W arren has his say on Hatton

[MightyWarrior]

This has nothing to do with the fact Hatton promotions is the fastest growing promotions company in country does it Frank.

Oh no, nothing at all to do with it! DD

Of course not ! Frank just has the game's best interests at heart, as always.

Frank promoting Scott Harrison, just after he'd playfully punched out a couple of cops, was completely different, and possibly in fact helped boxing's image.

[Asterix]

Video statement released by Hatton TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZS0eX8Fe7U

[Chambers2]

Video statement released by Hatton TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZS0eX8Fe7U

What's the general jist? as I can't view youtube from work

[Horse]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

His behaviour was a bad example before he was caught taking drugs. Does him taking cocaine really make him that much worse as a role model?

[Asterix]

Video statement released by Hatton TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZS0eX8Fe7U

What's the general jist? as I can't view youtube from work

Ricky had a meeting with his family and asked for help. He admitted he hadn't realised how his life had got off track recently. He feels ashamed.

Ricky is in hospital for treatment.

[Carbo]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

His behaviour was a bad example before he was caught taking drugs. Does him taking cocaine really make him that much worse as a role model?

Um, yes. Obviously.

[doctorboxing]

His behaviour was a bad example before he was caught taking drugs. Does him taking cocaine really make him that much worse as a role model?

Take away all the "I/my mate takes coke all the time and it does me/him no harm, I don't see what the problem is" and you are left with the fact that taking a class A drug is illegal and could end up with a jail term.

[J]

so when bruno does it , its poor frank, and beat his wife into the bargain

when hatton gets grassed up by some fat trollop pretending to be his mate.... its hang him.

Chambers youve admitted to having a past, why the vitriol against hatton.

bit hypocritical mate

[JamesH]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

I have to say the removal of posts has been disappointing. I understand there may be legally contentious posts which need removing, but surely no more than when Cazalghe was caught and those threads rolled on for days with out closure. Hatton has since admitted a problem, and besides, most of the posts I'd seen were largely in his defence anyway. I can't see why it can be discussed. I'm sure there must be a reason for someone to remove them so promptly, I'm just not sure what that reason is.

[Carbo]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

I have to say the removal of posts has been disappointing. I understand there may be legally contentious posts which need removing, but surely no more than when Cazalghe was caught and those threads rolled on for days with out closure. Hatton has since admitted a problem, and besides, most of the posts I'd seen were largely in his defence anyway. I can't see why it can be discussed. I'm sure there must be a reason for someone to remove them so promptly, I'm just not sure what that reason is.

I sent this to the site admin this morning, thus far with no reply:

May I ask why the Hatton threads are being deleted?

If the forum is concerned about litigious members of the Hatton team, I think it seems somewhat strange to be so, given that the story has broken on every single newspaper and news outlet in the country. Furthermore, beyond the raw story, the Sun is now making all kinds of accusations, including publishing hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations, quotes from unnamed sources and the opinions of those close to him, all arguing that Hatton has a major problem that goes beyond recreational usage and that it has been a long standing problem. One person the tabloid quotes, for instance, "saw him one night in Marbella" and thought he was "wired on something" that may have been drink, but the fan "reckons probably not".

I have not seen any posts on this forum which are substantially worse than this from a legal standpoint. And given these types of quotes are being printed in papers which are worth suing, it seems strange that an internet site which is publishing the opinions of fans would shy away from any conversation at all. The fact Hatton's management and PR team are not denying the allegations -- to the contrary, they're openly admitting the problem -- really ought to further alleviate any fears Boxrec has regarding the potential for litigation or cease and desist warnings.

It's especially sad, given that one of the threads was developing into an interesting conversation about whether the News of the World was justified in publishing the story, how widespread the drugs problem is in boxing, and whether it's even a problem at all.

I for one came back to the forum specifically to discuss the matter, and put a great deal of effort into a post. It's therefore sad and frustrating to see it arbitrarily deleted.

I hope you can restore one main thread in which we can discuss the biggest boxing news story of the moment, perhaps outlining some rules of engagement, or at least offer me some reason why we cannot.

Sincerely,
Carbo

[Chambers2]

Chambers youve admitted to having a past, why the vitriol against hatton.

bit hypocritical mate

It's more of a 'current' than a past........ I just don't like Hatton so i'm using this as a yardstick to beat the Witter-dodging cunnt with

[J]

haha i didnt want to drop you in it quite that full on but seeing as you dont mind and are very honest ....fair enuff

[Loynesy]

I won't comment on the specifics of Hatton as I don't know the facts.

