The Guardian Decides Boxing Is Too Violent

Scroll to see replies

Just did same thing, according to Westlaw R v. Brown is still good Law.

Weird, I suppose it's one of those "in theory" laws that loads disobey but never face punishment because the "victim" doesn't complain.

Maybe the ECHR covers it, Article 8 or something? Who knows.

Reply 41

Le Nombre

Original post by the mezzil

What about it? I don't give a **** what you do with your body.

Stalin loved to impose his authoritarian rule on people, because of what he liked and disliked. Just like Miser.

Yeah, but if you believe that then you are saying Britain is a Stalinist state, because as it stands if you wish to do various interesting and exotic things I definitely can't write on TSR without being banned, for sexual gratification you will be prosecutedy, even where these took place in a private setting with fully consenting adults.

Incidentally on the prize fighting point that would likely be illegal, but as a breach of the peace. (Reg v Coney).

Reply 42

Le Nombre

Original post by Lady Comstock

Weird, I suppose it's one of those "in theory" laws that loads disobey but never face punishment because the "victim" doesn't complain.

Maybe the ECHR covers it, Article 8 or something? Who knows.

Reading it for the first time in a while the Art. 8 argument is rejected in Brown, not sure whether you could try launching an appeal on it being HRA now.

Reply 43

InnerTemple

Original post by Lady Comstock

Hell no, just a bottle to myself in front of a couple of good films. :wink:

Sounds like a fine evening. I hope you enjoyed it.

But I suppose if we allow people to beat each other for S&M (although may have to confirm this, R v Brown?! I haven't done criminal law in yonks, is it still a battery?) then why not for sport?

I think things start verging on being unlawful when you get to ABH and above. You cited Brown correctly, which involved charges under s.20 and 47.

I think (submit, My Lady) that the decision in Brown is not as clear cut as some think. Reading the judgment, you can see that this was not just a group hurting each other: "Cruelty to human beings was on occasions supplemented by cruelty to animals in the form of bestiality." Further, there were concerns as to the age of participants in some 'sessions.'

I think that the Court just disapproved of the whole practice - especially because it involved homosexual sex. Just look at the language used in the Court of Appeal:

[The defendants]...were responsible in part for the corruption of a youth K . . . It is some comfort at least to be told, as we were, that K has now it seems settled into a normal heterosexual relationship.

You would be hard pushed to see that turn of phrase used nowadays. Contrast Brown with Wilson - the married couple who enjoyed burning designs into their bottoms. The court was not bothered in the slightest (more or less).

Anyway, to try and drag this back on topic - I do not call for boxing to be banned. I merely expressed my opinion that, as sports go, it is a little odd.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 44

InnerTemple

Original post by Lady Comstock

Weird, I suppose it's one of those "in theory" laws that loads disobey but never face punishment because the "victim" doesn't complain.

Maybe the ECHR covers it, Article 8 or something? Who knows.

Original post by Le Nombre

Reading it for the first time in a while the Art. 8 argument is rejected in Brown, not sure whether you could try launching an appeal on it being HRA now.

The people in Brown took their case to the ECHR (Laskey v United Kingdom (1997) 24 E.H.R.R. 39). They lost.

I still think Brown is dodgy though. Dodgy and largely ignored - there have been cases since 1994 (at least one I know of in the last few years) where someone engaged in S&M has been charged with ABH and acquitted by the jury.

Reply 45

Le Nombre

Original post by InnerTemple

Yeah, is it still the standard direction or are judges erring further and further with the CPS just letting it ride?

Good job too, not really much place for the likes of this these days hopefully!

My Lords I have no doubt that it would not be in the public interest that deliberate infliction of actual bodily harm during the course of homosexual sado-masochistic activities should be held to be lawful

Reply 46

paddyman4

Boxing is ridiculous. I find it incredible that fighting is still considered a sport, it's just stupid. And it's pretty barbaric to have thousands of fans screaming for one guy to knock another guy out for the sake of entertainment and nothing else.

Reply 47

InnerTemple

Original post by Le Nombre

Yeah, is it still the standard direction or are judges erring further and further with the CPS just letting it ride?

I'm not sure what directions are given - I do not think there are any prescribed ones. I'd suppose/would expect that the judge will just highlight the law as set out in Brown, Wilson and Emmett. Most likely leaving the jury confused.

Original post by Lady Comstock

Indeed, it is rather gladiatorial. But I suppose there is no logic to modern sport. Look at football (as if you were an alien species looking down on how interesting it is) and how obscenely lucrative it is.

I'm no fan of football either.

I'm not much of a sportsman. Not team sports anyway.

Reply 48

Kiss

Original post by paddyman4

Beats cricket.

Reply 49

Kiss

Original post by Lady Comstock

Would you Kiss my nips?

