BoxRec

Having bought this copy of BM I was unaware that Boxrec actually had such a thriving forum. I use Eastside,BN, Secondsout etc daily to catch up on things, but this forum is the best by far. BM actually sold me the site very well and now I can read and contribute to a great site. so for that, thanks BM.

orbtastic wrote:"keboard warrior of the month"

yes, and Dumbest Thread of the month.

with a hall of fame for this -

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... t=altitude

MightyWarrior wrote:

orbtastic wrote:"keboard warrior of the month"

yes, and Dumbest Thread of the month.

with a hall of fame for this -

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... t=altitude

I have never seen that before.The greatest thread i have ever seen.

Loynesy wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Erm, who outside the posters do you think would have been interested in that adam? The site and the legal situation was the story, not the every day comings and goings. That's only of interest to those who regularly use the site.

Glyn, some constructive criticism if I may. Two points:

1. If one of the main aims of the article was to focus on the legal situation re: Boxrec - or indeed any other website, it was flawed, as there was no attempt to set out what the legal position actually is, or indeed those areas where it is still developing. We had John Shep's point of view - which was actually pretty close to where the line is, drawing the analogy of a postbox (he must have spoken to a decent lawyer...) and what certain promoters would like the law to be i.e. that the owners of internet forums should be subject to the same scrutiny as, for example the publishers of The Sun - which in my personal (and current judicial) opinion is ludicrous, but,as I say, nothing to say which of those contrasting views was legally correct.

2. Secondly, certain people quoted in the article made in sound as though Boxrec was an outlaw forum where outrageous libels were allowed to linger. That is grossly unfair as there are a number of mods, who for no personal gain whatsover, actively police and moniter the site to make sure that doesn't happen, or if it does happen, it is removed as quickly as possible. I've certainly been asked, and have willingly helped to vet articles to see if they were fair comment and not libellous and similalry have pointed out to Ian or others if I see anything that I believe crosses the line.

If John Shep liked the article, and he owns this site, fair enough to him, but because of the two points above, it seemed to me a little unfair.

Regards

Loynsey

Hi Loynesy

Thanks for this.

1) Lillis went to John Shep FOR legal clarification, the best and most logical place to start as Shep has been involved with this site for longer than anyone else on it and had just been through the legal mill so could be expected to be more up to speed than most. And apparently, by his and your reckoning, we got as accurate a picture as could be painted in layman's terms. We are boxing journalists and never likely to enter into a "letter of the law" breakdown of internet legality, particularly as "the law" is open to dispute, even within Boxrec — Ian McNeilly tells me he is not as confident as yourself and John in your shared interpretation, and he cited a recent case.

The aim of the BM feature was not to dissect internet law. The story was about the legal situation regarding boxing website forums, centring on Boxrec's recent experiences. If, as you say, Shep's view is pretty accurate, but Ian disagrees, perhaps you will understand why it would have been futile for boxing writers to try to make sense of the legal situation on the internet when even people within this website have different interpretations. If the people directly concerned with the website don't know for sure, how could print journalists be expected to make sense of it? I believe that we went to the best possible person, Shep, who had just been through a recent legal, for a layman's explanation, one which you agree with (but Ian apparently doesn't).

2) It is only right that people should have the right to express their views, whether you like them or not. This was a very balanced article, not the kind of "thought piece" without quotes that some people pass off as journalism. Responsible journalism is about getting the views of all sides and this is what Lillis did. He spoke to the owner of the site, the person who had a problem with the site, and two people (Frank Maloney and Smigga) in the middle, who had good and bad things to say about the site. You can't get much more balanced than that. Every side had a chance to give their views, which is how it should be.

It may be disappointing to you that Shep didn't mention the moderation situation — this clearly would have been on topic. But he didn't. I asked Lillis to check his tape, he did, and there was no mention of it. But Shep is the top man at Boxrec, he was given the opportunity to say whatever he thought was valid, and he was happy with the end product, which he OK'd before we printed it — Shep had the chance to amend the copy as he saw fit, introduce themes he may have forgotten, but he did not do it (aside from pointing out some incorrect figures).

In any situation, should a journalist require information about an organisation he will try to go straight to the top. This is logical. The man at the top might not know the nuts and bolts of every single thing, but he should be able to provide the clearest view of the "big picture". But we cannot be blamed if the man at the top does not represent his organisation in a way that satisfies his colleagues, that is between him and them.

