BoxRec

bripez wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:Specifically with regard to Peter; he comes across as a nice fella in interviews but the man was a drug dealing scumbag. He can talk all he wants about changing his life around blah blah blah - doesn't change the fact that as a grown man he decided to go down the wrong path. He didn't have an epiphany and choose to be a better man, he got caught. A leopard doesn't change it's spots.

With regard to John he's just an odious dirtball as the other thread attests to in some detail.

Full credit to Tyson for becoming such a likeable, decent young man having been brought up by these two goons (long prison sentences aside)

Would you ban Tibbs, Sims, AJ and Pat Barrett, too?

Who has been "banned" ?

You will have to try harder Mickey - ask Homicide Henry for some tips if you want to go down that road !

Not sure what you mean. The poster would approve of a ban on Peter, just wondered if it applied to the others as well.

mickey1975 wrote:Because Tibbs says so? The prosecution didn't. Not sure about Sims myself but know he's been away and couldn't get into America (can now).

How would you know the prosecution didn't ? I'm assuming you don't have access to a transcript of the court proceedings.

A crime's a crime. Jimmy was guilty and broke the law of the land. I don't think he broke any moral law though.

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Because Tibbs says so? The prosecution didn't. Not sure about Sims myself but know he's been away and couldn't get into America (can now).

How would you know the prosecution didn't ? I'm assuming you don't have access to a transcript of the court proceedings.

A crime's a crime. Jimmy was guilty and broke the law of the land. I don't think he broke any moral law though.

Jimmy says himself in his book the prosecution had it as a gang war. It's been in various crime books as such. He also freely admits taking drugs, in and out of prison.

mickey1975 wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:Because Tibbs says so? The prosecution didn't. Not sure about Sims myself but know he's been away and couldn't get into America (can now).

How would you know the prosecution didn't ? I'm assuming you don't have access to a transcript of the court proceedings.

A crime's a crime. Jimmy was guilty and broke the law of the land. I don't think he broke any moral law though.

Jimmy says himself in his book the prosecution had it as a gang war. It's been in various crime books as such. He also freely admits taking drugs, in and out of prison.

Yeah but a member of his family was seriously hurt. I don't see a moral equivalence between hurting someone who has hurt your family (albeit in the context of two criminal gangs feuding) and heading up a business which has the sole purpose of selling class a drugs. As well as profiting massively from an illegal enterprise Peter too may have had to resort to unsavoury methods of persuasion to ensure situations developed as he wished them to on occasion.

As for taking drugs, each to their own. Peter makes a big deal of doing his time "properly" ie not taking drugs in jail. Even if we're naive enough to believe him, so what - he's not harming anyone else by taking drugs but he's harming people by facilitating their availability. I think he betrayed a warped code of morals with that little revelation.

Hardly any big time dealers take drugs. Anyway, I digress, I am happy for them all to be in the game, just don't see why Peter gets singled out. He couldn't be anymore open about his past.

A man's got to earn a living. If he's served his sentence he's as entitled to earn a living in boxing as the next man.

That said, once a scumbag always a scumbag

CaptainSpacerod wrote:A man's got to earn a living. If he's served his sentence he's as entitled to earn a living in boxing as the next man.

That said, once a scumbag always a scumbag

Not true, i hear Gary Glitter is a model prisoner,even holds the doors open for his fellow cons,guys a total gent

CaptainSpacerod wrote:A man's got to earn a living. If he's served his sentence he's as entitled to earn a living in boxing as the next man.

That said, once a scumbag always a scumbag

is this post meant as a joke?

CaptainSpacerod wrote:I'd say a sizeable percentage of the population disagree to some extent with the concept of homosexuality. Being amongst them shouldn't preclude Tyson from appearing on chat shows - they don't have to discuss homosexuality with him.

This. Tune into Alan Carr's Chatty Man next week. BIG surprise...

moogie101 wrote:

magwitch wrote:...thought this might be a Bunce piece, I was going to ask whether I needed a notepad and a bic.

Anyway - question - Is Mr Fury any more controversialin this century with his views on gays and Jess Ennis and kitchens and cups of tea (plus associations with certain people), than the now lauded, revered and beloved Mr Ali was in the last century, with his probable rumoured affairs, objection to the Vietnam War, alleged racism and his association to certain people, Malcolm X(?) Nation of Islam etc etc?

Really? Different worlds, I get people like Tyson but please stop trying to defend the utter shite that comes out of his mouth.

Thanks for putting me straight.

I must stop defending the utter shite that comes out of Fury's mouth.
I must stop defending the utter shite that comes out of Fury's mouth.
I must stop defending the utter shite that comes out of Fury's mouth.

Thanks. That ought to stop me "defending" him.

magwitch wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:A man's got to earn a living. If he's served his sentence he's as entitled to earn a living in boxing as the next man.

That said, once a scumbag always a scumbag

is this post meant as a joke?

Is yours ?

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

magwitch wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:A man's got to earn a living. If he's served his sentence he's as entitled to earn a living in boxing as the next man.

That said, once a scumbag always a scumbag

is this post meant as a joke?

Is yours ?

