unlicenced and bareknuckle boxing, and English law?
hanra...@yahoo.co.uk
unlicenced and bareknuckle boxing? What exactly is it unlawful to do?
Many thanks!
Michael
Epsilon
> Could someone please summarise the law in England in respect of
> unlicenced and bareknuckle boxing? What exactly is it unlawful to do?
It's assault. If anyone is hurt, it could be a more serious form of
assault. Consent is no defence.
Those arranging the activity could attract conspiracy.
Jon Ribbens
A more interesting question is why "normal" boxing is not illegal - or
at least, the boxers are not usually arrested.
Mark Goodge
typed:
Well, it's not entirely true that consent is no defence to a charge of
assault. Consent is a defence in many circumstances, including surgery,
tatooing, piercing, certain sports, etc, and it's the sport ddefence which
is relevent in the case of legal boxing. But consent in the case of sport
is only a defence if done in accordance with the rules set out by a
recognised governing body. Someone engaging in a form of assault in the
conduct of sport which is not one authorised by the rules of the sport
would, potentially, be guilty of a crime. So, for example, punching someone
is acceptable in boxing, but not in football, while grappling someone to
the ground is acceptable in rugby but would not be in boxing.
The reason why consent is no defence in bareknuckle boxing is simply
because bareknuckle boxing itself is outwith the Queensberry Rules. Someone
accused of assault in the context of bareknuckle boxing can't invoke the
sport defence, as to so so would require admitting that they were breaking
the rules of the sport and hence provide a prima facie case *against*
themself. If no serious harm had resulted, then they might be able to
invoke either the horseplay defence or the consensual S&M defence, but only
if no wounding or actual bodily harm had occurred (c/f the Spanner case).
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
the Omrud
So (purely theoretically - I hate boxing of all types), what's to stop a
group setting up the Kingsbury Rules of Barenuckle Fighting and allowing
blokes to batter each other under its jurisdiction? Who decides what
should qualify as a "recognised governing body"?
--
David
Percy Picacity
news:ipk6hl$t29$2...@news.albasani.net:
Given various brands of kick boxing and cage fighting that have
recently been shown on telly, presumably there is nothing to stop
such a group being set up.
--
Percy Picacity
Sandy
> Well, it's not entirely true that consent is no defence to a charge of
> assault.
It's only fairly recently that it became illegal for parents to hit their
children. Until that point was there an exemption that allowed this?
Jethro
> the Omrud <usenet.om...@gmail.com> wrote innews:ipk6hl$t29$2...@news.albasani.net:
>
>
>
> > On 01/05/2011 18:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:40:02 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to
> >> keyboard and typed:
>
> >>> On 2011-05-01, Epsilon<n...@this.address.com> wrote:
As long as there's no sexual element to it. Remember "Operation
Spanner" ?
Mark Goodge
typed:
I suspect it would come down to a decision by a court high enough to set
precedent, should such an attempt ever be made.
Mark Goodge
It's still legal for parents to hit their own children, if by "hit" you
mean smacking. "Reasonable chastisement" is another defence to a charge of
common assault. It is not, however, a defence to any charge of assault
which includes an element of actual harm, such as wounding, ABH or GBH, or
where the assault is part of deliberate cruelty or where the nature of the
punishment is adjudged to be excessive.
steve robinson
> >> sport and hence provide a prima facie case against themself. If
> >> no serious harm had resulted, then they might be able to invoke
> >> either the horseplay defence or the consensual S&M defence, but
> >> only if no wounding or actual bodily harm had occurred (c/f the
> >> Spanner case).
> >
> > So (purely theoretically - I hate boxing of all types), what's to
> > stop a group setting up the Kingsbury Rules of Barenuckle Fighting
> > and allowing blokes to batter each other under its jurisdiction?
> > Who decides what should qualify as a "recognised governing body"?
> >
>
> Given various brands of kick boxing and cage fighting that have
> recently been shown on telly, presumably there is nothing to stop
> such a group being set up.
This reminds me of travellers that asked if they could take water
from my outside tap , they had a litle lad with them , in a strong
irish brogue he says to me iol fight yas come on iol fight ya mate .
His parents told him off about his manners and he apologised ok mr
iol fight ya please
Epsilon
There are some physical contact sports where people do try to hurt each
other. They are either illegal because they amount to assault, and people
cannot consent to assault, or they come close but avoid the criminal law
being applied to them because there are sufficient formal controls (in the
form of rules) to give them an appearance of respectability.