All the best

Glyn

I liked the read, a different aspect of the sport for review.

Glyn Leach wrote: Ian McNeilly tells me he is not as confident as yourself and John in your shared interpretation, and he cited a recent case...one which you agree with (but Ian apparently doesn't).

Jesus. I rang you up, Glyn, because I didn't think it was classy to give my twopenneth on here as we have a personal association, despite me having huge misgivings about the piece.

Now you're throwing my name in the hat to help you out, I'll have to.

I'm not so sure that John's defence as quoted in BM was necessarily the best it could have been but I'm sure that was only a snapshot and there's more to it than that. I mentioned that I'd recently read that some directors of Sheffield Wednesday were successful in making headway against some vitriolic, libellous posters on a fans' forum. But I don't even think they 'won'.

What I AM COMPLETELY SURE OF is that the expensive barrister consulted AND Loynesy know infinitely more about this than I do. If they say it's right, it's right.

If it isn't, I'm sure Al's crack legal team will be on to it, no?

I'll make some other points in a bit.

King Geedorah wrote:Another little wrinkle is that we can nip on here and discuss the article with the editor of BM. You can't get fairer than that, not unless you're a sun averse Scot. I once PM'd Glyn directly for advice and he was a big help, he told me to apply plenty of cream and seek medical advice if the symptoms persisted.

Did it clear up mate?

King Geedorah wrote:Another little wrinkle is that we can nip on here and discuss the article with the editor of BM. You can't get fairer than that, not unless you're a sun averse Scot. I once PM'd Glyn directly for advice and he was a big help, he told me to apply plenty of cream and seek medical advice if the symptoms persisted.

"The story was about the legal situation regarding boxing website forums"

It would have been nice, then, for it to be made perfectly clear why BM's own guestbook was closed down rather than the rather vague 'potential legal wrangles'. BM's guestbook is a decade old. W*rren comes after BoxRec forum. BM guestbook is closed down. That's the events for you. Only you can make clear if they're connected, of course.

"If, as you say, Shep's view is pretty accurate, but Ian disagrees, perhaps you will understand why it would have been futile for boxing writers to make sense of the legal situation on the internet when even people within this website have different interpretations. If the people directly concerned with the website don't know for sure, how could print journalists be expected to make sense of it? I believe that we went to the best possible person, Shep, who had just been through a recent legal, for a layman's explanation, one which you agree with (but Ian apparently doesn't)."

As aforementioned, I said I didn't think the defence as quoted was necessarily the best one. It is one and there are others. An alternative one is that all the claims in any particular action are not defamatory anyway. Spurious shite. My interpretation is an amateur one at best and irrelevant in comparison to a specialised libel barrister and Loynesy. Further, that was related to you in a private phone call and for you to come on here and relate it to back you up is out of order - especially as the point of the call in the first place was because I didn't want to publicly slag BM off or have a go at Steve.

"It is only right that people should have the right to express their views, whether you like them or not. This was a very balanced article...Responsible journalism is about getting the views of all sides and this is what Lillis did. He spoke to the owner of the site, the person who had a problem with the site, and two people (Frank Maloney and Smigga) in the middle, who had good and bad things to say about the site. You can't get much more balanced than that. Every side had a chance to give their views, which is how it should be."

Just because you talk to people from different sides doesn't make the article balanced. It wasn't. It gave the clear impression that the place was a libel-filled wild west. It isn't. Just because Shep didn't mention the moderation process doesn't mean Steve shouldn't have, if he was 'investigating' as you said. It was a rick - we all make them. Just because Shep said he was happy with it doesn't mean the piece itself was fine - he's a very laidback, nice fella who doesn't want to cause any bother. This is what makes the legal action, at great expense to a decent family man who has created a huge free resource for boxing people to use globally (including, ironically, those nice people from Hertfordshire), all the more hard to take. Anyway, HE might think it's fine. I don't and nor do plenty of others who know how it works around here.

But the most galling thing about the piece was the seven pars given freely - unchallenged - to W*rren to bleat about how the law is so unfair...I almost vomited when I read it. Yes, let him say his piece, of course. But where was the BALANCE here? Here's a man who has resorted to legal proceedings more than 30 times. Where was the balance in the piece to say that BoxRec was merely his latest case? What has the effect been on journalism of all these actions? Can anyone, anywhere, find me an overtly negative piece of journalism on W*rren in the last five years? Why is that?

