Has allegedly closed British Eastside?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:23

Loftgroov wrote:Yes but people are more respected here Lightsoot and, no disrespect, but luckily you are not a moderator here.

Spud was appalling in the way he conducted that forum, and the daft mentality that was prevelant at BE has never been the case here that I have seen.

Boxrec doesn't seem to generally lean towards a certain promoter (unlike British Eastside) and everyones views are noted and respected here.

I personally felt I did a decent job at Eastside. Cant say anyone ever took issue with me. However, you've got a chip on your shoulder so your opinion wont change. Boxrec is a respectful place, I agree, and the debates are well conducted. However, the more posters that come over here the more chance people are going to disagree which won't make thigs quite as cosy, but could make them interesting.

Some regular Boxrec posters have been quite vocal in their criticisms of Warren. I'd be slightly concerned about that.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:23

I could possibly mention this on maxboxing, seeing as I write a column there, but it's a very tricky area. For instance....

1 Where is the proof it was Warren who got the site closed down, i would need some confirmation?

2 I could get banned from all Warren shows, which in my capacity as a reporter could prove very difficult for me. It could also harm my ability to make contact with other people who work with Sports Network, and could in effect make a rod for my back which was be harmful in my attempts to make a career out of this, which is shitty, but a fact of life.

Does anyone here know for a fact that this is the reason the forum has been closed down? I haven't heard if confirmed anywhere yet.

Hastalavista_bebe · Post by **Hastalavista_bebe** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:24

Everyone has their opinions,views and agendas. Some are transparrent and some are not. At least it is, currently, possible to express your voice on sites like these, as you would around a table in a pub, without the danger of fists flying. IMO censorship in this crude form is an utter disgrace, the sort of thing practiced regularly under opressive regimes.

I don't thik this site would be exempt from unscrupulous circles. What a great position to be in when, if I spat my dummy out, I could register annonymously say some derogatory things and stir up the s**t, sit back wait for the ripples to spread then go running to mummy to stop the bullys making me cry.

Good luck BoxRec & watch this space.

Hardhitters11 · Post by **Hardhitters11** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:25

Lightsout was always cool as a mod in my experience....We need to find out what happended on Brritish Eastside so the saem can be avoided here.

HH

doggyland · Post by **doggyland** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:26

lightsoot wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:Yes but people are more respected here Lightsoot and, no disrespect, but luckily you are not a moderator here.

Spud was appalling in the way he conducted that forum, and the daft mentality that was prevelant at BE has never been the case here that I have seen.

Boxrec doesn't seem to generally lean towards a certain promoter (unlike British Eastside) and everyones views are noted and respected here.
I personally felt I did a decent job at Eastside. Cant say anyone ever took issue with me. However, you've got a chip on your shoulder so your opinion wont change. Boxrec is a respectful place, I agree, and the debates are well conducted. However, the more posters that come over here the more chance people are going to disagree which won't make thigs quite as cosy, but could make them interesting.

Some regular Boxrec posters have been quite vocal in their criticisms of Warren. I'd be slightly concerned about that.

True lightsoot...Alot of work was put in by you and Spud, which must make this really annoying/bitter for you.
Prediction league??? Will it continue over here?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:31

doggyland wrote:
lightsoot wrote:
Loftgroov wrote:Yes but people are more respected here Lightsoot and, no disrespect, but luckily you are not a moderator here.

Spud was appalling in the way he conducted that forum, and the daft mentality that was prevelant at BE has never been the case here that I have seen.

Boxrec doesn't seem to generally lean towards a certain promoter (unlike British Eastside) and everyones views are noted and respected here.
I personally felt I did a decent job at Eastside. Cant say anyone ever took issue with me. However, you've got a chip on your shoulder so your opinion wont change. Boxrec is a respectful place, I agree, and the debates are well conducted. However, the more posters that come over here the more chance people are going to disagree which won't make thigs quite as cosy, but could make them interesting.

Some regular Boxrec posters have been quite vocal in their criticisms of Warren. I'd be slightly concerned about that.
True lightsoot...Alot of work was put in by you and Spud, which must make this really annoying/bitter for you.
Prediction league??? Will it continue over here?

Cheers mate. Well, I guess its up to Sheffield Steel as he was running the current one. I also think its up to Bennie and the regulars because they might not want it.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:32

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Where is the proof it was Warren who got the site closed down, i would need some confirmation?

Pure speculation from most mate.

The FACTS are:

Prior to secondsout.com British Forum being closed down, the words "Frank" and "Warren" became censored. That is a fact, which can be discussed.

