Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 10:57
If I can be bothered (and if anyone is actually interested) I'll do a post on the laws of libel......
BoxRec
allegedly Answers Critics
Page 2 of 2
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:09
Matter closed as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to fall out with Bennie.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:15
Well maybe a brief outline would be useful for some.
I agree with a view above though, in that a forum like this should essentially be open for anybody to say anything they like. If they break the rules of the forum, ban them, but people taking legal action over it is a bit daft.
Spud is a halfwit. Most people (except Lightsoot) seem to acknowledge this. If him & his site are now in trouble, then tough on him.
I don't want to see Boxrec brought down to the same gutter level as British Eastside though, with infighting like we've seen on this thread so far.
I agree with a view above though, in that a forum like this should essentially be open for anybody to say anything they like. If they break the rules of the forum, ban them, but people taking legal action over it is a bit daft.
Spud is a halfwit. Most people (except Lightsoot) seem to acknowledge this. If him & his site are now in trouble, then tough on him.
I don't want to see Boxrec brought down to the same gutter level as British Eastside though, with infighting like we've seen on this thread so far.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:19
Loyalty (even when/if misplaced) is a greatly underestimated virtue.Loftgroov wrote:Spud is a halfwit. Most people (except Lightsoot) seem to acknowledge this.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:22
Well...I agree.
I wasn't suggesting Lightsoot's loyalty was even misplaced, just telling it like it is.
I wasn't suggesting Lightsoot's loyalty was even misplaced, just telling it like it is.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:28
I knew it was down to Spud, he was played at his own game and soundly beaten.
He still has influence on ESB though, i got PM'd on Friday by Admin to 'Lay off Spud'...Can't he defend himself on a forum? Say anything anti - Spud and it's deleted!
He still has influence on ESB though, i got PM'd on Friday by Admin to 'Lay off Spud'...Can't he defend himself on a forum? Say anything anti - Spud and it's deleted!
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:36
At the end of the day, I am not going to sit here and say nothing when I'm told Spud has done nothing wrong. He's brought it all on himself.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:48
The problem with this scenario is that the cheque book rules ok, not the Law.
Warren brags off that he and / or NOTW have not been sued as a result of any opinions he has expressed in his column, therefore that's ok.
That has no bearing on whether or not in Law the comments broke the Law, just the fact that the individuals concerned do not carry the financial clout to take him and NOTW on.
You then reverse the roles when Warren decides to close ESB down and what alternative do the site owners have ?
I'm not defending ESB but this could happen to any of these sites, this one included.
I can bet you that every decent poster on here can quote you an outrageous statement made by Warren in his column - and the fact he aint been sued does not justify the suggestion by him that everything said was above the Law.
I do genuinely rate Warren, but on this occasion I'm afraid he comes across poorly.
"My cheque books bigger than your cheque book " springs to mind.
Warren brags off that he and / or NOTW have not been sued as a result of any opinions he has expressed in his column, therefore that's ok.
That has no bearing on whether or not in Law the comments broke the Law, just the fact that the individuals concerned do not carry the financial clout to take him and NOTW on.
You then reverse the roles when Warren decides to close ESB down and what alternative do the site owners have ?
I'm not defending ESB but this could happen to any of these sites, this one included.
I can bet you that every decent poster on here can quote you an outrageous statement made by Warren in his column - and the fact he aint been sued does not justify the suggestion by him that everything said was above the Law.
I do genuinely rate Warren, but on this occasion I'm afraid he comes across poorly.
"My cheque books bigger than your cheque book " springs to mind.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 11:55
Kieran, I've had to delete part of that excellent statement, because the words used were the same that got Spud in the mire with Warren.
It's for the best, mate.
It's for the best, mate.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 12:17
No problem Bennie.
I am trying to be constructive, and offer a balanced view by sitting on the rickety old fence.
I am trying to be constructive, and offer a balanced view by sitting on the rickety old fence.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 17:05
The comments that got the site in trouble were not solely from Spud. Other posters put the site in it with their "views"
I do think that all personal attacks should remain personal however. Absolutely no point in filling up the boards with it. It does boxrec and ESB or any other forum no good at all.
