Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: body mods and gbh
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
oldstoat
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47658303

If this result taken with the result of the House of Lords decision in

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/19.html

carries on, how long can it be before boxing is banned.

It seems perverse in the light of these two decisions, that a sport predicated on causing at the minimum GBH with intent, can be still legal.

Consent no longer seems to be a defence
DancingDad
QUOTE (oldstoat @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 18:05) *
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47658303

If this result taken with the result of the House of Lords decision in

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/19.html

carries on, how long can it be before boxing is banned.

It seems perverse in the light of these two decisions, that a sport predicated on causing at the minimum GBH with intent, can be still legal.

Consent no longer seems to be a defence


If you read the Law Lords then consent not being a defence goes back at least as far as Regina v Coney in 1882, hardly something suddenly dreamt up by do gooders.
Even back then, there was a distinction made between regulated sport such as boxing where a measure of protection (gloves) was afforded and a bare knuckles prize fight.
The former, not being reliant on GBH, that being a side effect of the "noble art of pugilism" while the latter almost guaranteed serious harm.
TBH, given the added safety rules within modern boxing (standing count, fights being stopped due to undue punishment or obvious injury) plus points being more important in many cases then a knockout, I cannot see these decisions swaying sporting regulations in the slightest.
oldstoat
but that a blow
struck in sport, and not likely nor intended to cause bodily harm, is
not an assault, and that an assault being a breach of the peace and
unlawful, the consent of the person struck is immaterial." from R v Coney.

the whole point of boxing is to KO your opponent. If a KO was no longer required to win, then headblows would be forbidden
DancingDad
QUOTE (oldstoat @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 16:55) *
......….the whole point of boxing is to KO your opponent. If a KO was no longer required to win, then headblows would be forbidden



Many boxing matches won on points, KO not required.
Amateur boxing requires head guards, certainly reducing chances of a KO.

It may well be a case in the future that headguards are introduced into professional, probably after the next tragedy or two but I still cannot see an injury as a by product of the sport being seen as assault.
Biting off someone's ear or a deliberate headbutt, actions outside of the rules of the sport would IMO be assault and could not be seen as consented to anyway.
facade
I thought the point the court was making in the Dr Evil case was from Catch 22- anyone who wants their tongue split in half without anaesthesia is not of sufficiently sound mind to consent to it, therefore there was no consent.

Whereas in boxing, the consent is more to a risk of being injured, given that the match is stopped before serious injury results, and you don't have to be insane to accept that risk (well certainly not for a lot of money at any rate).
nigelbb
QUOTE (facade @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 14:16) *
I thought the point the court was making in the Dr Evil case was from Catch 22- anyone who wants their tongue split in half without anaesthesia is not of sufficiently sound mind to consent to it, therefore there was no consent.

This is incorrect. The argument was the same as in the Operation Spanner case i.e. that consent to allowing actual bodily harm or wounding was not a defence. In that case the victims were also charged with aiding & abetting actual bodily harm or malicious wounding.
rosturra
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 17:28) *
Amateur boxing requires head guards, certainly reducing chances of a KO.

It may well be a case in the future that headguards are introduced into professional...



Actually headguards are no longer used in (Men's) amateur boxing.

Reason being that the increased circumference of head (encased in head guard) increases the turning effect of a glancing blow.

And a spinning head, is not very kind to the brain suspended within it.

notmeatloaf
Medical point of view - if you want to properly hurt someone, you need to snap the head against the body via the neck. Any sort of spinal cord damage and you're fooked. Hence why head guards can be counterproductive in professional boxing.

Same with cycle helmets - they'll help you in a minor collision, but snap your neck nicely in a serious collision - take your pick.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.