I understand (although did not see with my own eyes) that prior to eastsideboxing.com British Forum being closed down, the words "frank" and "Warren" also became censored. This seems worthy of investigation too.

Most people are putting 2 and 2 together. (which doesn't seem that ridiculous, but is different from actually having proof). Those in the know, understandably will not go on the record.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:35

Lightsoot - Any chip on my shoulder might be down to the word you decided to refer to me as on a certain thread, without any provocation, immidiately prior to banning me.

However, I don't intend to re-ignite some sort of feud, and I'm happy to leave it be.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:35

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I could possibly mention this on maxboxing, seeing as I write a column there, but it's a very tricky area. For instance....

1 Where is the proof it was Warren who got the site closed down, i would need some confirmation?

2 I could get banned from all Warren shows, which in my capacity as a reporter could prove very difficult for me. It could also harm my ability to make contact with other people who work with Sports Network, and could in effect make a rod for my back which was be harmful in my attempts to make a career out of this, which is shitty, but a fact of life.

Does anyone here know for a fact that this is the reason the forum has been closed down? I haven't heard if confirmed anywhere yet.

James

Part of me wants to say to you "Yeah, go on then!!" but as you've said yourself things could get quite difficult for you.

You're in a vulnerable position, and the rewards won't outweight the problems "taking a stance" will cause. You're an aspiring Boxing journalist? If so, I'd recommend you stay well clear of all of this shit. It would be a suicidal career move. It is nice of you to care though.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:40

Loftgroov wrote:Lightsoot - Any chip on my shoulder might be down to the word you decided to refer to me as on a certain thread, without any provocation, immidiately prior to banning me.

However, I don't intend to re-ignite some sort of feud, and I'm happy to leave it be.

I called you that name in the heat of the moment and it's not something to be proud of. I apologise for that. I'm not interested in a running saga here either.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:41

James,

I was personally contacted by the owners of BritishBoxing.com when that forum was shut down in similar circumstances, I would be happy to tell you what they said to me over PM, not really that revealing but certainly backs up what the general consensus seems to be.

Hastalavista_bebe · Post by **Hastalavista_bebe** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:42

Loftgroov wrote: Boxrec doesn't seem to generally lean towards a certain promoter (unlike British Eastside) and everyones views are noted and respected here.

If that wa sthe case then the reporting section of the site would be closed down. I don't care how many psudonyms Spud may or may not have had there,or here for that matter, he would not have been able to make all the nposters 'lean' one way or another.

In any case I thought that promoters, per say, were there to promote their respective stables with one beneficial result of bringing boxing back to the masses. Why can't they just do their PR bit and submit material to all sites instead of , site by site alegedly), shafting the true enthusiasts.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:48

[quote="bridgie boy"][quote="jamesmcdonnell"]I fail to see what lawsuit would stand up in court that would prevent
a writer or contributor to a forum from criticising a fighter, that's
complete cobblers.[/quote]

Unfortunately it's not. Our favourite promoter can claim he's being defamed if something is written that in his opinion is not fair, balanced and accurate regarding either him as an individual or his business activities.
I think the most likely scenario is that he's using his financial muscle. If Eastside receive letters from lawyers threatening legal action, they might feel they can mount a defence, but have to balance that with the costs involved - the promoter obviously has far deeper pockets.
This can therefore be a very intimidating tactic and can lead websites to take the easy route out by losing the forum, rather than risk getting into a potentially costly legal battle that could mean them going out of business.
Classic 'bully-boy' tactics.[/quote]

Well, if he doesn't like it he can come on and defend himself. It's just disgraceful behaviour. If it ever comes out that it was Warren who closed Seconds out and is behind Eastside then surely he would find it embarassing.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:49

Bebe - Well no, you're right. He can't force people to think one way or another, but what he can (and did to some extent) do it simply ban people, or remove their threads of they differ largely with his opinions.

I recall someone writing about Howard Eastman, and how his recent quality of opposition was below par.

Now...whether you "agree" or "disagree" with such a view is neither here nor there. the poster had a right to post his view.

Guess what.... the thread was pulled.....

This is the way it was operated. Furthermore it was often the case that people would be subject to ridicule in their postings if they disagreed with people. Notice on here how nobody gets ridiculed? People agree....and people disagree...which is fine, thats what a forum is about.

But what you don't get here is comments like "you're a moron mate, you don't know sh*t about boxing, etc etc"

(comments that were sadly all too common on British Eastside I found)

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:51

[quote="Goz"]Personally I think it's now time to bring this to the attention of the media.

