allegedly Answers Critics

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 15 Dec 2003, 07:59

For those of you interested:

http://www.allegedly.tv/fw3/news/view ... rticle=709

Kilburn · Post by **Kilburn** » 15 Dec 2003, 08:08

It would appear his problem is more with Spud than British Eastside. I always thought the "ombudsman" over there was super careful but he must've said something to cause all this shit to strike the fan.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 08:12

Kilburn wrote:It would appear his problem is more with Spud than British Eastside. I always thought the "ombudsman" over there was super careful but he must've said something to cause all this shit to strike the fan.

Kilburn - FW is right about one thing - the ombudsman was far from impartial - and did work for another promoter.

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 15 Dec 2003, 08:41

Doesn't that make him right about two things?

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:06

Southpaw Stylist wrote:Doesn't that make him right about two things?

Quite right!

There's no flies on you.

Southpaw Stylist · Post by **Southpaw Stylist** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:07

Because I'm not shit.

MightyWarrior · Post by **MightyWarrior** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:18

I myself thoroughly enjoy Frank's completely impartial column in Britain's best selling NOTW.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:37

Southpaw Stylist wrote:Because I'm not shit.

I'll have to take your word on that.

8)

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:42

At least Frank's had the decency to spell out his reasons as to why legal action was taken. And we all know he had no choice but to take action.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:51

bennie wrote:At least Frank's had the decency to spell out his reasons as to why legal action was taken. And we all know he had no choice but to take action.

Why?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 15 Dec 2003, 09:54

Are you serious? Have you got a couple of years!!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:03

bennie wrote:Are you serious? Have you got a couple of years!!

Yes.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:04

I just think this is indicitive of the out of date libel/slander laws we have.

I mean I regard posting something on here as about the same as saying it to a friend.

I don't expect to be held to task over the accuracy or otherwise of the statement and I don't expect it to be regarded as anything other than my opinion - which as far as I am aware (provided that it doesn't promote or incite anything illegal) It is my right to do.

Anyway, everyone knows that Lighsoot is gay - so whats the harm in me publicising the fact???

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:07

Lugh wrote:I just think this is indicitive of the out of date libel/slander laws we have.

I mean I regard posting something on here as about the same as saying it to a friend.

I don't expect to be held to task over the accuracy or otherwise of the statement and I don't expect it to be regarded as anything other than my opinion - which as far as I am aware (provided that it doesn't promote or incite anything illegal) It is my right to do.

Anyway, everyone knows that Lighsoot is gay - so whats the harm in me publicising the fact???

Saying I'm gay is fine. Labelling me a gay lover beater would be libellious I think, because you are giving other posters the false impression that I leather gay men.

The problem with libel is that the majority don't understand what it exactly means. Like me.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:07

lightsoot wrote:
bennie wrote:At least Frank's had the decency to spell out his reasons as to why legal action was taken. And we all know he had no choice but to take action.
Why?

Because the site was such that FW + his fighters were sbject to critisism ranging from Fair to Harsh. (which is fine by me, and fine by most)
However, there were certain promoters for whom any critisism was simply not permitted.

This is unfair.

It's not unfair to criticise a promoter, and certainly not unfair to critcise Frankie. It's IS unfair if you have a forum which permits criticism of some promoters, but bans the criticism of others.

It ceases to become a forum, don't you think?

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:09

lightsoot wrote:
bennie wrote:Are you serious? Have you got a couple of years!!
Yes.

Okay, if you really want to know the answer, ring allegedly on 01992 505550.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:18

lightsoot wrote:
Lugh wrote:I just think this is indicitive of the out of date libel/slander laws we have.

I mean I regard posting something on here as about the same as saying it to a friend.

I don't expect to be held to task over the accuracy or otherwise of the statement and I don't expect it to be regarded as anything other than my opinion - which as far as I am aware (provided that it doesn't promote or incite anything illegal) It is my right to do.

Anyway, everyone knows that Lighsoot is gay - so whats the harm in me publicising the fact???
The problem with libel is that the majority don't understand what it exactly means. Like me.

Agreed - Me Too - but isn't that the point? If people (Joe Public) don't atually know what it is how can they avoid it?

If you say nothing, you're fine - not much fun though

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:20

Priff wrote:It ceases to become a forum, don't you think?

It certainly does, but does that make it illegal?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:22

Priff

Thanks for the reply, I can see where you're coming from.

Bennie - You're a brilliant poster and you've done a fabulous job here but in my opinion you need to stop using your popularity in trying to brainwash the punters. They can and will make up their own minds about certain issues without you leading them down the garden path with inaccurate swipes.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:28

If it's inaccurate, why don't you get your mate Spud to sue me and Warren?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:35

bennie wrote:If it's inaccurate, why don't you get your mate Spud to sue me and Warren?

Come on Bennie you're acting daft and you seem to be of the opinion that you're exempt from criticism. I outlined my points on Friday night but you decided to delete my post

I know I'm right. Your just pissed off because I'm highlighting it. I'm not going to pollute the boards with this as you've been unreasonable. There's more interesting discussions on Boxrec that I'd like to take part in.

bennie · Post by **bennie** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:40

lightsoot wrote:
bennie wrote:If it's inaccurate, why don't you get your mate Spud to sue me and Warren?
Come on Bennie you're acting daft and you seem to be of the opinion that you're exempt from criticism. I outlined my points on Friday night but you decided to delete my post

I know I'm right. Your just pissed off because I'm highlighting it. I'm not going to pollute the boards with this as you've been unreasonable. There's more interesting discussions on Boxrec that I'd like to take part in.

I thought you were never going to post here again? Your word clearly doesn't count for much.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:47

bennie wrote:
lightsoot wrote:
bennie wrote:If it's inaccurate, why don't you get your mate Spud to sue me and Warren?
Come on Bennie you're acting daft and you seem to be of the opinion that you're exempt from criticism. I outlined my points on Friday night but you decided to delete my post

I know I'm right. Your just pissed off because I'm highlighting it. I'm not going to pollute the boards with this as you've been unreasonable. There's more interesting discussions on Boxrec that I'd like to take part in.
I thought you were never going to post here again? Your word clearly doesn't count for much.

I did say that, but there's some excellent debates here so I didn't see why I should give some the satisfaction. You can be smart with me all you want, my original argument stands but you're unwilling to climb off your high horse. So be it.

Lugh · Post by **Lugh** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:53

Bennie

I am not going to take any side on this but I will suggest one thing -

"I thought you were never going to post here again? Your word clearly doesn't count for much".

Sound like any other Moderators you can remember?

A good forum welcomes all (legal) opinions - and encourages all debate, despite the direction.

Priff · Post by **Priff** » 15 Dec 2003, 10:54

bennie wrote: I thought you were never going to post here again? Your word clearly doesn't count for much.

With all due respect, there's no need for that Bennie.
Isn't this discussion best served with PMs?

allegedly Answers Critics

allegedly Answers Critics

Re: allegedly Answers Critics

Re: allegedly Answers Critics