BoxRec

I follow Deakin on twitter and all he ever does is call out Conor Benn or retweet cobblers that the Z listers spout, effing Casey Batchelor and Kirk Nodcross or whatever the plums name is

handsofstone wrote:I follow Deakin on twitter and all he ever does is call out Conor Benn or retweet cobblers that the Z listers spout, effing Casey Batchelor and Kirk Nodcross or whatever the plums name is

I used to be a FB friend.... but he's essentially a low IQ, hot headed Bellend.

And whilst it's somewhat impressive, his disability is now largely irrelevant due to surgery. He did well in the ABAs but should have his licence taken away for ineptitude.

Robin was promised an appeal by the Board when they took his licence, and took his appeal fee, which they still have, and then said he was time barred for appealing for the late delivery of appeal requirements.

Whatever is said about Robin, to promise him an appeal and then renege on it after he paid his feet is wrong.

I hope his detractors agree.

It's easier to appeal, and get a fresh face to face hearing than to keep reapplying like Robin has been doing.

The 14 day period for submitting appeal requirements is derisory and unfair. It should be 30 days.

Slim Cockney wrote:
The 14 day period for submitting appeal requirements is derisory and unfair. It should be 30 days.

Why?

leejonesjnr wrote:

Slim Cockney wrote:
The 14 day period for submitting appeal requirements is derisory and unfair. It should be 30 days.

Why?

A variety of reasons.

In Robin's case he was given cast iron verbal guarantees by certain Board individuals that his appeal would be heard, and that he advised those individuals that his requirements would be sent in just after 14 days, and when push came to shove, the Board dug their heels in and said he was time barred, and that is after taking his appeal fee.

Also, people still send documents by Royal Mail. If the post gets held up, or lost, then the Board can still say we are not hearing an appeal if they haven't got the requirements in those 14 days, and it may not be anyone's fault except the Post.

If there is 30 days, then there is a chance to completely get everything together, and query if anything has been lost in the post. Failure to submit anything after that time is fair enough in terms of the Board saying no to an appeal.

I really can't see that an extra 16 days grace should not be allowed for someone to try and save their livelehood.

I think most fair mined people would agree.

If that has happened to Deakin, and it doesn't matter who it is, then it is wrong.

Slim Cockney wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:

Slim Cockney wrote:
The 14 day period for submitting appeal requirements is derisory and unfair. It should be 30 days.

Why?

A variety of reasons.

In Robin's case he was given cast iron verbal guarantees by certain Board individuals that his appeal would be heard, and that he advised those individuals that his requirements would be sent in just after 14 days, and when push came to shove, the Board dug their heels in and said he was time barred, and that is after taking his appeal fee.

Also, people still send documents by Royal Mail. If the post gets held up, or lost, then the Board can still say we are not hearing an appeal if they haven't got the requirements in those 14 days, and it may not be anyone's fault except the Post.

If there is 30 days, then there is a chance to completely get everything together, and query if anything has been lost in the post. Failure to submit anything after that time is fair enough in terms of the Board saying no to an appeal.

I really can't see that an extra 16 days grace should not be allowed for someone to try and save their livelehood.

I think most fair mined people would agree.

Nah.

Nothing REALLY gets lost in the post.

It's not his livelihood.

If the requirement were 30 days some people would want 60 etc etc.

leejonesjnr wrote:

Slim Cockney wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:
Why?

A variety of reasons.

In Robin's case he was given cast iron verbal guarantees by certain Board individuals that his appeal would be heard, and that he advised those individuals that his requirements would be sent in just after 14 days, and when push came to shove, the Board dug their heels in and said he was time barred, and that is after taking his appeal fee.

Also, people still send documents by Royal Mail. If the post gets held up, or lost, then the Board can still say we are not hearing an appeal if they haven't got the requirements in those 14 days, and it may not be anyone's fault except the Post.

If there is 30 days, then there is a chance to completely get everything together, and query if anything has been lost in the post. Failure to submit anything after that time is fair enough in terms of the Board saying no to an appeal.

I really can't see that an extra 16 days grace should not be allowed for someone to try and save their livelehood.

I think most fair mined people would agree.

Nah.

Nothing REALLY gets lost in the post.

It's not his livelihood.

If the requirement were 30 days some people would want 60 etc etc.

Spot on lee

spudder56 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:

Slim Cockney wrote:
A variety of reasons.

