Is the case against boxing too strong to ignore?

Recently, I wrote about the arguments in favour of legislating to make cyclists have to wear cycle helmets. Doing so got me thinking about a sport which, unlike cycling, doesn’t also double as a gentle recreational pursuit. It’s a sport with an illustrious history dating all the way back to the original Olympics of Ancient Greece, but it’s one which is fraught with all manner of issues – and it certainly isn’t gentle. What am I talking about? Why, none other than the noble art or, depending on your viewpoint, licensed thuggery that is boxing.

Boxing has been with us for centuries and now permeates our everyday language to such an extent that I sometimes feel that we must all be pugilists. Phrases like ‘it’s time to step up to the mark’, ‘he’s on the ropes’ and ‘he’ll have to take this one on the chin’ all come from boxing. We use them now without even knowing where they come from. Granted, if we think about it we can all hazard a guess at what ‘on the ropes’ and ‘taking it on the chin’ mean, but how many of us understand the provenance of ‘stepping up to the mark’? For the record, my understanding is that it’s a reference to a line – a mark – drawn on the ground, either side of which two prize-fighters would stand before the commencement of hostilities.

That was way back when, before the codification of boxing by the Marquess of Queensberry in 1867. Since then, what was always a brutal sport – where initially fighters would simply trade blows until there was just one man left standing – has become more sanitized, especially in the amateur ranks, where headguards are compulsory and doing battle is confined to three two-minute rounds. But regardless of whether the Queensberry Rules are applied in the professional fight game or amid the amateur divisions, there is no escaping one simple fact: boxing is about the intentional infliction of violence by one human being on another.

Photo courtesy of ronnie44052 via Creative Commons

To be a good boxer, you need to be able to hit your opponent as hard and as painfully as possible. For this reason, people die in boxing matches or a few days after them. The former middleweight world champion Alan Minter is a popular and respected British sportsman, but in 1978 his knock out of Angelo Jacopucci in a twelve-round title fight led to the latter’s death a few days later. Three years ago, the Korean boxer Yo-Sam Choi was killed despite actually winning a world flyweight title. He was punched to the canvas (or ‘dropped’, as boxers have it) with five seconds of his fight against Heri Amol remaining. Choi beat the count and won the fight, but collapsed while still in the ring after the bout. He was rushed to hospital, where he underwent brain surgery, only to die just over a week after the fight.

Jacopucci and Choi are far from the only men to have died thanks to boxing. Others have sustained terrible brain injuries; even the best of them all, Muhammed Ali, is now a shadow of his former ebullient self. It is impossible not to conclude that Ali’s Parkinson’s Disease is a consequence of his years in the ring, while other boxers of decidedly more journeyman status end up with damaged cervical spines thanks to the repeated whiplash of being punched in the face.

Is it right that a civilised society continues to allow boxing? When we look at the damage caused by the so-called noble art, should we really endorse governmental proposals to bring it back into schools, because it is somehow ‘character-forming’? Ask any neurosurgeon if he would allow his son (or daughter!) to take up boxing and the answer is predictable, as such professionals know how easy it is to damage the brain.  Is it right that our taxes should go towards treating those who consensually batter one another?

When asked about this particular issue, the chief executive of Headway, Peter McCabe, said, “Headway supports the British Medical Association’s view that Boxing should be banned. The evidence is overwhelming that repeated blows to the head causes chronic brain injury. Anyone taking up boxing is needlessly risking their health.”

The Times sports writer Simon Barnes perennially voices his antipathy to boxing. I confess I hadn’t thought it through in great detail before, but now that I have I find it very hard to disagree with him. What do you think? Should boxing be banned, or should we accept it, as, for one reason or another, has been the case for centuries? 

Will the brave new world of Alternative Business Structures undermine the government’s objective in banning referral fees?

