Boxing monthly piece on this forum

[Spud]

thing is spud its this small minded attitude by those trying to do so ...shut this place down = less exposuire discussion and potnetial ticket buyers for the shows

= less crowds = less interwest = boxing struggling even more.

talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Its getting better - but as much as I cannot stand journo's in some ways I feel sorry for them ****s, they only have to write something remotely upsetting/offensive or offhand they are threatened with allsorts.

[palooka]

thing is spud its this small minded attitude by those trying to do so ...shut this place down = less exposuire discussion and potnetial ticket buyers for the shows

= less crowds = less interwest = boxing struggling even more.

talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Its getting better - but as much as I cannot stand journo's in some ways I feel sorry for them ****s, they only have to write something remotely upsetting/offensive or offhand they are threatened with allsorts.

From what i have seen it is the most powerful institutions and people who want to bring their wrath down on people who don't have (very expensive) lawyers and well connected friends.

[MightyWarrior]

"The story was about the legal situation regarding boxing website forums"

It would have been nice, then, for it to be made perfectly clear why BM's own guestbook was closed down rather than the rather vague 'potential legal wrangles'. BM's guestbook is a decade old. W*rren comes after BoxRec forum. BM guestbook is closed down. That's the events for you. Only you can make clear if they're connected, of course.

"If, as you say, Shep's view is pretty accurate, but Ian disagrees, perhaps you will understand why it would have been futile for boxing writers to make sense of the legal situation on the internet when even people within this website have different interpretations. If the people directly concerned with the website don't know for sure, how could print journalists be expected to make sense of it? I believe that we went to the best possible person, Shep, who had just been through a recent legal, for a layman's explanation, one which you agree with (but Ian apparently doesn't)."

As aforementioned, I said I didn't think the defence as quoted was necessarily the best one. It is one and there are others. An alternative one is that all the claims in any particular action are not defamatory anyway. Spurious shite. My interpretation is an amateur one at best and irrelevant in comparison to a specialised libel barrister and Loynesy. Further, that was related to you in a private phone call and for you to come on here and relate it to back you up is out of order - especially as the point of the call in the first place was because I didn't want to publicly slag BM off or have a go at Steve.

"It is only right that people should have the right to express their views, whether you like them or not. This was a very balanced article...Responsible journalism is about getting the views of all sides and this is what Lillis did. He spoke to the owner of the site, the person who had a problem with the site, and two people (Frank Maloney and Smigga) in the middle, who had good and bad things to say about the site. You can't get much more balanced than that. Every side had a chance to give their views, which is how it should be."

Just because you talk to people from different sides doesn't make the article balanced. It wasn't. It gave the clear impression that the place was a libel-filled wild west. It isn't. Just because Shep didn't mention the moderation process doesn't mean Steve shouldn't have, if he was 'investigating' as you said. It was a rick - we all make them. Just because Shep said he was happy with it doesn't mean the piece itself was fine - he's a very laidback, nice fella who doesn't want to cause any bother. This is what makes the legal action, at great expense to a decent family man who has created a huge free resource for boxing people to use globally (including, ironically, those nice people from Hertfordshire), all the more hard to take. Anyway, HE might think it's fine. I don't and nor do plenty of others who know how it works around here.

But the most galling thing about the piece was the seven pars given freely - unchallenged - to W*rren to bleat about how the law is so unfair...I almost vomited when I read it. Yes, let him say his piece, of course. But where was the BALANCE here? Here's a man who has resorted to legal proceedings more than 30 times. Where was the balance in the piece to say that BoxRec was merely his latest case? What has the effect been on journalism of all these actions? Can anyone, anywhere, find me an overtly negative piece of journalism on W*rren in the last five years? Why is that?

I know the restrictions under which you work and I sympathise - it would drive me barmy. You do it for a living and I know why you make certain calls. And you're braver than many.

The article was a good idea, gave the website some profile and had plenty of good content - but, in my opinion, was flawed and unbalanced.

