BoxRec

The Dark Destroyer wrote: I did say implicit. But come on, if there was no implied violence why is the lad too scared to answer his door to a professional boxer?

Due to the realisation that his vile, unwarranted and deliberately provocative actions have - and should have - consequences.[/quote]

What consequences are those? A stern telling off?[/quote]

Thrashing with baseball bats laden with nails in your mind, seemingly.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:
What consequences are those? A stern telling off?

The realisation itself seems to have been enough, on this occasion. With rights (in this case, 'free speech' - which doesn't exist) come responsibilities.

Crazyboy wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Wales wrote: Had it out with him verbally, maybe? I remember a boxing writer on this site phoning a boxer up and explaining his views in an article to him because the boxer had kicked off regarding it. By the end of the call the journo had explained himself, and the boxer told him why he disagreed. No blood was spilt.

What if it was a kid? Or a girl? Or someone in a wheel chair, or someone with learning difficulties? This could have turned out very ugly for Woodhouse, and the press would be twice the size. The threat of physical violence (and it was there whether he would have done it or not) is a ridiculous response to some idiot calling you a knob on twitter.

Classic case of the PC brigade and coming in, saying oooo it wasn't right what he did blah blah blah.

Have a word with yourself........

Some twatneck called him out and Curtis played the game by going round there and making him nervous, he has stated already he had no intention of beating up the guy/girl/thing it was all done as wind up.

Your looking too deep into it, and trying to be a play the morally correct card.

The bloke was a twat and got found out....its as simple as that really.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

dondada wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:
What consequences are those? A stern telling off?

The realisation itself seems to have been enough, on this occasion. With rights (in this case, 'free speech' - which doesn't exist) come responsibilities.

Yes they do, and I'm aware of the ridiculous idea of freedom of expression and the actual realities of it, but as long as the dick head doesn't break laws in his tweets why should he be on the receiving end of intimidation, which it was even if there was no actual threat of violence? From a professional boxer no less.

It's an interesting one. I'd be keen to know if his tweets were actually breaking the law by being deliberately inflammatory. There is a move to try and get people to not do online what they wouldn't do in person...if this lad had said these things in the street to Curtis, would he be acting unlawfully? I'd say yes.

He was trying to be provocative (and, perhaps, intimidatory) so, in terms of natural justice at least, this is why he should have been on the end of intimidation. It will hopefully do him good in the long run. He's learned a valuable lesson. It usually takes people a couple of kickings to modify their obnoxious behaviour.

As my old man would say, 'A closed mouth gathers no knuckle'. (By the way, this saying does not apply to legitimate 'free speech' concerns but solely about 'working your ticket').

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Yes they do, and I'm aware of the ridiculous idea of freedom of expression and the actual realities of it,

Freedom of expression is a ridiculous idea?

Dead Mouse wrote:Yes, because people just come out with: "I've got a right to an opinion, me." to justify anyu old nonsense. Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has them, they're all full of shit.

Not everyone has a stupid opinion.

if i kncked on the door and a disabled person or a woman or a child or godzilla answered the same thing would have happened, id have said i thought what they had been tweeting me over the last 6 months was out of order and i expected to stop straight away, if then he said he wasnt going to stop id have warned him that if he didnt id be contacting the police to make them aware of what was going on, if he came out all guns blazing and throwing punches id have kicked his arse, everybody needs to get off there high horses, some people might stand for that abuse but i wont, im no hard case but what is right is right and he had abused me for 6 months stating he wished my family harm and mocked my dead dad, if anybody on here would stand for that without doing something about it then shame on you, i was raised better than that

Legendary that should teacher him

'When the student is ready the teacher will appear'

Jimmy was ready Curtis appeared

The Dark Destroyer wrote:No, freedom of expression is actually a wonderful idea. But we don't have it, no-one does anywhere in this world.

Some have it more than others.

The worrying thing to me is that you can find out someones address and name so easily via twitter??

curtis wood wrote:if i kncked on the door and a disabled person or a woman or a child or godzilla answered the same thing would have happened, id have said i thought what they had been tweeting me over the last 6 months was out of order and i expected to stop straight away, if then he said he wasnt going to stop id have warned him that if he didnt id be contacting the police to make them aware of what was going on, if he came out all guns blazing and throwing punches id have kicked his arse, everybody needs to get off there high horses, some people might stand for that abuse but i wont, im no hard case but what is right is right and he had abused me for 6 months stating he wished my family harm and mocked my dead dad, if anybody on here would stand for that without doing something about it then shame on you, i was raised better than that

you can file this under "spot on"

Depends who they are. If they're stupid enough to register a website you can find out all sorts of personal info very easily.

banjo wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

Wales wrote: Had it out with him verbally, maybe? I remember a boxing writer on this site phoning a boxer up and explaining his views in an article to him because the boxer had kicked off regarding it. By the end of the call the journo had explained himself, and the boxer told him why he disagreed. No blood was spilt.

What if it was a kid? Or a girl? Or someone in a wheel chair, or someone with learning difficulties?

What if it was John f*cking Rambo? Maybe Eric Draven or the motherfuckin' T-1000? The possibilities are endless......

Or Grossberger...

http://www.moviepicturedb.com/pictures/ ... 29ce0c.jpg

The Dark Destroyer wrote:Is it as simple as that? Really?