It happened at Britishboxing.co.uk, then the British forum of Secondsout.com and now it appears at ESB.

Surely if enough of us write to the likes of Boxing New, Boxing Monthly, and newspapers explaining the outrageous censorship that is going on the world of boxing it could make for an interesting story?

I for one have had enough of it, I think we all know what has happened and I think it's diabolical....[/quote]

I concur. Good post.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:57

i do advise that any comments related to Warren being involved in closing down British Eastside be stopped or retracted for the sake of this forum however.

It might have to come to legal action against this site seeing it closed down. The forum could be closed by the owners of the site "in anticipation of potential legal action".

Something none of us want.

The demise of British Eastside is currently purely speculation and should be left as such until something is confirmed through an official source.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 27 Nov 2003, 08:58

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I could possibly mention this on maxboxing, seeing as I write a column there, but it's a very tricky area. For instance....

1 Where is the proof it was Warren who got the site closed down, i would need some confirmation?

Your first step is surely asking Sports Network?

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:03

James' first step is really to not get involved, pending an official statement from Eastside.

He wouldn't want to put his writing career in jeopardy eh...

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:09

Loftgroov wrote:James' first step is really to not get involved, pending an official statement from Eastside.

He wouldn't want to put his writing career in jeopardy eh...

How on earth is an objective reporter asking the press office of Sports Network for a quote regarding speculation that allegedly is involved in events at Eastside boxing jeopardising his career?
If Sports Network decline to comment, he can choose not to publish the allegation over concerns the resulting story will not be fair and accurate, and if they issue a reply saying he was and why he was forced to take action he then has a story.
Simply asking does no harm at all, and is the first job of any self-respecting journalist. To do otherwise sets a dangerous precedent.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:14

Alright calm down....

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:20

Asking 'difficult questions' is ok when you are a well established journalist with some clout, when you are a minnow like myself it's not really such a good idea I don't think. If it were true, I find it highly unlikely that allegedly is simply going to put his hands up and say 'Yep, that's right, I did it.'

Think about it....

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:24

Loftgroov wrote:Alright calm down....

Sorry mate, no offence meant. It's just the whole thing's a bit of a wind-up. The thing that baffles me the most is that while I can understand any individual having grievances (whether it's Warren or someone else), why not resolve them in a more civilised manner.
For example, I heard that Frank Maloney thought it was insulting, but you can guarantee that if he'd just done one or two on-line 'speak to the fan'-style pieces he'd have had them eating out of his palm.
There were a minority on there who were silly posters, but the majority were genuine fans of the game and any professional in any field knows you don't isolate your fan base.
Even if on a personal level, individuals like Maloney might feel that 'talking to the anoraks' is beneath him, on a professional level it makes good business sense.

Deserter · Post by **Deserter** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:28

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Asking 'difficult questions' is ok when you are a well established journalist with some clout, when you are a minnow like myself it's not really such a good idea I don't think. If it were true, I find it highly unlikely that allegedly is simply going to put his hands up and say 'Yep, that's right, I did it.'

Think about it....

At the risk of sounding condescending, I am a well established journalist, and believe me I've thought about it.
It's quite possible that allegedly will a) say he/Sports Network did it and b) why they did it. After all, if he can prove justification, it instantly detracts from the arguments of the critics.
If you choose to not even ask the question you are setting a dangerous precedent as every journalist prides themselves on their independence and you will have lost yours. Where do you then stop? Do you refuse to write a bad review of a Sports Network show even though you felt the bill was terrible, for fear of losing your press pass?
If so, you just become a de facto Sports Network PR executive rather than a journalist.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:33

Is the 'entire' Eastside site down? I'm having trouble getting through to it for some reason. (all other sites loading fine).

tolstoy · Post by **tolstoy** » 27 Nov 2003, 09:38

Goz wrote:Personally I think it's now time to bring this to the attention of the media.

It happened at Britishboxing.co.uk, then the British forum of Secondsout.com and now it appears at ESB.

Surely if enough of us write to the likes of Boxing New, Boxing Monthly, and newspapers explaining the outrageous censorship that is going on the world of boxing it could make for an interesting story?

I for one have had enough of it, I think we all know what has happened and I think it's diabolical....

I couldn't agree more with you here, Goz. The only problem I foresee is that we may not be able to prove it if the websites involved refuse to confirm the reason for their closure. If we get them onside then we've got a great opportunity to expose this blatant censorship.

Can anyone provide us with unequivocal proof about the invisible hand behind this mysterious closure?