BoxRec

simon fox wrote:

Scrap wrote:So He Clumped a Bully shocking. Ive met the Kid, to me He comes over as a really nice Guy. Envirement makes people do things they regret, with Brendan He has found a better one. wish Him well

There was a bit more to it than clumping a bully.

Like I say I'm happy for Richard to do well; I've done things that are morally and legally wrong. I am friends with people who have done similar stuff. Minimising the wrong and harm done does no one any favours. I am genuinely pleased that Towers is living a more positive life.

Yep hopefully boxing will give him that focus in his life and he won't come off the rails again. Still looking forward to watching him fight as I haven't seen him yet and wana see if he lives up to the hype.

Richard was NOT involved with torturing anyone - he was the person who made a ransom demand. That was his only involvement, this is a matter of public record.

He has served his sentence, paid his price to society and worked incredibly hard to become a seriously positive role model to a lot of kids.

Good enougth for me

danfoster wrote:Richard was NOT involved with torturing anyone - he was the person who made a ransom demand. That was his only involvement, this is a matter of public record.

He has served his sentence, paid his price to society and worked incredibly hard to become a seriously positive role model to a lot of kids.

13 years for 'making a ransom demand' and that was 'his only involvement'. Seems like a harsh sentence to me...

Scottrf wrote:Pfft Ian, doubting my trustworthiness!

Yeah, just as I thought Scott. Utter nonsense. He said Chisora had an answer for everything he tried and that on returning to the ring he thought he would bully people and Junior Witter battered him.

That's it.

TheCobra wrote:

danfoster wrote:Richard was NOT involved with torturing anyone - he was the person who made a ransom demand. That was his only involvement, this is a matter of public record.

He has served his sentence, paid his price to society and worked incredibly hard to become a seriously positive role model to a lot of kids.

13 years for 'making a ransom demand' and that was 'his only involvement'. Seems like a harsh sentence to me...

Really? 13 years for being involved in a crime like that harsh? I think it's fair enough.

That was his involvement though. You have heard of getaway drivers getting a big lump of time, no? In fact, I recently saw a story where there were a few lads in a car and one of them shot someone...they were all charged with the crime.

What the Board ought to be doing is using Towers as an example of the redemptive power of boxing - it has saved many a man from the wrong side of the tracks and this chap is merely the latest.

I agree with Mr Mcneilly; the man was terrorised and terrified for his life; his family traumatised and left with a terrible dilemma. Towers has shown character to change his ways and he has chosen a very hard way to make a living.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

TheCobra wrote:

danfoster wrote:Richard was NOT involved with torturing anyone - he was the person who made a ransom demand. That was his only involvement, this is a matter of public record.

He has served his sentence, paid his price to society and worked incredibly hard to become a seriously positive role model to a lot of kids.

13 years for 'making a ransom demand' and that was 'his only involvement'. Seems like a harsh sentence to me...

Really? 13 years for being involved in a crime like that harsh? I think it's fair enough.

That was his involvement though. You have heard of getaway drivers getting a big lump of time, no? In fact, I recently saw a story where there were a few lads in a car and one of them shot someone...they were all charged with the crime.

What the Board ought to be doing is using Towers as an example of the redemptive power of boxing - it has saved many a man from the wrong side of the tracks and this chap is merely the latest.

I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice! How does anyone here really know what happened, I certainly know I've met enough hard nuts in my life to know that anyone can come up with a story of 'I was only the ransom man, honest guv'. Anyways back to boxing, I agree everyone should get a second chance and hopefully boxing can be his redemption and keeps him on the right side of the law.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Pfft Ian, doubting my trustworthiness!

Yeah, just as I thought Scott. Utter nonsense. He said Chisora had an answer for everything he tried and that on returning to the ring he thought he would bully people and Junior Witter battered him.

That's it.

You're right, not as if I made it up, but was the impression I was left with after the initial read through. Apologies for giving the wrong impression of the column, but I'd read it a couple of days before and my memory was hazy!

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

TheCobra wrote:

danfoster wrote:Richard was NOT involved with torturing anyone - he was the person who made a ransom demand. That was his only involvement, this is a matter of public record.