The most obvious is boxing. Bareknuckle boxing is illegal because it
obviously involves an assault and people do get hurt because the rules allow
for that. The regulated sport of boxing gets through at amateur level
because there are rules that are enforced, and people don't get hurt. Well,
no more so than in some other sports.
Professional boxing is right on the edge. There is no other sport that
comes close to the risk of personal injury caused deliberately. Apart from
marriage.
Epsilon
No. The community assumed that there was a right, if not a duty, to
chastise children to correct their behaviour. Rather like the right men had
to chastise their wives. That assumption has gone. There will be some who
regret the passing of the assumption.
hanra...@yahoo.co.uk
> > On 01/05/2011 18:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:40:02 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to
> >> keyboard and typed:
>
> >>> On 2011-05-01, Epsilon<n...@this.address.com> wrote:
> >>>> hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >>>>> Could someone please summarise the law in England in respect
> >>>>> of unlicenced and bareknuckle boxing? What exactly is it
> >>>>> unlawful to do?
> > So (purely theoretically - I hate boxing of all types), what's to
> > stop a group setting up the Kingsbury Rules of Barenuckle Fighting
> > and allowing blokes to batter each other under its jurisdiction?
> > Who decides what should qualify as a "recognised governing body"?
>
> Given various brands of kick boxing and cage fighting that have
> recently been shown on telly, presumably there is nothing to stop
> such a group being set up.
According to this article by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/11/15/unlicensed_boxing_feature.shtml
"unlicensed boxing is not illegal" and most unlicensed matches are
"staged in leisure centres, nightclubs and halls with gloves,
referees, trainers and medics".
They define an unlicensed boxer as one who is not licensed by the
British Boxing Board of Control, but also suggest that the rules in
these unlicensed matches are different. A lot of this sounds as though
it's considered lawful.
That's with gloves, in a ring.
Then there's bareknuckle boxing, which sounds as though it's
considered unlawful. E.g. the BBC say that a famous match staged in
the late 1970s was going to be bareknuckle, but the police objected.
The BBC say that "bareknuckle contests (...) could break some UK
laws".
The Independent says that "these" (bareknuckle) contests have long
been outlawed.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/bareknuckle-fights-caught-on-camera-566295.html
Various sources say bareknuckle fights are staged at the gypsies'
Appleby Fair every year.
The police planning officer quoted in this article:
doesn't seem to be wholly clear: "it would also be classed as some
sort of breach of public order".
I'm still not clear on the law here!!
(FWIW, I think all boxing is barbaric and should be banned - but
that's another discussion!)
Michael
Jon Ribbens
> On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:40:02 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>>at least, the boxers are not usually arrested.
>
> Well, it's not entirely true that consent is no defence to a charge of
> assault. Consent is a defence in many circumstances, including surgery,
> tatooing, piercing, certain sports, etc, and it's the sport ddefence which
> is relevent in the case of legal boxing. But consent in the case of sport
> is only a defence if done in accordance with the rules set out by a
> recognised governing body.
My point was it's a very gray area, which your answer only goes to
illustrate. What is a "recognised" sport? Recognised by who? As has
been mentioned there are already "new" sports such as kickboxing and
cage fighting, are they "recognised"? Does this mean that sporting
rules now become legal rules? Is "hitting below the belt" illegal?
Is using over-weighted gloves not just cheating but criminal? Does
the sport get to choose which rules when broken are just "fouls" and
which are crimes?
hanra...@yahoo.co.uk
> the Omrud wrote:
> > On 01/05/2011 18:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
> >> On Sun, 01 May 2011 15:40:02 +0100, Jon Ribbens put finger to
> >> keyboard and typed:
>
> >>> On 2011-05-01, Epsilon<n...@this.address.com> wrote:
I don't understand why bareknuckle boxing obviously involves assault
whereas gloved boxing doesn't. Assault doesn't have to cause harm.
According to this article by the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/11/15/unlicensed_boxing_feature.shtml
unlicensed boxing (i.e. where boxers are not licensed by the British
Boxing Board of Control) is not illegal:
"Unlicensed boxing covers a wide range of fighters and fighting
contests but this doesn't mean that the fighters are taking part in
anything illegal. Most are matches staged in leisure centres,
nightclubs and halls with gloves, referees, trainers and medics."
That's with gloves, in a ring.