At long last, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has announced a date for the application process for those wishing to avail themselves of the Alternative Business Structure (ABS) regime. Appropriately enough, the date is 3 January, the first working day of 2012. After what seems an age since Sir David Clementi first proposed them (six years, in fact), the new year thus ushers in the brave new world of the ABS.

Is it, though, a world which we will like? I am not so sure. ABSs were much trumpeted following the passing of the Legal Services Act 2007, given that they will revolutionise the way in which solicitors run their businesses and allow non-lawyers to own and invest in law firms. Many high street sole practitioners and some small firms, fearful of the advent of ‘Tesco law’, were quick to sound a cautionary note over the ABS regime, but they are not the only people who have reason to worry. Those of us who believe in the legal profession, especially in the personal injury sector, also have cause for concern.

Image courtesy of the Travel Blog

For me, ABSs are Trojan horses in the battle against referral fees, in particular, and the sometimes over aggressive and unprofessional approach to PI marketing. They enable insurers and claims management companies to own and invest in law firms, thereby circumventing efforts by the Ministry of Justice to reform and improve the personal injury sector – because insurers and claims management companies could, in 2012, now start handling PI claims from start to finish. They will therefore control the whole process. 

Antony Townsend, the chief executive of the SRA, is looking forward to the new world, saying, in a press release dated 1 December: “We welcome the news that we will become an ABS licensing authority from 23 December. This is a milestone that we have been working towards for nearly two years.” He goes on to add that “the public can have confidence that ABS providing reserved legal activities will be regulated according to the same rigorous professional standards as traditional law firms.” 

But how will the ABS regime tackle this issue? There is also a raft of ancillary fees paid by those outside the legal profession, the likes of medico-legal companies, garages, reporting engineers and towing companies. These bodies all habitually pay referral fees, thereby fuelling a vicious circle of money generation around some personal injury cases.  What does the SRA intend to do about this, and the fact that these companies are likely to apply for licenses to set up ABSs? 

There is, though, still time to deal with this issue. The ABS regime gets underway from 3 January, but it does not emerge complete and fully formed. The date represents the start of the application process, but it is thought that actual ABS licences will not be awarded until late February at the earliest. It is to be hoped, between now and then, that a way is found to ensure that the brave new world of ABSs does not undermine that part of the government’s commitment, namely profiteering out of personal injury claims, which many of us support. It is further to be hoped that the professional conduct of cases by the solicitors profession is fully recognised and protected in this short period,  and not fatally undermined.

Should cyclists be compelled by law to wear helmets?

If the government has its way, the current 70mph speed limit on Britain’s motorways will be increased to 80mph in 2013. The Transport Minister, Philip Hammond, told the world that change was in the air at September’s Tory party conference. As he put it: “Britain’s roads should be the arteries of a healthy economy and cars are a vital lifeline for many... it is time to put Britain back in the fast lane of global economies and look again at the motorway speed limit which is nearly 50 years old, and out of date thanks to huge advances in safety and motoring technology.”

Mr Hammond may have a point. The existing 70mph limit was established in 1965. Since then there has been a fall of 75 per cent in the numbers of people killed every year on British roads. It may be the case that only a university-educated technician can fix today’s cars, but technology has undoubtedly made driving a lot safer than it was back in the days when vehicles resembled leviathans and power steering was practised only by weight lifters.

But if there might be a case for raising the speed limit on motorways, it seems to me that we need to be taking a far more cautious view when it comes to another form of transport, one that most of us learnt to enjoy as toddlers – albeit with stabilisers. I’m referring, of course, to cycling: an innocent, invigorating and healthy pursuit, something at which Britain excels as a sporting nation and something that huge numbers of us enjoy recreationally on weekends. What’s not to like, indeed, about cycling?

My sentiments exactly, but a recent chat with Peter McCabe, the CEO of the brain injury association and charity Headway, gave me pause for thought. Headway’s primary aim is to increase awareness of brain injury and its consequences and to initiate activities and campaigns which will reduce the incidence of brain injury.