That lad, whatever you think of him has every right to say what he wants within the law, and he has that right to do it without threats of physical violence for saying it.

this is the complete nonsense. And where is the rules does it say that if you're in a wheelchair you're above getting a bit of a talking to?? Oh because you couldn't possibly ask someone in a wheelchair why they have been repeatedly announcing to the world that you are a tw*t. Or you can't talk to somebody who has a kid present........much better to not address the issue that way maybe the kid can grow up thinking that's the way everybody behaves. Get a grip. The idiot has had his extremely narrow perspectives on life widened a little bit by Mr W. He should be saying thank you to him.

curtis wood wrote:if i kncked on the door and a disabled person or a woman or a child or godzilla answered the same thing would have happened, id have said i thought what they had been tweeting me over the last 6 months was out of order and i expected to stop straight away, if then he said he wasnt going to stop id have warned him that if he didnt id be contacting the police to make them aware of what was going on, if he came out all guns blazing and throwing punches id have kicked his arse, everybody needs to get off there high horses, some people might stand for that abuse but i wont, im no hard case but what is right is right and he had abused me for 6 months stating he wished my family harm and mocked my dead dad, if anybody on here would stand for that without doing something about it then shame on you, i was raised better than that

amen to that

Looking On wrote:

Finn wrote:LEGEND

I might start giving some shit to Dappy from ndubz on twitter and hope he tries doing the same thing.

I know a pro boxer who dappy punched when on a gig , and boxer was the security , so yeah i think he may take that bait

Really? I heard he gives it the big one before his "man dem" (cling-on's) actually do the fighting for him.

MachoMan09 wrote:I find it bewildering that people get their rocks off over this type of stuff one way or the other. That it has made the news, domestically and overseas, is even more baffling. People must have very dull lives if a vicarious hunt for a cretin in any way qualifies as exciting. What a mundane lot.

Yep, they should live the rock star life you do, on a boxing forum.

Everyone should be treated the same if someone says they can kick your ass you are entitled to ask them to prove it.

Dont care if its a child, midget, woman, wheelchair

I do broadly agree with you, DD. It was funny, but the guy in question will be shitting it now and is probably a nervous wreck. Does the punishment fit the crime? Who knows. I've been laughing about it on Twitter, though, because you do get some right Charlies on there. My impression, from the start, was that Woodhouse was tongue-in-cheek and just wanted to show that there's consequences to your actions.

As for the Paedo squads. It is all well and good these people trapping guys via Facebook then filming their reactions, but what if there was a long-term police investigation of said perv and these popcorn farts ruined it? My missus thinks that we need gangs of guys roaming the street dishing out justice, I'm not so sure myself as the roamers are likely to be reactionary idiots. I'm not having a pop at Curtis BTW, he knows where I live.[/quote]
Your missus has some interesting views....

Curtis Woodhouse, whatever you think of him has every right to say what he wants within the law - which includes going to say it to his face.[/quote]

Yes, he does. I don't believe I've implied differently. But he has no right to do that with an implicit threat of violence. Which was there, whatever he says he would or wouldn't have done subsequently. I'm just glad it was some dick head, can you imagine the papers if it had have been a kid or something, it'd just be another stick to beat boxing with.[/quote]


I dont think there was a threat of violence, was there? wasnt it repeated comments about going for a brew?[/quote]
One of the tweets I saw Woodhouse send to someone else was about giving the guy in question a right pasting and filming it. I think that answers your question.

leftysreturn wrote:I do broadly agree with you, DD. It was funny, but the guy in question will be shitting it now and is probably a nervous wreck. Does the punishment fit the crime? Who knows. I've been laughing about it on Twitter, though, because you do get some right Charlies on there. My impression, from the start, was that Woodhouse was tongue-in-cheek and just wanted to show that there's consequences to your actions.

As for the Paedo squads. It is all well and good these people trapping guys via Facebook then filming their reactions, but what if there was a long-term police investigation of said perv and these popcorn farts ruined it? My missus thinks that we need gangs of guys roaming the street dishing out justice, I'm not so sure myself as the roamers are likely to be reactionary idiots. I'm not having a pop at Curtis BTW, he knows where I live.

Your missus has some interesting views....[/quote]

My missus would go and watch a guilotining with her knitting (with a big wart on her nose).

One of Curtis's tweets from yesterday ....this is regarding whether there was an implicit threat of violence ............ @t_burgin @jimmyob88 @wit_xx i cant wait!! im give him a right pasting!!

leftysreturn wrote:One of Curtis's tweets from yesterday ....this is regarding whether there was an implicit threat of violence ............ @t_burgin @jimmyob88 @wit_xx i cant wait!! im give him a right pasting!!

Ok pal, stop shit stirring; it all happened yesterday it'll be forgotten about tomorrow. you don't want anyone to get into bother.

palooka wrote:

leftysreturn wrote:One of Curtis's tweets from yesterday ....this is regarding whether there was an implicit threat of violence ............ @t_burgin @jimmyob88 @wit_xx i cant wait!! im give him a right pasting!!

Ok pal, stop shit stirring; it all happened yesterday it'll be forgotten about tomorrow. you don't want anyone to get into bother.

No im just discussing what was said thats all.