He has served his sentence, paid his price to society and worked incredibly hard to become a seriously positive role model to a lot of kids.

13 years for 'making a ransom demand' and that was 'his only involvement'. Seems like a harsh sentence to me...

Really? 13 years for being involved in a crime like that harsh? I think it's fair enough.

That was his involvement though. You have heard of getaway drivers getting a big lump of time, no? In fact, I recently saw a story where there were a few lads in a car and one of them shot someone...they were all charged with the crime.

What the Board ought to be doing is using Towers as an example of the redemptive power of boxing - it has saved many a man from the wrong side of the tracks and this chap is merely the latest.

actually, i think there were three stating just that in the last BM. Towers, Braemer and Theophane.

TheCobra wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

TheCobra wrote: 13 years for 'making a ransom demand' and that was 'his only involvement'. Seems like a harsh sentence to me...

Really? 13 years for being involved in a crime like that harsh? I think it's fair enough.

That was his involvement though. You have heard of getaway drivers getting a big lump of time, no? In fact, I recently saw a story where there were a few lads in a car and one of them shot someone...they were all charged with the crime.

What the Board ought to be doing is using Towers as an example of the redemptive power of boxing - it has saved many a man from the wrong side of the tracks and this chap is merely the latest.

I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice! How does anyone here really know what happened, I certainly know I've met enough hard nuts in my life to know that anyone can come up with a story of 'I was only the ransom man, honest guv'. Anyways back to boxing, I agree everyone should get a second chance and hopefully boxing can be his redemption and keeps him on the right side of the law.

There was a fella once who shot a bloke sitting next to him in a car - got off with it by claiming the dead man pulled the gun on him and the gun went off in a struggle...

I also read of a man who was pulled over in a car with the boot full of drugs and guns - no prints on those but he was at the wheel of the car - he said he stole the car and only got done for that!

Fair play to him for turning his life round.

TheCobra wrote: I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice!

So, we've basically established that anyone who is:
a) Tall
and
b) Not baby-faced

Is likely to be of dubious character. Fascinating deductive skills...

TheCobra wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:

TheCobra wrote: 13 years for 'making a ransom demand' and that was 'his only involvement'. Seems like a harsh sentence to me...

Really? 13 years for being involved in a crime like that harsh? I think it's fair enough.

That was his involvement though. You have heard of getaway drivers getting a big lump of time, no? In fact, I recently saw a story where there were a few lads in a car and one of them shot someone...they were all charged with the crime.

What the Board ought to be doing is using Towers as an example of the redemptive power of boxing - it has saved many a man from the wrong side of the tracks and this chap is merely the latest.

I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice! How does anyone here really know what happened, I certainly know I've met enough hard nuts in my life to know that anyone can come up with a story of 'I was only the ransom man, honest guv'. Anyways back to boxing, I agree everyone should get a second chance and hopefully boxing can be his redemption and keeps him on the right side of the law.

I can assure you that what i have put above WAS his involvement and the extent of his involvement. A number of people were sentenced in connection with this offence and when they were sentenced their exact involvement was refelected by court documents agreed by the Crown.

Richard was not involved in the planning or abduction of the person in question. All involved agreed his involvement was in the ransom collection. This is fact.

It's also a fact - just for the avoidance of doubt - that subject of the kidnapping was another person involved in drug gangs. Please don't form the opinion that they went out and pinched Keith Chegwin's daughter or something! This is not to minimise what happened, purely to provide context and background.

I would ask that nobody make any more incorrect statements or post any gossip or rumour about Richard's past. He is MORE THAN HAPPY to talk about what he did which he is the first to accept was bad enough. If people are that curious i could probably arrange for him to come on here and answer questions! It takes a big man to do that. So there really is no need to post stuff that is ill informed and merely casts the guy in a bad light. He is working and has worked incredibly hard for years to try and make something positive of his life so that he can provide for his family.

Lots of boxers have done seriously bad things (i would say in some cases far worse than this - rape, anyone?) and been left alone to continue with their career. I think Rich should be allowed to do the same.

I wonder if Big Larry has got any thoughts on this matter? He seems a good guy and probably associate with Richard in some ways.

danfoster wrote:

TheCobra wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: Really? 13 years for being involved in a crime like that harsh? I think it's fair enough.