I was chatting generally with Peter, himself an eminently reasonable man, when the topic of brain injuries sustained following cycling accidents came up. Peter’s usually unruffled demeanour changed dramatically. In fact, it wouldn’t be far short of the truth to say that he became seriously vexed by the issue. Why? Because there is a simple means of reducing, and sometimes avoiding altogether, a brain injury if you come off your bike. It’s this: wear a helmet.

The Post Office compelled its 37,000 cycling postmen and women to wear helmets back in 2003, a decision made following the deaths of five cycling post workers in the three years up to 2001. This was a decision which met with Peter’s approval. “If you spend time on a hospital ward, meeting people who’ve sustained serious brain damage after coming off their bikes while not wearing a helmet, you’d agree with me that compulsory cycle helmets are essential for children. Surely the safety of children in the UK is every bit as important as it is in Australia, New Zealand and 22 States in America (where such legislation has been in force for some years),” Peter told me. He added that it was both heart-rending and infuriating to see such damage, when the government could take real steps to prevent it by a time-honoured expedient: legislation.
What do you think? If it is prepared to increase the speed limit on motorways, on the basis that technology has made driving safer, should the government legislate to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory, just as it did, in 1983, the wearing of safety belts in cars? Do you agree with Peter McCabe or with London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, who seems to cycle everywhere without a helmet, intent on enjoying the wind in his flowing locks? 

For me, whatever the statistics say one thing is obvious. If you’re wearing a helmet while riding a bike and are hit by a car at 40mph, it probably won’t make a lot of difference. But if you’re wearing one and something goes wrong at under 20mph – say because you simply fall off while at traffic lights and hit the ground - it might be the difference between your chances of continuing to enjoy your life or being reduced to a vegetative state. Maybe, then, the government should be looking at legislation to protect cyclists as well as to help motorists come 2013.

From cash-for-questions to referral fees: a short history of institutional dysfunction

The Leveson Inquiry is gripping. All manner of the great and the good seem to be involved in the government’s quest to unravel the culture, practice and ethics of the press. Yesterday Hugh Grant gave evidence; later this week Steve Coogan, J K Rowling, Max Mosley and Garry Flitcroft will appear. We’re only at the outset, too: this one will run and run.

At the same time as Lord Justice Leveson, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, does his best to deal with the phone hacking scandal, a mile or so away in the Old Bailey a jury is hearing evidence in the trial of Gary Dobson, 36, and David Norris, 35, who are accused of the murder of Stephen Lawrence in April 1993. The jury will reach its decision in due course, but the facts of this case are already well-known. Indeed, the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence and the resultant bungling by the police led to an Inquiry led by Sir William Macpherson, whose report was published on 24 February 1999.

The Macpherson report developed the notion of institutional racism, which it defined as follows:
The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. It found that institutional racism was prevalent in the Metropolitan Police Service (and other services), and had played a role in the flawed investigation into Stephen Lawrence’s murder by the police.

More recently, we have seen the scandal of MPs’ expenses. Jumping back a quarter of a century, there was the notorious cash-for-questions debacle. And to return to the present, there has been justifiable public outrage at the outsize and disproportionate scale of bankers’ bonuses.

All of these things, it seems to me, bear a relation to what ails the personal injury sector. I have written often on the many problems which beset this industry. They may not amount to outright criminality, as in some of the analogies above, but they are significant nevertheless and range from the issue of referral fees to a pervasive lack of market transparency, to blatant profiteering, via victim auctions and the endless merry-go-round of commissions, to endemic conflicts of interest. Again, while not criminal acts they are they connected to phone hacking, institutional racism, cash-for-questions, MPs’ expenses and bankers’ bonuses because in each instance malpractice has become systemic. It becomes second nature to those working in each particular sector or industry. They get away with it, and keep getting away with it, for so long that in time they don’t even recognise that their conduct is wrong.