I know the restrictions under which you work and I sympathise - it would drive me barmy. You do it for a living and I know why you make certain calls. And you're braver than many.

The article was a good idea, gave the website some profile and had plenty of good content - but, in my opinion, was flawed and unbalanced.

Oh, and while we're on everyone, sign up to this if you feel like it: http://www.libelreform.org/

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:"The story was about the legal situation regarding boxing website forums"

It would have been nice, then, for it to be made perfectly clear why BM's own guestbook was closed down rather than the rather vague 'potential legal wrangles'. BM's guestbook is a decade old. W*rren comes after BoxRec forum. BM guestbook is closed down. That's the events for you. Only you can make clear if they're connected, of course.

"If, as you say, Shep's view is pretty accurate, but Ian disagrees, perhaps you will understand why it would have been futile for boxing writers to make sense of the legal situation on the internet when even people within this website have different interpretations. If the people directly concerned with the website don't know for sure, how could print journalists be expected to make sense of it? I believe that we went to the best possible person, Shep, who had just been through a recent legal, for a layman's explanation, one which you agree with (but Ian apparently doesn't)."

As aforementioned, I said I didn't think the defence as quoted was necessarily the best one. It is one and there are others. An alternative one is that all the claims in any particular action are not defamatory anyway. Spurious shite. My interpretation is an amateur one at best and irrelevant in comparison to a specialised libel barrister and Loynesy. Further, that was related to you in a private phone call and for you to come on here and relate it to back you up is out of order - especially as the point of the call in the first place was because I didn't want to publicly slag BM off or have a go at Steve.

"It is only right that people should have the right to express their views, whether you like them or not. This was a very balanced article...Responsible journalism is about getting the views of all sides and this is what Lillis did. He spoke to the owner of the site, the person who had a problem with the site, and two people (Frank Maloney and Smigga) in the middle, who had good and bad things to say about the site. You can't get much more balanced than that. Every side had a chance to give their views, which is how it should be."

Just because you talk to people from different sides doesn't make the article balanced. It wasn't. It gave the clear impression that the place was a libel-filled wild west. It isn't. Just because Shep didn't mention the moderation process doesn't mean Steve shouldn't have, if he was 'investigating' as you said. It was a rick - we all make them. Just because Shep said he was happy with it doesn't mean the piece itself was fine - he's a very laidback, nice fella who doesn't want to cause any bother. This is what makes the legal action, at great expense to a decent family man who has created a huge free resource for boxing people to use globally (including, ironically, those nice people from Hertfordshire), all the more hard to take. Anyway, HE might think it's fine. I don't and nor do plenty of others who know how it works around here.

But the most galling thing about the piece was the seven pars given freely - unchallenged - to W*rren to bleat about how the law is so unfair...I almost vomited when I read it. Yes, let him say his piece, of course. But where was the BALANCE here? Here's a man who has resorted to legal proceedings more than 30 times. Where was the balance in the piece to say that BoxRec was merely his latest case? What has the effect been on journalism of all these actions? Can anyone, anywhere, find me an overtly negative piece of journalism on W*rren in the last five years? Why is that?

I know the restrictions under which you work and I sympathise - it would drive me barmy. You do it for a living and I know why you make certain calls. And you're braver than many.

The article was a good idea, gave the website some profile and had plenty of good content - but, in my opinion, was flawed and unbalanced.

Oh, and while we're on everyone, sign up to this if you feel like it: http://www.libelreform.org/

Yes, this is fair comment. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil appears to be the motto in a lot of quarters of the boxing press - although not necessarily BM. Overall, BM have shown more balls than most in offering critical analysis, particularly towards a certain bunch of charlatans Stateside. That has to be commended. In contrast BN offered a gushy front page for the announcement of the magnificent seven and then a descriptive piece inside that read like a press release.

Last night on 5Live Lou Della was on lamenting the poor quality of boxing match-ups and how boxing has got worse in this regard. The British pundits made out that in Britain it is much better and in a healthy shape and even name dropped a certain sensitive British promoter as part of this exemplary state of play.