Then there's bareknuckle. The BBC say this "could break some UK laws".
Various sources say there are usually some big bareknuckle boxing
matches at the gypsies' Appleby Fair every year. But the police
planning officer quoted in this article in the Westmorland Gazette:
doesn't seem to be very clear:
"'This fight would contravene many regulations' (...) It is without
the governance of a boxing federation and it would also be classed as
some sort of breach of public order.'"
Then the Gazette says:
"But a bare-knuckle fight for cash is classed as an unregulated prize
fight by police and is therefore against the law."
I'm still not sure what the law is, what 'regulated' means, what cash
has got to do with it, and what relationship there is between the
police classing a fight and the fight being illegal.
???
(For what it's worth, I think all boxing is barbaric and agree with
the BMA that it should be banned, but that's another discussion
entirely).
Michael
TheOldFellow
Marriage is not a sport, it's deadly serious. It's just the breeding
bit that gives rise to sports.
R.
steve robinson
I thought it usally the other way round
Sandy
> No. The community assumed that there was a right, if not a duty, to
> chastise children to correct their behaviour. Rather like the right men
> had to chastise their wives. That assumption has gone. There will be
> some who regret the passing of the assumption.
Children copy their parents behaviour and if their parents hit (smack?)
them they will think it's the correct thing to do in the real world
where they will be done for assault.
steve robinson
> > of the sport and hence provide a >> prima facie case against
You get just as many serious injuries in rugby
steve robinson
Thats rubbish spouted by the anti smacking brigade .
You taylor your punishment to fit the crime and the child .
With my girls the eldest used to get her backside smacked as a last
resort , my youngest sent to her room .which with both was a very
rare occurence
The eldest would be happy in her room reading or drawing so it wasnt
a punishment , the youngest used to hate being confined so it was a
far better method of dealing with misbehavour .
It was pointless smacking the younger one because we realised from an
early age that she had a very high pain threshold so for physical
punishment to be effective it would have to go way beyond what my
wife and i considered to be reasonable .
Jon Ribbens
>> (For what it's worth, I think all boxing is barbaric and agree with
>> the BMA that it should be banned, but that's another discussion
>> entirely).
>
The difference would be that in boxing the very purpose of the sport
is to injure the other person, whereas in rugby ... actually, good
point.
Adam Funk
> There are some physical contact sports where people do try to hurt each
> other. They are either illegal because they amount to assault, and people
> cannot consent to assault, or they come close but avoid the criminal law
> being applied to them because there are sufficient formal controls (in the
> form of rules) to give them an appearance of respectability.
>
> The most obvious is boxing. Bareknuckle boxing is illegal because it
> obviously involves an assault and people do get hurt because the rules allow
> for that. The regulated sport of boxing gets through at amateur level
> because there are rules that are enforced, and people don't get hurt. Well,
> no more so than in some other sports.
I'm not claiming expertise here, but I have heard that the
introduction of padded gloves made the risk of head injuries worse in
boxing, because you can pound someone else's head a lot harder without
hurting your own hands.
a...@b.invalid
> precedent, should such an attempt ever be made.
It's already been decided by the House of Lords. Their decision, if I
remember correctly, was that boxing is legal because it clearly is - but
they could come up with no legal reasoning to support their decision.
Epsilon
You can take any form of fighting between individuals, whether boxing or any
other form of martial arts. An organised match with rules designed to
minimise harm will usually be accepted as not breaching the criminal law,
because it's a demonstration of skill rather than a street brawl, and not
intended to harm either participant. Bareknuckle boxing is regarded as on
the street brawl side of the line.
Neither BBC reporters nor the police decide what the law is. Both are
extremely important, and what they have to say on anything at all must be
taken very seriously, of course. But not necessarily believed.
Simon Finnigan
Couldn't agree more. There are also times that something has to be done to
ensure a lesson is learnt quickly and well - some degree of pain can
certainly help in that. For example, running away from a parent onto a busy
road needs correcting as a matter of extreme urgency to avoid the child
being seriously injured or killed.
And there are also situations in adult life where force is a completely
acceptable response, or even first action. Self defence can include getting
the first strike in, to make sure there are no further strikes either way
for example.
Adam Funk
> So (purely theoretically - I hate boxing of all types), what's to stop a
> group setting up the Kingsbury Rules of Barenuckle Fighting and allowing
> blokes to batter each other under its jurisdiction? Who decides what
> should qualify as a "recognised governing body"?