In Robin's case he was given cast iron verbal guarantees by certain Board individuals that his appeal would be heard, and that he advised those individuals that his requirements would be sent in just after 14 days, and when push came to shove, the Board dug their heels in and said he was time barred, and that is after taking his appeal fee.

Also, people still send documents by Royal Mail. If the post gets held up, or lost, then the Board can still say we are not hearing an appeal if they haven't got the requirements in those 14 days, and it may not be anyone's fault except the Post.

If there is 30 days, then there is a chance to completely get everything together, and query if anything has been lost in the post. Failure to submit anything after that time is fair enough in terms of the Board saying no to an appeal.

I really can't see that an extra 16 days grace should not be allowed for someone to try and save their livelehood.

I think most fair mined people would agree.

Nah.

Nothing REALLY gets lost in the post.

It's not his livelihood.

If the requirement were 30 days some people would want 60 etc etc.

Spot on lee

No commentary on the fact that Board Officials promised Robin an appeal even if he submitted requirements for an appeal after 14 days, took his money, and then said he couldn't have an appeal. Hmm.

England boxing have a 28 day period of appealing after a disciplinary decision and I dare say that other sporting organisations have the same time frame.

That is spot on Lee.

Slim Cockney wrote:

spudder56 wrote:

leejonesjnr wrote:
Nah.

Nothing REALLY gets lost in the post.

It's not his livelihood.

If the requirement were 30 days some people would want 60 etc etc.

Spot on lee

No commentary on the fact that Board Officials promised Robin an appeal even if he submitted requirements for an appeal after 14 days, took his money, and then said he couldn't have an appeal. Hmm.

England boxing have a 28 day period of appealing after a disciplinary decision and I dare say that other sporting organisations have the same time frame.

That is spot on Lee.

I try not to get involved in 'he said/they said' nonsense as opinions are not as useful as facts in such a debate and the facts are unknown.

28 days? Pricks, everyone knows 30 is the correct amount of time.

Basically Robin should be given the benefit of the doubt about promises for him to have an appeal. As I keep saying the Board took his money which backs up their original good intentons to honour their promises.

He also understands that another former licence holder had his appeal heard about his licence being taken away from him after submitting requirements after 14 days. This is being checked out, and if right, it doesn't put the Board in a good light. Different outcomes for the same situation. Hmm.

For the Board to put 30 days as a period for appealing, putting it in step with other sporting organisations making it a level playing field is hardly anarchy.

leejonesjnr wrote: Nah.

Nothing REALLY gets lost in the post.

It's not his livelihood.

If the requirement were 30 days some people would want 60 etc etc.

Is that a wind-up? You are joking, right?

Robin is out in Spain on the 26th.. His opponent only having 1 fight winning by TKO4 against Reynaldo Mora who boxed Kid Galahad in Late 2016 winning by 3rd round TKO... Looks a Tough night for Robin again.

Who's licensed him ?

This bloke is just a fame hungry wannabe

Floyd the snake wrote:Who's licensed him ?

http://boxrec.com/show/745529

God knows who licensed him at one point he said he was going to Ireland to get a licence but he keeps saying different things every day lol but one thing never changes--he keeps calling Connor benn out and keeps saying that Eddie Hearn has promised him the fight will happen as soon as he has got a licence! Which apparently he has now got

Wasn't this wee helmet knocking boots with that crack whore Westbrook?

Sento Martinez a well regarded trainer in Valencia is co promoting the event and is my friend

Anybody how Robin got on in Spain last night coz if he is to be believed if he won Eddie Hearn has guaranteed that he will be promoting his mega fight with Connor benn

he was stopped in the 2nd round.

DAVE2005 wrote:he was stopped in the 2nd round.

Ok mate thanks maybe he won't be on Ppv now then lol hope he's ok and moves on with his life now

He was knocked out in the 2nd round, thats a 28 day suspension too.

Tasty ring card girls.


pictures upload





Im not sure if thats Deakin on the left or not.

mimmy123 wrote:He was knocked out in the 2nd round, thats a 28 day suspension too.

Tasty ring card girls

I'd smash the one on the left

And I'd do the other one too just less enthusiastically

Counter-puncher wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:He was knocked out in the 2nd round, thats a 28 day suspension too.

Tasty ring card girls

I'd smash the one on the left

And I'd do the other one too just less enthusiastically

I prefer the one on the right, wee chunky fornicator.