That was his involvement though. You have heard of getaway drivers getting a big lump of time, no? In fact, I recently saw a story where there were a few lads in a car and one of them shot someone...they were all charged with the crime.

What the Board ought to be doing is using Towers as an example of the redemptive power of boxing - it has saved many a man from the wrong side of the tracks and this chap is merely the latest.

I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice! How does anyone here really know what happened, I certainly know I've met enough hard nuts in my life to know that anyone can come up with a story of 'I was only the ransom man, honest guv'. Anyways back to boxing, I agree everyone should get a second chance and hopefully boxing can be his redemption and keeps him on the right side of the law.

I can assure you that what i have put above WAS his involvement and the extent of his involvement. A number of people were sentenced in connection with this offence and when they were sentenced their exact involvement was refelected by court documents agreed by the Crown.

Richard was not involved in the planning or abduction of the person in question. All involved agreed his involvement was in the ransom collection. This is fact.

It's also a fact - just for the avoidance of doubt - that subject of the kidnapping was another person involved in drug gangs. Please don't form the opinion that they went out and pinched Keith Chegwin's daughter or something! This is not to minimise what happened, purely to provide context and background.

I would ask that nobody make any more incorrect statements or post any gossip or rumour about Richard's past. He is MORE THAN HAPPY to talk about what he did which he is the first to accept was bad enough. If people are that curious i could probably arrange for him to come on here and answer questions! It takes a big man to do that. So there really is no need to post stuff that is ill informed and merely casts the guy in a bad light. He is working and has worked incredibly hard for years to try and make something positive of his life so that he can provide for his family.

Lots of boxers have done seriously bad things (i would say in some cases far worse than this - rape, anyone?) and been left alone to continue with their career. I think Rich should be allowed to do the same.

I wonder if Big Larry has got any thoughts on this matter? He seems a good guy and probably associate with Richard in some ways.

To be fair ive stuck up for him in my posts.

he will be british champian in about 2 years.
he is promoted by the hattons and he was a sparring partner for dereck chisora.
he needs a few learning fights and lots of sparring but he will get there

Talking to Richard he said he would fight any britsh heavy now

I think Richard is a very nice guy who has done exactly what I have which is to completely change his life around after being in prison for several years which is not easy at all because the support for when you get out is not as good as it used to be. I have alot of respect for Richard and as I have told him, he is the only heavyweight who is as hungry as I am for success because of where we have been. I believe that everyone deserves a second chance and believed this b4 going to prison and if the said person is making the most out of his second chance as Richard is doing, then there should be no problem. I wish Richard the best in his career and I know if we were to ever meet in the ring, it would be an absolute war. Hopefully that would be for a title but I think Richard is a very good fighter who will do big things in the sport and encourage people who have been in trouble to sort their lives out in a positive manner

lefty wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Yes he does. Although a lot of it I think is when he had very little experience, or against guys on another level to where he currently is. He's just admitting he had a lot to learn, which is better than being delusional and thinking he's already the finished article.

well dont get me wrong,i dont think he's ready to fighting the elite yeah but i think the potential is there though,also you never know he could be one of those guys who doesnt spar very well but does it in the ring where it counts!Quite often you get guys who are the opposite!lol

I think he is the real deal. spoke to him at a recent show. I think these sparring sessions mentioned. Are more to do with how respectful Richard is about the people who he has sparred when he speaks about the sessions. I Know him and Tyson Fury had a great tussle. He Ticks All The Boxes. I Personally Think He Will Right In The Mix With David Price , Tyson Fury , Tom Dallas And Big Larry.

Deserter wrote:

TheCobra wrote: I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice!

So, we've basically established that anyone who is:
a) Tall
and
b) Not baby-faced

Is likely to be of dubious character. Fascinating deductive skills...

What a ridiculous post. I am basing it on the fact that he has been involved clearly in criminal gangs and at 6'8 and looking like he does PLUS the criminal gang stuff, he is clearly no angel. Can't be doing with arseholes like you posting snidey remarks.

So I had the out and out cheek to say I won't particularly be sticking up for him as I'm not a big fan of criminals. All of a sudden everyone on this topic is his best mate, knows his business, knows the ins and outs of what he did or didn't do and is prepared to back it all up. What a country we live in.