I think somebody's had too much red wine.

Reply 50

cant_think_of_name

Original post by Kiss

Beats cricket.

How could anyone say that about cricket? :frown:

I personally don't mind watching boxing. I'll watch the big fights, or if it's on in the Olympics or whatever. I think some of the comments on here demonstrate the issue I have with sport (not just boxing) though - the whole "well, if you think you can carry on, you can carry on" or "you aren't man enough if you think that sport is crap" mentality, the idea that getting hurt is really a great idea. It was demonstrated by the Hugo Lloris concussion, the many concussions you get in the NFL, rugby union and league, etc. I'm not saying ban them outright (I enjoy those sports) but there needs to be a look at the attitudes that go with them. Trying to be a hero by endangering your mental or physical health really isn't a good idea.

Reply 51

the mezzil

Original post by paddyman4

Guess what... nobody cares.

Don't like it, don't watch it. Simples.

Reply 52

the bear

Original post by Captain Haddock

Campaigning against drugs... 'Politically incorrect' ... These words you are using, do you even know what they mean?

yes, yes i do... thank you for asking :confused:

Reply 53

KimKallstrom

Original post by paddyman4

Given the strategies involved in it, boxing actually requires a level of intelligence. Though, since you clearly don't know anything about boxing, you wouldn't know that.

Reply 54

username234673

God forbid they ever watch UFC.

Reply 55

miser

Original post by the mezzil

Stalin loved to impose his authoritarian rule on people, because of what he liked and disliked. Just like Miser.

I'm not certain you're being serious because I don't care about ruling over anybody, but maybe I might give that impression by supporting a ban on certain things, so I will clarify the reason for those views.

If I have an opposition to boxing it's because I value people's well-being, and contests of injury seem contrary to that - it's not a case of me disliking a particular thing and then wanting it banned. Unlike other things that I dislike (e.g., football), they are mostly a matter of personal preference, which is for the most part arbitrary and I have no reason to view my preferences as superior to anyone else's. In certain cases, however, I accept that particular activities might cause an unacceptable degree of harm, and in those instances I do not hold personal freedom in such high esteem as to turn a blind eye to that harm.

This is after all a country which does not permit people to commit euthanasia. This is already a far more authoritarian and cruel stance than anything you will see me promoting. I value personal liberty more than our government, but I only value it for its tendency to allow people to be happy. I am sceptical that Stalin concerned himself with anything as legitimately important as his people's happiness, but if he was then the best that can be said of him was that he was not particularly efficacious in procuring it.

Reply 56

MJ1012

Original post by mikeyd85

God forbid they ever watch UFC.

It has been proven to be safer apparently.

Reply 57

username234673

Original post by MJ1012

It has been proven to be safer apparently.

They won't care. They'll see claret and explode.

That is interesting though. Perhaps it's due to alternative tactics which cannot be used in boxing, such as ground moves and submission holds.

Reply 58

MJ1012

Original post by mikeyd85

They won't care. They'll see claret and explode. 
 
That is interesting though. Perhaps it's due to alternative tactics which cannot be used in boxing, such as ground moves and submission holds.

Yeah it's partly because you can tap out and also because when you get dropped, if you're badly hurt the fight is finished nearly immediately whereas in boxing, people get stood up and get more punishment.

Reply 59

Kiss

Original post by the bear

yes, yes i do... thank you for asking :confused:

It's usually the people who ask sarcastic questions which fail to understand the concepts of what they ask.

Original post by miser

If I have an opposition to boxing it's because I value people's well-being, and contests of injury seem contrary to that - it's not a case of me disliking a particular thing and then wanting it banned. Unlike other things that I dislike (e.g., football), they are mostly a matter of personal preference, which is for the most part arbitrary and I have no reason to view my preferences as superior to anyone else's. In certain cases, however, I accept that particular activities might cause an unacceptable degree of harm, and in those instances I do not hold personal freedom in such high esteem as to turn a blind eye to that harm.

This is after all a country which does not permit people to commit euthanasia. This is already a far more authoritarian and cruel stance than anything you will see me promoting. I value personal liberty more than our government, but I only value it for its tendency to allow people to be happy. I am sceptical that Stalin concerned himself with anything as legitimately important as his people's happiness, but if he was then the best that can be said of him was that he was not particularly efficacious in procuring it.

But boxing brings people pleasure and happiness for both the spectator and combatant. Harm is relative and is measured in many different sports - take rugby for example: a bunch of guys running, shoving each other out of the way in order to score a try, training for which and playing such a game is both dangerous and will probably result in some injuries (and I can testify that from personal experience). But people still love playing it and watching it. Even something like Tennis puts incredible strain on one's wrists and forearms - couldn't that be considered harm? Yes, the intentional means to win are different from boxing but the point is to win.