Oh, and while we're on everyone, sign up to this if you feel like it: http://www.libelreform.org/

Yes, this is fair comment. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil appears to be the motto in a lot of quarters of the boxing press - although not necessarily BM. Overall, BM have shown more balls than most in offering critical analysis, particularly towards a certain bunch of charlatans Stateside. That has to be commended. In contrast BN offered a gushy front page for the announcement of the magnificent seven and then a descriptive piece inside that read like a press release.

Well said both, spot on. BM is a great mag, really enjoyed this months ( though it's going a bit overboard on the sepia photos! ) good interview with Tony Bellew, who maybe Lillis should have mentioned as being one of the best boxer posters on here.
But Lillis' article seemed more a space filler than anything - interview / para / interview/ para etc ( that enough? ) BM can do so much better.
And Frank gets way too much of an easy ride in the Brit press, he shouldn't have even got a look in, in that article, without hearing the other side of the story - which he makes impossible anyways - allegedly allegedly etc etc

[Loynesy]

Erm, who outside the posters do you think would have been interested in that adam? The site and the legal situation was the story, not the every day comings and goings. That's only of interest to those who regularly use the site.

Glyn, some constructive criticism if I may. Two points:

1. If one of the main aims of the article was to focus on the legal situation re: Boxrec - or indeed any other website, it was flawed, as there was no attempt to set out what the legal position actually is, or indeed those areas where it is still developing. We had John Shep's point of view - which was actually pretty close to where the line is, drawing the analogy of a postbox (he must have spoken to a decent lawyer...) and what certain promoters would like the law to be i.e. that the owners of internet forums should be subject to the same scrutiny as, for example the publishers of The Sun - which in my personal (and current judicial) opinion is ludicrous, but,as I say, nothing to say which of those contrasting views was legally correct.

2. Secondly, certain people quoted in the article made in sound as though Boxrec was an outlaw forum where outrageous libels were allowed to linger. That is grossly unfair as there are a number of mods, who for no personal gain whatsover, actively police and moniter the site to make sure that doesn't happen, or if it does happen, it is removed as quickly as possible. I've certainly been asked, and have willingly helped to vet articles to see if they were fair comment and not libellous and similalry have pointed out to Ian or others if I see anything that I believe crosses the line.

If John Shep liked the article, and he owns this site, fair enough to him, but because of the two points above, it seemed to me a little unfair.

Regards

Loynsey

Hi Loynesy

Thanks for this.

1) Lillis went to John Shep FOR legal clarification, the best and most logical place to start as Shep has been involved with this site for longer than anyone else on it and had just been through the legal mill so could be expected to be more up to speed than most. And apparently, by his and your reckoning, we got as accurate a picture as could be painted in layman's terms. We are boxing journalists and never likely to enter into a "letter of the law" breakdown of internet legality, particularly as "the law" is open to dispute, even within Boxrec — Ian McNeilly tells me he is not as confident as yourself and John in your shared interpretation, and he cited a recent case.

The aim of the BM feature was not to dissect internet law. The story was about the legal situation regarding boxing website forums, centring on Boxrec's recent experiences. If, as you say, Shep's view is pretty accurate, but Ian disagrees, perhaps you will understand why it would have been futile for boxing writers to try to make sense of the legal situation on the internet when even people within this website have different interpretations. If the people directly concerned with the website don't know for sure, how could print journalists be expected to make sense of it? I believe that we went to the best possible person, Shep, who had just been through a recent legal, for a layman's explanation, one which you agree with (but Ian apparently doesn't).

2) It is only right that people should have the right to express their views, whether you like them or not. This was a very balanced article, not the kind of "thought piece" without quotes that some people pass off as journalism. Responsible journalism is about getting the views of all sides and this is what Lillis did. He spoke to the owner of the site, the person who had a problem with the site, and two people (Frank Maloney and Smigga) in the middle, who had good and bad things to say about the site. You can't get much more balanced than that. Every side had a chance to give their views, which is how it should be.

