saying I agree with the length of the sentence, but I do hate it when people think they are 'above the law' so in that sense I'm not very sympathetic to him.

Exactly how I feel, well put wink. Nothing against Skelton personally, but that attitude really sucks, smells of "I'm better than everyone else". To be honest, once wouldn't have bothered me, but three times is taking the piss. Hate that kind of arrogance

To be fair thousands try it on like that from all walks of life, I have heard of many who have took fines for people. Just because he is rich and famous does not automatically mean he is giving it the jonny big potatoes. 200 hours Community service was the answer to this, and a decent fine.

For sure, celebrity doesn't come into it - and let's face it, Matt has very little TBH. You see this sort of thing every day, the twat who thinks it's OK to push his way to the front of a traffic queue, the people who think it's OK for them to do stupid speeds and drive dangerously. Those are two driving analogies, but Skelton's offence is more to do with evasion of responsibility. No matter, all those people are saying "I'm better than you, I don't have to live by the rules you do". They make the world a worse place. That said, there obviously are people who make it worse than them who do not get jail terms.

carlbcfc wrote:

1southpaw wrote:at the end of the day he wont be in to much of a hurry in future will he and i hope the board take his licence away

Take away a persons living for lying to the police? How do you suppose he feeds his family... Crime? You really are a nob ain't you? I think your ISP should ban you for talking out of your hoop!

Dunno Carl, that's the concern for any offender surely. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And if you're going to lie to the old bill, at least make sure you are smart enough to do it well!

I can only imagine what boxing would be like if every boxer who was locked up at one time or another was not allowed to fight.

lol good jokes bro

'Not a danger to the public.' ???? I wonder if you'd feel the same if he'd killed a family member of friend whilst repeatedly speeding? Okay he didn't, but that is the risk you run when you speed. Me, I drive like a Grandad and I'm proud!

winkveron wrote:'Not a danger to the public.' ???? I wonder if you'd feel the same if he'd killed a family member of friend whilst repeatedly speeding? Okay he didn't, but that is the risk you run when you speed. Me, I drive like a Grandad and I'm proud!

You should be ashamed, old biddies are a fornicating menace on a par with wagon drivers.

Brian_Williams wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: lol good jokes bro

I fail to find the humour in this situation

You will also be hearing from my Solicitor

And you, sir, shall be hearing from a moderator

don't call it a comeback wrote:Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence and a custodial sentence is to be expected. At the end of the day if its one thing that the courts take seriously its people lying to the police or in court. A custodial sentence is there to act as a deterrent. The threat of jail might not stop robbers taking a chance or prevent gangbangers from knifing someone, but it might think people twice before lying in court.

Sprott's stupidity is mindblowing. He named someone that didn't exist as the driver of the car - how long did he think that would last?

Oh the irony!