Yeah kind of. I was pointing out the total change of heart between your first line and your second one, hopefully in a light-hearted way. You were all for second chances there and then finished up with 'once a scumbag always a scumbag", which surprised me

I don't know Peter Fury or his life history so I'm keeping him out of it. Someone mentioned drug-selling above. On that subject however I just think it's one of the most embarrassing, lazy, unoriginal and pathetic ways to choose to opt-out.

magwitch wrote:

CaptainSpacerod wrote:

magwitch wrote:
is this post meant as a joke?

Is yours ?

Yeah kind of. I was pointing out the total change of heart between your first line and your second one, hopefully in a light-hearted way. You were all for second chances there and then finished up with 'once a scumbag always a scumbag", which surprised me

I don't know Peter Fury or his life history so I'm keeping him out of it. Someone mentioned drug-selling above. On that subject however I just think it's one of the most embarrassing, lazy, unoriginal and pathetic ways to choose to opt-out.

I see the ambiguity now.

What I'm trying to say is that in society's eyes he deserves a second chance as he's served his sentence. As a member of society, fair enough I'll go along with that.

BUT for me the character of the man hasn't changed, regardless of how many years he' spent in prison. He's still a scumbag. If Tyson had quit after being beaten by John Mcdermott and the path to boxing riches had been closed off for Peter what do you think he'd be doing career wise - working at Asda ?

Peter Fury was watched constantly the minute he left prison. He paid nearly a million back to the proceeds of crime act yet still had to return to jail for financial reasons. Despite all this, he built up his businesses again, proving tho the POC board where every penny came from long before he made a penny in boxing.

mickey1975 wrote:Peter Fury was watched constantly the minute he left prison. He paid nearly a million back to the proceeds of crime act yet still had to return to jail for financial reasons. Despite all this, he built up his businesses again, proving tho the POC board where every penny came from long before he made a penny in boxing.

Career criminals constantly cheat their way around processes designed to keep them in check. We're all boxing fans and we would like to believe that there's a certain honour and fairplay attached to people in the boxing community but let's be realistic here.

The Proceeds of Crime boys are worse than the drug squad. You've got to be clever to outwit that lot.

mickey1975 wrote:The Proceeds of Crime boys are worse than the drug squad. You've got to be clever to outwit that lot.

When you say "worse" do you mean better ?

Also, are you suggesting that Peter Fury outwitted the Proceeds of Crime ?

It's disappointing that they lifted my quotes and published them out of context, but that's the press for you. A local newspaper once lifted an entire interview of mine then published it as was in someone else's name. I've also had stories taken without attribution. It's par for the course and a lot of them must have missed their Ethics: Plagiarism part of the "professional" training they're always banging on about.

The irony is that we did the original article as I knew that a tabloid would do something using what very little there was around online at the time. Fury was slated to fight Haye so I suggested a warts and all piece with Peter to gazump the Nationals, which we did. I've also done similar prison stories with Pat Barrett. If he hits it bigger than he is now they'd just lift those, too, so no point getting worked up about it.

The good thing about the recent Fury furor is that it's a timely reminder of just how sh*t the press is: articles comparing negatively with Ali that didn't give any balance RE Ali's past comments, no mention of the attitude of Qatar from the football writers who chimed in and will head over there, and many, many other inconsistencies. Sure, report about what Fury said, and take a position if required, but at least add perspective by, say, talking about the men behind the "beautiful game" and some of the people involved.

bripez wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:The Proceeds of Crime boys are worse than the drug squad. You've got to be clever to outwit that lot.

When you say "worse" do you mean better ?

Also, are you suggesting that Peter Fury outwitted the Proceeds of Crime ?

No, stating he must have been legit. They are very thorough.

mickey1975 wrote:

bripez wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:The Proceeds of Crime boys are worse than the drug squad. You've got to be clever to outwit that lot.

When you say "worse" do you mean better ?

Also, are you suggesting that Peter Fury outwitted the Proceeds of Crime ?

No, stating he must have been legit. They are very thorough.

Didn't they leave you with much ?

People nearly always have agendas and you dont have to look too hard to see The Sun's in this case.

They are just latching onto the sensationalism enjoyed by the daily mail the previous month or two.

Baby P's killer accomplice walks out of prison and gets a little write up. Tyson Fury's interview from ages ago gets stolen, then super-charged by an old tweet and wrapped up and sold to the reader as something much worse and far more worthy of our time.

There are some good writers in the press pack, whom maybe work for the Sun etc themselves and know that their peers are paid to literally do hatchet jobs on people. If i was a writer I honestly couldn't work somewhere like that, bumping into these fools at the coffee machine every morning.

"Morning mate, you see my Fury article!? awesome or what, boss is proper happy - got loads of clicks and feedback." - yeah piss off.

mickey1975 wrote:The Proceeds of Crime boys are worse than the drug squad. You've got to be clever to outwit that lot.

POCA gives coppers, well detectives especially I suppose I mean, the kind of hardon you can only normally guarantee with prescription medication. Their eyes get all dreamy like they're thinking of sex on a faraway beach with the woman of their dreams.

The UK's tabloid press; the undisputed and unbeaten champions of the super-hypocrisy division.