It may be disappointing to you that Shep didn't mention the moderation situation — this clearly would have been on topic. But he didn't. I asked Lillis to check his tape, he did, and there was no mention of it. But Shep is the top man at Boxrec, he was given the opportunity to say whatever he thought was valid, and he was happy with the end product, which he OK'd before we printed it — Shep had the chance to amend the copy as he saw fit, introduce themes he may have forgotten, but he did not do it (aside from pointing out some incorrect figures).

In any situation, should a journalist require information about an organisation he will try to go straight to the top. This is logical. The man at the top might not know the nuts and bolts of every single thing, but he should be able to provide the clearest view of the "big picture". But we cannot be blamed if the man at the top does not represent his organisation in a way that satisfies his colleagues, that is between him and them.

All the best

Glyn

Glyn

Thank you for your response - as someone else commented, it is gratifying that the editor of Boxing Monthly can engage in such a dialogue, it reflects well on you, the site and the posters.

Your reply to my post ignited a debate between you and Ian that was subsequently put out and so I won't comment on that. I think we've reached the stage of final conclusions/agreeing to disagree, on which I'd comment:

1. The Legal Position. On reflection, I agree with you that the BM article shouldn't be a legal analysis of internet law. That said, the paragraphs after Shep's viewpoint were not a rebuttal of his views but rather an unfounded whine as to how someone else would like the law to be. As a metaphor (and I've chosen this one deliberately as I know my personal whining elicits little sympathy in the wider world), I'm not particularly happy that I pay 50 per cent tax on most my earnings, but I'd be a fool to argue that this is not the law or saying that it is lawful that I should pay less.

2. The BoxRec WildWest. After your post, I agree with you completely on this one. It is disappointing that Shep chose not to mention the controls in place on the site, but it was his to mention or not mention. It would have been a better article with those eforts cited but it certainly was not the role of you or Steve to ensure this.

3. Right of Reply. I suppose this is where we have to agree to disagree. In terms of sheer number of words quoted, Shep had more than others, and I completely agree that anyone disagreeing with the initial feature of a piece has the right of rebuttal, but surely fair right of reply does not allow unfettered nonsense with no opportunity of counter reply?

As Ian pointed out - and incidentally, I disagree with Ian on several of his viewpoints on this article, to have an article on internet legality/use of the courts and not to cite allegedly's prior use of the judicial system is to ignore the rhinoceros in the room.

Regards

Paul

[Loynesy]

The fact that in a reasoned post the name of a certain promoter is replaced with that word is simply absurd.

[Glyn Leach]

The fact that in a reasoned post the name of a certain promoter is replaced with that word is simply absurd.

Agreed totally Loynesy, though I must point out that I am not accustomed to writing the word "allegedly" instead of "allegedly", this is something that happened (automatic moderation?) when the post appeared on the site, I didn't do it.

As regards why Shep did not use a "right of reply" type of response to allegedly's quotes within the article, perhaps he didn't want to inflame the situation further? I honestly don't know, and I don't know Shep at all, but the picture I am getting is of a laid back chap who may not be particularly combative in nature (nothing wrong with that, many ways to skin a cat). But as I said, I really don't know.

Anyway, I think it reflects well on all of us that we have been able to discuss the feature on here. It hints at what I hope one day Boxrec can achieve, which is to become a forum for more "involved parties" to discuss their situations in view of and with boxing followers. I think it would be fantastically healthy if more promoters and boxers etc would come on and speak with the boxing fans. Such dialogues could only result in a greater understanding for all concerned. Full credit to Frank Maloney, Jamie, Smigga, Larry, Curtis, Frankie and anyone else who is already doing it. And massive credit to Boxrec for providing the opportunity.

[Poncey]

Anyway, I think it reflects well on all of us that we have been able to discuss the feature on here. It hints at what I hope one day Boxrec can achieve, which is to become a forum for more "involved parties" to discuss their situations in view of and with boxing followers. I think it would be fantastically healthy if more promoters and boxers etc would come on and speak with the boxing fans. Such dialogues could only result in a greater understanding for all concerned. Full credit to Frank Maloney, Jamie, Smigga, Larry, Curtis, Frankie and anyone else who is already doing it. And massive credit to Boxrec for providing the opportunity.

