Home > Blackpool Magic > Poof – all discussion is gone!

Poof – all discussion is gone!

They certainly do things differently in the UK … a 6 page thread concerning the FISM bans & Derek Lever was mysteriously erased from the MB forum.  The reason stated:

“I am aware that one recent particular thread in this forum has become a prolonged and vindictive attack on one named specific individual – someone who is well known and holds high rank in the magic community but someone who is not a member of this site.

Although I do not wish to lend support to the actions of this individual in the petty banning and unbanning of a number of different magicians from major national conventions…”

The thread had in fact been active for a good period of time ( I must thus assume that the moderators were happy with the discussion ) and then suddenly the *entire* thread is removed because it is now considered ‘libellous’.

What is fascinating about the censorship of the thread on MB – is that rather than just ‘edit’ or remove the offending post ( which they had been doing previously as a good moderator should in order to ensure open discussion ) they erased ALL discussion on the matter as if it never happened … which I am sure is exactly what Mr Lever was hoping for. To erase any possible record of his long list of adventures. In fact – nearly every discussion concerning the issue of bannings / FISM / Blackpool on the MB website tends to get removed or shut down. Why is that ?
 Lest we forget – Mr Lever attempted to have Dodd Vickers censor his Magic Newswire website because he did not agree with the contents … so it seems to be a developing trend.
The mention of Mr Lever’s ‘high rank’ in the explanation may explain his militant outlook to magic ;-)
Categories: Blackpool Magic Tags:
  1. PArrott
    October 10th, 2009 at 04:13 | #1

    What utter bullshit. The problem on there was the libel, not the mention of bans. If you go have a look on the site you can see that there is an active article for the issue. Fuck it, no, you don’t even have to work:


    So they erased all discussion on the matter? No, there is a topic right there for anyone to talk on.

  2. October 10th, 2009 at 08:42 | #2

    Hi Parrott

    Profanity is not required … but please have a look at the link you provided. It says “The requested topic does not exist.”

    “So they erased all discussion on the matter?”

    Yes – they erased over 6 pages of legitimate discussion. The problem was the libel you say ? If that was the case – simply remove the offending article rather than erase the entire record.

    The fact remains that lots of legitimate discussion was erased as if it never happened.

  3. October 10th, 2009 at 14:29 | #3

    This is really getting out of hand…

    My name is Michael Jay, I am the site director for Magic Bunny and your accusations here on your blog are nothing short of preposterous. It has been pointed out again and again that the thread that was removed from the site had nothing to do with any side that anyone was on but rather a desire to keep mudslinging and libelous, unsubstantiated, tripe off of our site.

    The owner of Magic Bunny pays for that site directly out of his pocket. There is no paid for advertising on that site and we owe nobody any allegiances as a result of this. The site is listed with the British government as a “not for profit” web site. The downside to this is that if any court action is taken as a result of libel that is allowed on those forums, the site owner would be financially devastated by such a thing. The forum would cease to exist.

    Of course the question remains: why don’t the mods or myself simply edit the material? Well, the thread in question still exists in an area that is away from view of anyone other than the moderating staff. If any moderator would like to throw away 2 or 3 hours of his life going over those 8 pages and doing such a thing, they won’t be stopped from so doing. The fact of the matter is, though, that should a moderator take that time, there will still be accusations and hand wringing over what was edited, why it was edited and regardless of any precision in the edit, we will still be taken to task by busy bodies such as yourself.

    This is a no win situation for any moderator of those forums because no matter what, it won’t be enough, it will be wrong, we will be in someone’s pocket, etc., etc., etc., so on and so forth, ad nauseum.

    Allow me to give you my full and unconditional apology for not running Magic Bunny to your liking and for making decisions that you find wrong or bad or jaded. I regret that the management team of Magic Bunny is found to be substandard in your opinion and wish you all of the best in the future.

    Trust that we will endeavor, on Magic Bunny, to bring our standards up to where you think they should be and we will do our best to make your proud of us in the future.

    Michael Jay
    Site Director
    Magic Bunny

  4. PArrott
    October 10th, 2009 at 15:20 | #4

    But my dear, profanity is what you make it. The only reason you deem them as profanities is because of your upbringing. If you think about it for 5 seconds it actually doesn’t matter that much. I’m on about profanity not mattering, not this whole thing being blown out of proportion, which it has.

    I’ve clicked that link and I can see a discusion named “FISM/BANS/Named Individual” started by Nigel Shelton. Here’s a screen shot to prove it and note the url is the same:


    There was no legitimate discusion by the end, the first two pages were, yes, but then it just became a mud slinging match. It was utterly ridiculous. And there is now a genuine discussion going on about the bannings, not about Derek Lever, which is the point.

    As for the editting; it wouldn’t of worked. People got used to that discussion being about insulting Derek Lever, and they would of continued. So the moderators on the board, and Nigel Shelton, closed the discussion and started a new one which is not to be about insulting Derek. Also if the topic had been editted I guarantee people would still be moaning, mainly yourself.

    Oh, and before you try and say I’m in Derek’s backpocket and make me part of the conspiracy; I am not. I have never met Derek Lever and have no intention to avoid nor meet him. I am sure the man has never heard of me and up until this farce I had no idea what he looked like.