I think, then, that what we witness periodically is institutional dysfunction. Hopefully the Leveson Inquiry will enable the media to put its house in order; similarly, it seems there is now a strong following wind to enable the personal injury sector to reform. But change will only be accomplished via a holistic approach, like that of Macpherson; one which acknowledges that the whole needs to be tackled, rather than just its isolated constituent elements.

As I have said, one means to reform is to embrace the notion of professionalism. This is a subject in itself (what is it, indeed, to act and behave as a professional?) but one thing goes with the territory as much as ethics, honourable conduct and fair play: the idea of accuracy. Accuracy of information, accuracy of intent, accuracy of advice.

Accuracy, too, in the figures disseminated by insurers. Of late, they have been in the habit of saying that insurance premiums have risen between 30 and 40 per cent, because of ‘compensation culture’. They haven’t.  The true figure, according to an analysis of the Association of British Insurers own figures by the Access to Justice Action Group, is around 4.8 per cent for cars and motorcycles. If the figures for commercial and other vehicles are added, insurance costs actually fell by 3.3 per cent. Getting this right – dealing only in the true facts – would be a big step forward in the drive to resolve the problems in the personal injury marketplace.

Change is in the air, but could we do more?

Here’s a story that I only wish was apocryphal. Regrettably, it’s not. In fact, it’s the sort of conversation that we've probably all encountered, at some stage or another.

A group of lawyers from a personal injury firm were out for a drink. They had just attended a conference on the Jackson Review and the myriad of impending changes to civil litigation, not least in the fraught arena of costs. One might expect them to be rather preoccupied, given the impact the changes will bring on their livelihoods.

Not a bit of it. The group was sanguine to a man, ready to take on whatever came their way. It might have been possible to construe this as evidence of an admirable ability to adapt to change, to roll with the dice and serve the law and their clients come what may, were it not for what animated their equanimity. Which was, as one of them put it: ‘Who cares how the system changes? We’ll still find a way to make our money.’

Far-fetched? Sadly not. This is how some in the legal profession think. They’re not interested in their clients; all they care about is making as much money as possible. And they don’t mind if they bend the rules along the way.

This kind of lawyer is not confined to the personal injury sector, but arguably seems even worse when met in this environment. The idea, for example, of victim auctions – of lawyers bidding among themselves to secure the highest value personal injury cases, not because they care about the victim but because they see him or her as a cash cow – is not only anathema to right-thinking members of the profession but also unpalatable to anyone with a sense of morality.

What, though, can be done about this sort of thing? Yes, we need to continue to press the government to consider the full gamut of issues in, for example, its proposed (and welcome) ban on referral fees, and yes, we need to continue to press for legislative change where necessary. But I wonder if there’s more that we could do.

Perhaps it is time to reassert the professional standards and duties that come with the territory of being a legal practitioner. These seem to be too often ignored by those in the personal injury market.  Maybe if like-minded, honourable individuals who are committed to rooting out malpractice formed an alliance, we could do something about the blatant profiteering and corrupt practices that blight our industry?

If a campaigning body was established, it could set about achieving the following:

• Deliver real market transparency – A significant portion of current industry practice deliberately confuses and dodges clarity. Consumers need to know the facts so that they can make decisions from a fully informed position.
• Reign in blatant profiteering – There is a duty to avoid profiteering in every walk of life and this includes personal injury claims. Claims should not be seen as an opportunity to make money without any meaningful contribution being made to the service provided.
• Stamp out conflicts of interest – Nothing must stand in the way of delivering in the interests of the client. Too much is currently done for the benefit of business and not the individual. This situation must cease.
• Commissions should be returned – The current merry-go-round of commissions must stop. Any money paid by a referring party should be returned to the individual.
• Ban referral fees in all their guises – Consumers should have a choice as to who they instruct. While a decision has been taken in principle to ban referral fees, we must campaign to ensure that legislation truly delivers its objective.

What do you think? Is there mileage in forming an alliance to tackle these challenges? Please post a comment here, or, if you prefer, send me your thoughts via e-mail at john.spencer@spencerssolicitors.com.