Well, setting one up would violate the first and second rules of fight
club.
hanra...@yahoo.co.uk
> Could someone please summarise the law in England in respect of
> unlicenced and bareknuckle boxing? What exactly is it unlawful to do?
Answering my own question here...
It seems that bareknuckle boxing has been illegal in England since
1882 when the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (R v. Coney (1882) 8 QBD
534) found that a bareknuckle fight was an assault occasioning ABH,
despite the consent of the boxers.
It is of course possible to box using thin gloves, as in the
unlicensed fight between Donny Adams (for the Gypsies) and Roy Shaw
(for the London gangsters) in the 1970s, which was originally going to
be bareknuckle. (What the 'rules' were, I don't know - not
Queensberry).
Michael
Epsilon
> On May 1, 1:00 pm, hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Could someone please summarise the law in England in respect of
>> unlicenced and bareknuckle boxing? What exactly is it unlawful to do?
>
> Answering my own question here...
>
> It seems that bareknuckle boxing has been illegal in England since
> 1882 when the Court for Crown Cases Reserved (R v. Coney (1882) 8 QBD
> 534) found that a bareknuckle fight was an assault occasioning ABH,
> despite the consent of the boxers.
Which is what your first response advised.
> It is of course possible to box using thin gloves, as in the
> unlicensed fight between Donny Adams (for the Gypsies) and Roy Shaw
> (for the London gangsters) in the 1970s, which was originally going to
> be bareknuckle. (What the 'rules' were, I don't know - not
> Queensberry).
It is, of course, not possible to do any such thing. If a couple of street
fighters (aka thugs) choose to engage if a spot of fisticuffs, it's assault.
Thin gloves are no legal defence.
hanra...@yahoo.co.uk
Much unlicensed boxing in England takes place in rings and with
gloves, is publicly advertised, and is not considered illegal.
The 1882 judgement distinguishes between "a blow struck in a prize-
fight" and "boxing with gloves in the ordinary way":
This suggests that some sort of defence might be buildable on the use
of gloves, even thinner ones than usual, in an unlicensed fight in a
ring. With regard to a lot of the unlicensed gloved boxing that goes
on in England today, the law does not seem clear-cut at all.
I don't know how often thinner than usual gloves are used, but
apparently they were used in the Adams vs Shaw fight. I don't believe
anyone has asserted that those boxers were committing a crime,
although undoubtedly they were both thugs. Most unlicensed boxers and
most audience members at unlicensed matches are thugs.
The 'Independent' reported in 1999 that bareknuckle is growing in
popularity in England. While noting that one of their main sources is
explicitly identified as a promoter, and the article itself appears to
be promotional (although freemasons are unlikely to be pleased about
the second paragraph), I doubt that every assertion in it is 100%
false:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bareknuckle-is-all-the-
rage-1120355.html>
The reason I'm interested in this is as a case of how social
conditions in England are becoming more barbaric.
Michael
A.Lee
> <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bareknuckle-is-all-the-
> rage-1120355.html>
>
> The reason I'm interested in this is as a case of how social
> conditions in England are becoming more barbaric.
That article is nearly 12 years old, with few, if any traceable
references, so no inference can be brought from it about social
conditions today, or 12 years ago.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
hanra...@yahoo.co.uk
> <hanrahan...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bareknuckle-is-all-the-
> > rage-1120355.html>
>
> > The reason I'm interested in this is as a case of how social
> > conditions in England are becoming more barbaric.
>
> That article is nearly 12 years old, with few, if any traceable
> references, so no inference can be brought from it about social
> conditions today, or 12 years ago.
I meant the reason I'm interested in unlicensed boxing (not just
bareknuckle) and its popularity, not just in this article from 1999.
Unpublished research (which I cannot cite because it's unpublished)
supports the view that a) it is growing in popularity (number of
individuals who attend at least once a year), both in its openly
publicised and its not openly publicised variants, and b) it is being
referred to increasingly frequently in the media, often in a tone
which is not especially negative; whereas with dog-fighting, which is
always illegal and is therefore never publicised, the position in
respect of a) is unclear and b) is not true.
John Briggs
>
> Unpublished research (which I cannot cite because it's unpublished)
Why can't you cite unpublished research?
--
John Briggs
Epsilon
No doubt. You would be shocked and appalled at the situation in one ot two
other countries.