  5. Darrel Mileson
    October 10th, 2009 at 15:43 | #5

    The topic IS still being discussed at Magic Bunny. The thread contained accusations and comments which may have been seen as libel. I believe there was no “may” about it, but am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

    Magic Bunny is a discussion forum. The thread concerned was no longer a discussion. Libel depends on whether it is detrimental to the person, with damages paid according to how many people would see the libel.

    Magic Bunny has a huge membership. It may be with the few people you get, you might only have to pay a few quid in damages, if you allowed libel on here.

    Would you allow pictures of child porn on here?

    NO. Both for legal and decency reasons. You mention that it was six pages long. Would that have been allowed if they were censorship crazy as you seem to suggest?

    They gave people a chance for their say. There is a limit, until legal and decency issues comein to the equation, as my porn comment shows.

    People are stirring up trouble, sometimes based on facts, yet often on hearsay and rumours.

    TALKING AS ADULTS can help matters. If not, at least we know we have behaved properly, doing what we can to solve the issues.

  6. October 10th, 2009 at 15:52 | #6

    Hi Parrott

    “The only reason you deem them as profanities is because of your upbringing”

    Exactly … society and your upbringing helps determine your behaviour. Its hard to take someone seriously when they need to resort to profanity unfortunately.

    The link has been fixed or refreshed as it definitely said “The requested topic does not exist.” Perhaps it had to do with whether you were logged in or not ? I am very happy though that new discussion may continue.

    But you do concede that there was legitimate discussion and that legitimate discussion was removed. Whatever the reasons may be, that fact remains. I truly believe that everyone appreciates the enormous amount of work that goes into running the site … but considering the circumstances deleting all record of legitimate discussion was most unfortunate.

    With regards to editing – the thread in question was active for a good period of time – so any moderation needed could most certainly have occurred quite easily as and when required. It does, however, appear that the mods thought that no such moderation was required only until the entire thread was deleted.

    “And there is now a genuine discussion going on about the bannings, not about Derek Lever, which is the point. ”

    But that is where you are mistaken. The problem surrounds the conduct and behaviour of the person doing the banning. To attempt to talk about an issue without referencing the person concerned is imposssible to do … especially when “he who cannot be named” has a long history of banning individuals, family members & their employees from events; attempts to disrupt competing conventions; detains individuals after accusing them of theft; demands a commission from the very acts he books himself; demands the media censors articles of which he does not approve; creates his own FISM category without General Assembly approval and publicly ridicules one of Great Britain’s most accomplished performers – apparently wanting to smash their heads in with a mallet.

    Bringing such conduct to light has resulted in an enormous amount of good. “He who cannot be named” has come to the realisation that he cannot do as he wishes. People who were told they were banned from FISM – may now attend including the young daughter of a local shopkeeper in Blackpool who also find herself banned simply because “he who cannot be named” disliked her father.

    Most importantly “he who cannot be named” is unlikely to continue with his previous behaviour knowing full well that what was previously discussed in hushed tones for fear of reprisal in the back halls of Blackpool – has been brought into the harsh light of day.

  7. October 10th, 2009 at 15:57 | #7

    In your statement above, sir, you prove my point about editing and nothing being good enough. To wit:

    “With regards to editing – the thread in question was active for a good period of time – so any moderation needed could most certainly have occurred quite easily as and when required.”

    Never enough, not good enough, ad infinity, ad nauseum.


  8. Whispers
    October 11th, 2009 at 06:59 | #8

    As you may have read Craig, the result of all this discussion is that Derek Lever has now issue a statement on Magic Bunny which, as anyone who’s been TRYING to get a response out of Derek for the past month will know, is AMAZING!

    It is wonderful to see that Derek has now made it clear that no Blackpool bans will be passed on to FISM which means Craig, Colin, Carl De Rome and even Paul Daniels are free to register! (And I recommend you all do while he’s in this generous frame of mind)!

    It also looks like you, Craig, are in fact not banned from Blackpool at all as the initial ban he placed on you for unflattering comments no longer seems to fit within the banning criteria Derek outlined in his statement, so resubmit your application to FISM 2010. I’m sure you’ll be accepted this time.

    And regarding Mr Daniels, it seems Derek was taken out of context. Obviously, though Derek considers Paul and an out of date has been who he’d never invite to Blackpool (despite giving him The Murray Award years ago) Derek will welcome him as a paying registrant!

    All is well with the world!

    Jolly good!

  9. Darrel Mileson
    October 11th, 2009 at 14:51 | #9

    As I have posted elsewhere, the statement Derek made wasn’t on, or speciffically for, the Magic Bunny.

    It was in an email sent in reply to mine, also posted there.

    The fact I had a reply, ( In just under 12 hours of my email, ) may have been because I ASKED, rather than used the situation as a chance to complain or be abusive.

    I feel that should be made clear, rather than it appear that Magic Bunny was in any way involved, as yet more allegations may follow.

  10. October 11th, 2009 at 15:30 | #10

    Hi Darrel

    Thank you for sharing Derek’s reply with us. I realise you could well not have posted it – but we appreciate you doing so.

    Many people have attempted to get a response on the issues that were raised and all were greeted with silence – which doesn’t help resolve anything :-(

    Thanks again

  11. October 11th, 2009 at 15:33 | #11

    On a separate note – discussion on the FISM bannings etc. has been locked on the MB forum.

Comments are closed.