What I do know, as someone who has been inside a couple of rehabs (not for me, see below), including the Priory, which laughably, is described as some sort of celeb-detox Butlins, is that they are not pleasant places, with some pretty forlorn people in there, going through hell.

Equally, to those that say he had it all - well the two close friends I've visited in the Nightingale and the Priory, both of whom are Alpha-male superstars in terms of education, job, income etc, who ostensibly had life on a plate, ended up there and it was no gimmick or affectation for them.

Loynesy

[Chambers2]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

I have to say the removal of posts has been disappointing. I understand there may be legally contentious posts which need removing, but surely no more than when Cazalghe was caught and those threads rolled on for days with out closure. Hatton has since admitted a problem, and besides, most of the posts I'd seen were largely in his defence anyway. I can't see why it can be discussed. I'm sure there must be a reason for someone to remove them so promptly, I'm just not sure what that reason is.

the Hattons are rumoured to have financial interests in this website, which probably explains why the Hatton threads are being dealt with different to the Calzaghe threads

[Loynesy]

Boxing needs to make an example of Hatton as he's a role-model for millions of children. If he's allowed to get away with taking class A drugs scott-free then what kind of example does that send to the children whoo look upto him? I think his behaviour is disgusting (as is the removal of all anti-Hatton posts from this forum).

I have to say the removal of posts has been disappointing. I understand there may be legally contentious posts which need removing, but surely no more than when Cazalghe was caught and those threads rolled on for days with out closure. Hatton has since admitted a problem, and besides, most of the posts I'd seen were largely in his defence anyway. I can't see why it can be discussed. I'm sure there must be a reason for someone to remove them so promptly, I'm just not sure what that reason is.

the Hattons are rumoured to have financial interests in this website, which probably explains why the Hatton threads are being dealt with different to the Calzaghe threads

Chambers, with respect, that is conspiracy theory nonsense. Each thread that I have seen that was deleted clearly had libellous comments contaned therein (and ironically, your last post is probably libel).

[Roars Like Me]

He's still bitter though, if Hatton and Calzaghe had stayed with him, he'd be protecting them. Naughty W*****.

[JamesH]

If someone came out and explained the policy on these types of stories being deleted, then fair enough (whatever the policy was, providing it was consistent). My problem with it is that it's ok to discuss Cazalghes problems, but not Hatton's, and no one has explained why. I'm not usually one to rock the boat, but this looks appalling. It wouldn't look bad if the posts about Cazalghe had been removed in the same rapid fashion as those about Hatton have been, but they weren't.

[Chambers2]

Chambers, with respect, that is conspiracy theory nonsense. Each thread that I have seen that was deleted clearly had libellous comments contaned therein (and ironically, your last post is probably libel).

It maybe conspiracy theory nonsense that I've bought into, but it also explains why this site is extremely quick to remove any anti-Hatton material. It may just be coincidence, but it looks suss and I've not seen John Shep deny that hatton has a financial interest in the site despite the rumours

[Loynesy]

James

I'm not a Boxrec mod, but I do let the guys know if something legally untoward is posted. I will let them reply if they want to, but its actually obvious stuff, and I will paraphrase, based on the threads I read over the last couple of days that got zapped for 2 basic reasons.

1. "Well we all knew he was on the stuff based on rumours". That is prima facie libel - it now transpires, based on Hatton's public statements to perhaps be justifiable comment, but certainly on Sunday morning that should not have been published.

2. "He was on it during his boxing career". Without proof, that is still libellous and is probably the most serious accusation of them all. Just to point out, if true, no actionable libel, but to be made absent justification is a no-no.


As I mentioned before, I'm merely speaking in my individual capacity and wouldn't want to second guess the views of others, but any suggestions of a conspiracy theory or erosion of freedom of speech appear misguided.

[stujones]

Yes Loynsey, and even though Max Clifford has said Ricky has been in a "bad place" even before his last fight. He hasn't stated that this means any illegal activity.

Just to clarify, even when the video of Hatton was realeased in the NOTW, technically we still couldn't comment on it or could we if we say the word alledgely before it?

[Loynesy]

Chambers, with respect, that is conspiracy theory nonsense. Each thread that I have seen that was deleted clearly had libellous comments contaned therein (and ironically, your last post is probably libel).

It maybe conspiracy theory nonsense that I've bought into, but it also explains why this site is extremely quick to remove any anti-Hatton material. It may just be coincidence, but it looks suss and I've not seen John Shep deny that hatton has a financial interest in the site despite the rumours

I've not seen John Shep deny that allegedly, Margaret Thatcher, Idi Amin or the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) have a stake in the site either.