The wider point is, that if ever there is a time for our trade magazines and journos to take up the baton and call a spade a spade, it is now. The hypocrisy that exists on both sides of the Atlantic is mindblowing. The spin that is offered up by Hearn on the Harrison-Haye fight is pathetic, even worse is the bullshit that comes out of Arum's mouth concerning Margarcheato.

Anyhow, if you are not interested then perhaps, rest your weary head on that soft pillow of passiveness and let the tide of PPV domestic and European Title fights come to your 42" LCD's. Better still, follow the advice of one impassioned writer and for the sake of boxing buy this Magnificent 7 card and quit your negativity.

Sorry Ian, didn't realise the differing interpretation of the legal situation was a hot egg. Yes, it was mentioned in a private conversation, but it's hardly controversial, is it? It's not as though I've dropped you in the shite or anything — I wouldn't knowingly do that. And it's not as though there's anything wrong with people having different views. Is there? If you think Loynesy's view is more valid than yours, so be it — I won't argue with that, particularly as it suits me: Loynesy agrees, by and large, with the interpretation John Shep gave to Lillis, which was what BM printed. But I think it's extremely valid that within one specialised organisation there can be different views of the same situation. BM cannot provide a definitive answer, as those at Boxrec cannot. But if someone (perhaps Loynesy?) is capable of it, it would be of interest to everyone, I'm sure.

As regards my closing the BM forum, I discussed that with posters on here a couple of months ago in a thread about the subject. My reasons were made known and appeared on the BM website at the time of the closure — and the message has stayed up there, there is no element of secrecy involved. For the record, for anyone who is unaware, the reasons given, in a nutshell, were that the forum was going unmoderated and we didn't want to risk a legal situation. That simple, nothing more elaborate. To repeat those reasons in the Boxrec article would have been unnecessary, although by implication they were repeated. And of course the closure was related to Boxrec's problems — and those faced by any other forum. BM is a magazine, it does not have to run the risks that a website does. And I wasn't prepared to have the magazine potentially dragged down by a web forum — it's all been said before on this site and elsewhere Ian. I chose not to take those risks, as is my prerogative.

To make it perfectly clear, John Shep was given the same free rein to state his views as was allegedly — and they are the two sides of the dispute in question, so both had every right to state their views. Warren said his piece in seven straight pars, Shep had six straight pars at the end of the piece and also had three and four straight pars earlier. Shep was not underrepresented or misrepresented in any way, in fact there were more Shep quotes than Warren quotes in the piece. We did not challenge Shep's views any more than we did Warren's. We presented the views of both and left the readers to make their own minds up about them. We passed judgement on neither. As regards your comments about Warren, if Shep had wanted to state those views he had every chance to — but he didn't. From our side, we were not interested in taking either side of this argument, just presenting both so that the reader could form their own opinions.

If you don't like the piece, fair enough. But I disagree totally about it being unbalanced. We did our level best to ensure it was fair, including letting Shep see it before it went on sale, which is not something we normally do. And he was happy with it. I repeat, it is not our fault he didn't mention the moderation situation. He had every opportunity, but he didn't mention it, that's life — though as I have already said, I think he could have since hearing yourself and Loynesy's views. But it's got nothing to do with us if Shep didn't explain the workings of his business to your satisfaction —the ball was in his court. Nor did Shep complain about the piece in any way, indeed he complimented it.

Bottom line as far as I'm concerned: Shep is the owner of this site, we interviewed him, we took it to him to check he was happy with it. And he was. If you have a problem with his view, take it to him. Don't just call him too "nice", as though that renders him ineffective of rational thought — tell him you feel that he's let you down, if you don't feel you were properly represented by him. But from our perspective he, the head man, was the right man to approach. If you feel he has let you down or is not capable of representing his own website, take it up with him. We can only print what people tell us.

NB I mistakenly wrote earlier that Shep was shown the article before it was printed, when in fact he was shown it before the magazine went on sale. Apologies.

Glyn no malice here, but id be pissed off if i had private conversation that was made public without consent.

Its just not the right thing to do mate.

Sorry but thats a fact, its called respect and trust, knowing Ian as I do he will also feel strongly in this regard hence the reaction. Rightly so in my humble opinion.