TheCobra wrote:

Deserter wrote:

TheCobra wrote: I believe that at 6'8" and looking like he does, he aint all sweetness and nice!

So, we've basically established that anyone who is:
a) Tall
and
b) Not baby-faced

Is likely to be of dubious character. Fascinating deductive skills...

What a ridiculous post. I am basing it on the fact that he has been involved clearly in criminal gangs and at 6'8 and looking like he does PLUS the criminal gang stuff, he is clearly no angel. Can't be doing with arseholes like you posting snidey remarks.

So I had the out and out cheek to say I won't particularly be sticking up for him as I'm not a big fan of criminals. All of a sudden everyone on this topic is his best mate, knows his business, knows the ins and outs of what he did or didn't do and is prepared to back it all up. What a country we live in.

Have I actually misquoted you then? Because as far as I can see it's there in black and white... and it's your post that is ridiculous - it's one thing to surmise that his involvement in criminal gangs mean he's no angel but how, pray tell me, is his height remotely relevant to anything in that regard? He could be 5'2'' and still be involved in gangs.
If you just stuck to the facts and argued your case people would take you more seriously, but you wanted to be melodramatic so I was just hauling you up on the illogical nature of referring to height and the way he looks. It is ONLY his prior involvement that is relevant to the point you were trying to make. End of.

Deserter wrote:

TheCobra wrote:

Deserter wrote: So, we've basically established that anyone who is:
a) Tall
and
b) Not baby-faced

Is likely to be of dubious character. Fascinating deductive skills...

What a ridiculous post. I am basing it on the fact that he has been involved clearly in criminal gangs and at 6'8 and looking like he does PLUS the criminal gang stuff, he is clearly no angel. Can't be doing with arseholes like you posting snidey remarks.

So I had the out and out cheek to say I won't particularly be sticking up for him as I'm not a big fan of criminals. All of a sudden everyone on this topic is his best mate, knows his business, knows the ins and outs of what he did or didn't do and is prepared to back it all up. What a country we live in.

Have I actually misquoted you then? Because as far as I can see it's there in black and white... and it's your post that is ridiculous - it's one thing to surmise that his involvement in criminal gangs mean he's no angel but how, pray tell me, is his height remotely relevant to anything in that regard? He could be 5'2'' and still be involved in gangs.
If you just stuck to the facts and argued your case people would take you more seriously, but you wanted to be melodramatic so I was just hauling you up on the illogical nature of referring to height and the way he looks. It is ONLY his prior involvement that is relevant to the point you were trying to make. End of.

agreed

lefty wrote:

Deserter wrote:

TheCobra wrote: What a ridiculous post. I am basing it on the fact that he has been involved clearly in criminal gangs and at 6'8 and looking like he does PLUS the criminal gang stuff, he is clearly no angel. Can't be doing with arseholes like you posting snidey remarks.

So I had the out and out cheek to say I won't particularly be sticking up for him as I'm not a big fan of criminals. All of a sudden everyone on this topic is his best mate, knows his business, knows the ins and outs of what he did or didn't do and is prepared to back it all up. What a country we live in.

Have I actually misquoted you then? Because as far as I can see it's there in black and white... and it's your post that is ridiculous - it's one thing to surmise that his involvement in criminal gangs mean he's no angel but how, pray tell me, is his height remotely relevant to anything in that regard? He could be 5'2'' and still be involved in gangs.
If you just stuck to the facts and argued your case people would take you more seriously, but you wanted to be melodramatic so I was just hauling you up on the illogical nature of referring to height and the way he looks. It is ONLY his prior involvement that is relevant to the point you were trying to make. End of.

agreed

agreed - i'm 6'2, so i must be less criminal than Towers and more criminal than Pablo Escobar...

I shudder when thinking about all the horrendous criminal activity Valuev has been up to

and he's even less "baby faced" than Towers!

MatthewS wrote:[agreed - i'm 6'2, so i must be less criminal than Towers and more criminal than Pablo Escobar...

crusader wrote:I shudder when thinking about all the horrendous criminal activity Valuev has been up to

and he's even less "baby faced" than Towers!