Are we adults having discussions or little boys in a park playing tig?
I do think that all personal attacks should remain personal however. Absolutely no point in filling up the boards with it. It does boxrec and ESB or any other forum no good at all.
Are we adults having discussions or little boys in a park playing tig?
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 17:34
Whatever your feelings about allegedly, Sports Network or Ricky Hatton, you cannot get away from the fact that Ricky produced a truly world class performance against Tackie and that Warren is right when he said that Hattons performance was all the more impressive because Hatton stood his ground for much of the fight, whereas Zoo and Mitchell were in retreat.
Hatton was all over the Sports pages today and his win is a much needed credibility boost for British Boxing with the general sports fan.
Personally, I feel that Warren has done a great job with Hatton, which has been made all the more difficult by the limited (SKY) market he has available.
People criticize Hattons quality of opposition (except Tackie and to a lesser extent Phillips) but if you were allegedly and you had an asset like Hatton, would you risk him against monsters every fight?
With Zoo well into his 30's, Hatton can go all the way.
I sincerely hope that he does.
PS: Warren didnt try to close down Seconds Out.com when he took action against them for defamation. He discussed it and accepted a retraction/disclaimer.
Hatton was all over the Sports pages today and his win is a much needed credibility boost for British Boxing with the general sports fan.
Personally, I feel that Warren has done a great job with Hatton, which has been made all the more difficult by the limited (SKY) market he has available.
People criticize Hattons quality of opposition (except Tackie and to a lesser extent Phillips) but if you were allegedly and you had an asset like Hatton, would you risk him against monsters every fight?
With Zoo well into his 30's, Hatton can go all the way.
I sincerely hope that he does.
PS: Warren didnt try to close down Seconds Out.com when he took action against them for defamation. He discussed it and accepted a retraction/disclaimer.
Posted: 15 Dec 2003, 18:11
I have nothing against ESB or nobody, but the source of the problem always seems to arise around 1 poster.GAV wrote:The comments that got the site in trouble were not solely from Spud. Other posters put the site in it with their "views"
I do think that all personal attacks should remain personal however. Absolutely no point in filling up the boards with it. It does boxrec and ESB or any other forum no good at all.
Are we adults having discussions or little boys in a park playing tig?
Like it or not he is why Warren has proceeded in Legal action against the website in question.
Posted: 16 Dec 2003, 15:31
Well you keep on believing that and i'll just be happy with knowing the truth.TT wrote:I have nothing against ESB or nobody, but the source of the problem always seems to arise around 1 poster.GAV wrote:The comments that got the site in trouble were not solely from Spud. Other posters put the site in it with their "views"
I do think that all personal attacks should remain personal however. Absolutely no point in filling up the boards with it. It does boxrec and ESB or any other forum no good at all.
Are we adults having discussions or little boys in a park playing tig?
Like it or not he is why Warren has proceeded in Legal action against the website in question.
Posted: 16 Dec 2003, 16:17
Fine by me mateGAV wrote:Well you keep on believing that and i'll just be happy with knowing the truth.TT wrote:I have nothing against ESB or nobody, but the source of the problem always seems to arise around 1 poster.GAV wrote:The comments that got the site in trouble were not solely from Spud. Other posters put the site in it with their "views"
I do think that all personal attacks should remain personal however. Absolutely no point in filling up the boards with it. It does boxrec and ESB or any other forum no good at all.
Are we adults having discussions or little boys in a park playing tig?
Like it or not he is why Warren has proceeded in Legal action against the website in question.
Posted: 16 Dec 2003, 17:03
I'll have to ask my brother about libel laws etc because he's studying law at uni and I know sweet FA about it!!!
IMO though, us boxing fans who buy tickets, magazines etc are entitled to say fighter A shouldn't be fighting B because he's 52.
I have no hidden motives with what I say and am just a normal fight fan.
IMO though, us boxing fans who buy tickets, magazines etc are entitled to say fighter A shouldn't be fighting B because he's 52.
I have no hidden motives with what I say and am just a normal fight fan.
Posted: 16 Dec 2003, 17:25
I happen to agree with Frank in this case and I'm happy with the overall result of his actions.