As said no malice intended but I don think you have done Ian right here mate, in fact quite the opposite.

just the wrong call fella

Can't disagree J that's why I started the piece by saying sorry, which I meant. I'd be surprised if any harm can be done by the reference I made, it really isn't contentious or divisive. Certainly didn't mean any harm and doubt that I did any, in truth. In my defence, it wasn't as though Ian said "off the record" — and I've played it back to check. Hold my hands up though, my bad if I read it wrong. Ian's a good lad and I'd never intentionally do him wrong, I think he knows me well enough to realise that.

Glyn Leach wrote:Can't disagree J that's why I started the piece by saying sorry, which I meant. I'd be surprised if any harm can be done by the reference I made, it really isn't contentious or divisive. Certainly didn't mean any harm and doubt that I did any, in truth. In my defence, it wasn't as though Ian said "off the record" — and I've played it back to check. Hold my hands up though, my bad if I read it wrong. Ian's a good lad and I'd never intentionally do him wrong, I think he knows me well enough to realise that.

im sure he does mate..good on ya for the above..

Just had a chat with Glyn. We've agreed to disagree and, as he says, 'it happens'.

Onwards and upwards, that's how it's done.

I can confirm that neither of us intend to commence legal proceedings about it

Ironically this thread especially the latest offerings from Leach and McNeilly just go to show that these forums are a VITAL part of why we all love this sport.

Much rather read/debate/comment on stuff like this than whether or not Darren Barker's hip was cattle trucked weeks ago or not!!

IMO for what its worth I thought the piece was average and not really balanced in the sense that it to me put this forum across as full of titheads who spout libellious rubbish when the reality is that it is a forum that is predominantly full of fans who know their stuff and can debate it very well.

For what its worth I do have to say BM is generally very good and I like Leach's work on the whole, I just think this piece was particularly average.

Thats my twopence worth and....

Kevin

PS - J - stop being sensible, we much prefer it when your usual crazy self rasta!!!

Glad to hear it!!

I'll be honest I love this magazine, I have done for well over 10yrs, I haven't read through this thread as it's just long BUT I think it's great that the site got a bit of exposure through the mag.. Oh Well guys thats my ten pence worth..

10 pence - tight get

Wrists wrote:Ironically this thread especially the latest offerings from Leach and McNeilly just go to show that these forums are a VITAL part of why we all love this sport.

Much rather read/debate/comment on stuff like this than whether or not Darren Barker's hip was cattle trucked weeks ago or not!!

IMO for what its worth I thought the piece was average and not really balanced in the sense that it to me put this forum across as full of titheads who spout libellious rubbish when the reality is that it is a forum that is predominantly full of fans who know their stuff and can debate it very well.

For what its worth I do have to say BM is generally very good and I like Leach's work on the whole, I just think this piece was particularly average.

Thats my twopence worth and....

Kevin

PS - J - stop being sensible, we much prefer it when your usual crazy self rasta!!!

lol....sorry had to tread careful have utmost repsect for my friend ship with Ian and also my dealings with Glyn hence no daftness from me on this


fnar whoop pish ass..thats better out than in ....toot toot..

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Just had a chat with Glyn. We've agreed to disagree and, as he says, 'it happens'.

Onwards and upwards, that's how it's done.

I can confirm that neither of us intend to commence legal proceedings about it

lol good stuff chaps ...

that is hows it done.

Phew - was going to get Andy Carroll in to sort it out if the handbags hadnt stopped

John Shephard is sound. When he was promoting he gave me and my mate tickets to shows in Nottingham and Carlisle out of kindness. He weren't at all self important and went out of his way to be friendly and made sure we had good nights; he didn't have to, but wanted to. Respect

I am totally delighted Shep, the stinking smoggy and the bald yorkshire blade supporting **** have joined forces - sadly although it will make this place a fantastic place to be - people are living in total and utter cuckoo land if boxrec or indeed any other forum think they have seen the last attempt to get them shut down.

What I like about Shep is that he wants to do the right thing - what should get everyones total respect is that he was potentially prepared to dip his hand into his EMPTY pockets to stop any potential bullys from trying to close this place down.

thing is spud its this small minded attitude by those trying to do so ...shut this place down = less exposuire discussion and potnetial ticket buyers for the shows

= less crowds = less interwest = boxing struggling even more.

talk about shooting yourself in the foot.