I don't believe that John Shep or the mods here are biased, but if it helps anyone, I will happily review any deleted thread in relation to Hatton and opine on whether there was or wasn't anything libellous in it (waiving my usual 650 per hour legal fees....), but then, I suppose the Hattons have a financial interest in me too..?

[Loynesy]

Yes Loynsey, and even though Max Clifford has said Ricky has been in a "bad place" even before his last fight. He hasn't stated that this means any illegal activity.

Just to clarify, even when the video of Hatton was realeased in the NOTW, technically we still couldn't comment on it or could we if we say the word alledgely before it?

Once the story is published, it is fine to comment on it as it appears (adding the word allegedly is legally meaningless), but surely it is just common sense as to where the line is?

[Chambers2]

Chambers, with respect, that is conspiracy theory nonsense. Each thread that I have seen that was deleted clearly had libellous comments contaned therein (and ironically, your last post is probably libel).

It maybe conspiracy theory nonsense that I've bought into, but it also explains why this site is extremely quick to remove any anti-Hatton material. It may just be coincidence, but it looks suss and I've not seen John Shep deny that hatton has a financial interest in the site despite the rumours

I've not seen John Shep deny that allegedly, Margaret Thatcher, Idi Amin or the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) have a stake in the site either.

I don't believe that John Shep or the mods here are biased, but if it helps anyone, I will happily review any deleted thread in relation to Hatton and opine on whether there was or wasn't anything libellous in it (waiving my usual 650 per hour legal fees....), but then, I suppose the Hattons have a financial interest in me too..?

No need for the sarcasm Loynesy ;;-) (although I'm a fine one to talk)

I must've missed Boxrecs Thatcher, Amin and Muhammad financial interest theories.

The posts I wrote on the missing threads certainly weren't libellous, so why not just take the down the potentially libellous posts rather than the whole thread. Hatton does seem to get preferential treatment on here IMO

[JamesH]

Chambers, with respect, that is conspiracy theory nonsense. Each thread that I have seen that was deleted clearly had libellous comments contaned therein (and ironically, your last post is probably libel).

It maybe conspiracy theory nonsense that I've bought into, but it also explains why this site is extremely quick to remove any anti-Hatton material. It may just be coincidence, but it looks suss and I've not seen John Shep deny that hatton has a financial interest in the site despite the rumours

I've not seen John Shep deny that allegedly, Margaret Thatcher, Idi Amin or the Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) have a stake in the site either.

I don't believe that John Shep or the mods here are biased, but if it helps anyone, I will happily review any deleted thread in relation to Hatton and opine on whether there was or wasn't anything libellous in it (waiving my usual 650 per hour legal fees....), but then, I suppose the Hattons have a financial interest in me too..?

Thanks a lot, I appreciate a response from someone who clearly knows the business from a legal perspective.

1 - I see... I can understand that. I'm sure threads were taken down after statements from Hatton’s camp admitting it but perhaps the threads were dropping before the mod had seen the statements. Fair enough!

2 - Again, that makes sense; I have certainly seen comments of that nature. Out of interest, wouldn't the breaking of the story open such matters up to debate? Or would that debate then become libelous once it goes beyond what has actually been reported? (or admitted?)

I'm not suggesting there is a major conspiracy or erosion of freedom in place, but the responses to two similar stories have been so different I felt it had to be raised. In the past posts of questionable nature have been edited/removed and a thread can continue. Perhaps there were too many posts of this nature to justify leaving what was left? I don't know. What I do know is that the forum is accused of certain things by parties with a vested interest, and the comparable actions in response to the Hatton and Calzaghe cocaine stories will perhaps add fuel to their fire.

Rather than spouting misguided accusations, I was asking for the position to be clarified. Your post was the first I'd seen which genuinely attempted that, thanks. Also, this is in no way a dig at the mods that do a great job; it is more a query about the rules which they enforce!

[big lennox]

I feel sorry for hatton here. Half of fleet street partake in toot, I'd imagine, and a lot of people I know, have or have had the odd line on a night out.It's rotten luck that he had a 'mate' that was willing to sell him out.It's his private business, and unless it has become an addiction, I just don't think it is the biggest scandal.It's not as if he is even fighting any more.Who knows maybe even allegedy has done toot, back in his youth.We don't know, and the same with, Hatton, we didn't need to know.

I hope he re-groups, cleans himself up and gets on with establishing his promotional company, which is coming along strongly.