Maybe in 20 years time when the Herfordshire ivory tower has crumbled. Until then, I very much doubt it mate.

[chinny]

Ian, Glyn, Loynesy

Pleasure to read your comments. Thankyou

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

im going to weigh in here
ive advertised with BM for god alone knows how long, had a few personal problems of late (boxing related and also my family)
I find BM to be absolutely fair and balanced , I read glynns words first of all (which is easy as they are front of magazine)
He knows his stuff and speaks his mind . I am incredulous that anyone would accuse him of bias. I have had the fortune of speaking to him tons of times and have always found him to be be totally focussed and professional.
I live and breath boxing and truly , honestly see boxing monthly as the definitive word on pugalism
steve day
4playfights

Oi! I am still waiting for those Mike Dokes dvds!

[Deserter]

Ian, Glyn, Loynesy

Pleasure to read your comments. Thankyou

x2. Of course the irony is that this thread also makes a mockery of those claims by some vested interests that this forum is a 'wild west' outpost filled with anoraks who lack understanding and intelligence.
Got my copy of BM flown in yesterday so may want to respond further once I've had a chance to digest the article in question!

[ALI]

Sounds like Fwanks previous should have gotten a mention. Doubtfull it was overlooked, more likely a step too far for BM. Quite ironic really!


Would really like to have read this piece. Been living abroad for some years now and miss the old mag. Really should take out a subscription..........

[J]

Sounds like Fwanks previous should have gotten a mention. Doubtfull it was overlooked, more likely a step too far for BM. Quite ironic really!


Would really like to have read this piece. Been living abroad for some years now and miss the old mag. Really should take out a subscription..........

i get it via subs..bday pressie well recommendd it as a lil peice of home to keep you sane.

read the article thought it was fien personally interested to Read Shep worked for the NCB, so did my old man...wonder if they knew each other!

Anyway credit to those really in the game who post here, it always adds colour and interest so well done chaps you kno who you are.

Was also interesting to read FMaloney stating that people use random monickers from within the game to stir up shite for other people.

Thats a real shame and in some ways sums up boxings problems.

anyway long live Boxing Monthly and Long live Box rec...

[freddydoesdallas]

this thread has been a good read. i subscribe to BM and after reading the article i decided to come over and have a look. It's a lively forum with plenty of discussion so for me the article was brilliant

[Deserter]

this thread has been a good read. i subscribe to BM and after reading the article i decided to come over and have a look. It's a lively forum with plenty of discussion so for me the article was brilliant

Welcome on board fella. More the merrier

[freddydoesdallas]

this thread has been a good read. i subscribe to BM and after reading the article i decided to come over and have a look. It's a lively forum with plenty of discussion so for me the article was brilliant

Welcome on board fella. More the merrier

cheers

[gasman]

I know this thread was a good read, but I feel a bit sorry for the Lillis - having his work dissected like this. Hope he has thick skin!

[chinny]

I know this thread was a good read, but I feel a bit sorry for the Lillis - having his work dissected like this. Hope he has thick skin!

He works (worked?) for the Daily Sport. Of course he has thick skin!

[Spud]

I know this thread was a good read, but I feel a bit sorry for the Lillis - having his work dissected like this. Hope he has thick skin!

I do not feel sorry for Lillis one bit!!! - he has thick skin and wont give a f*ck what we think - he is getting a thread about his article and thus job done!!

Lillis is amongst the many who have criticised this place in the past and has also had the balls to say it to peoples faces he wont give a sh*t.

[Glyn Leach]

Spud's right. Three things are impervious to atomic attack: Rats, cockroaches and Lillis!

[gasman]

I know this thread was a good read, but I feel a bit sorry for the Lillis - having his work dissected like this. Hope he has thick skin!

I do not feel sorry for Lillis one bit!!! - he has thick skin and wont give a f*ck what we think - he is getting a thread about his article and thus job done!!

Lillis is amongst the many who have criticised this place in the past and has also had the balls to say it to peoples faces he wont give a sh*t.

Well it is a good job he has thick skin