Dr. Evil...

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

I've followed this case, albeit not religiously, as one of my friends is a body piercer and has shared links about it. It also interested me from a law on consent viewpoint. 

 

There's quite a large backing on social media for him, saying that his actions shouldn't attract criminal liability. Facebook groups etc. 

 

I'm not sure. Legally, he doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on as the established case law says you can't legitimately consent to injuries that amount to ABH or above, apart from in limited exceptions. 

 

But, there's also an argument that people should have autonomy over their own bodies and can do what they like to them, provided they give a person full, informed consent to carry out a procedure on them. 

 

I'm leaning towards the it warrants legal intervention argument as I'm not fully convinced that it's conducive to the public good to have an unrestricted free for all when it comes to people chopping of other's body parts etc. 

 

Discuss. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/12/body-modification-artist-dr-evil-admits-gbh-customers-wolverhampton

 

Body modification artist 'Dr Evil' admits GBH against customers
Brendan McCarthy carried out tongue-splitting procedure and removed an ear and a nipple

 

Haroon Siddique and agency

Tue 12 Feb 2019 13.12 GMT Last modified on Tue 12 Feb 2019 13.37 GMT
 
A body modification artist who called himself Dr Evil has admitted inflicting grievous bodily harm on three customers by carrying out a tongue-splitting procedure and removing an ear and a nipple.

Brendan McCarthy, 50, changed his pleas to guilty at Wolverhampton crown court on Tuesday after a two-year legal fight in which he unsuccessfully claimed that the consent of his customers provided him with a lawful defence.

Advertisement

McCarthy, from Bushbury in Wolverhampton, carried out the ear removal at his studio in 2015 without using anaesthetic, three years after he split a woman’s tongue with a scalpel and removed another customer’s nipple.

When he first appeared in court in 2017, he denied six counts relating to the three procedures on the basis that the procedures were consensual.

But the judge, Amjad Nawaz, ruled that the registered tattooist could not use his clients’ written permission as a defence. Nawaz based his decision on precedent set by previous prosecutions, including one in which a husband branded his wife’s buttocks with a hot knife.

McCarthy took his case to the court of appeal but it was rejected. In their 12-page ruling, the three appeal court judges, including the lord chief justice of England and Wales, accepted that the ear removal had been done quite well but said it was not in the public interest that a person could wound another for no good reason.

Advertisement

Their judgment read: “There is, to our minds, no proper analogy between body modification, which involves the removal of parts of the body or mutilation as seen in tongue-splitting, and tattooing, piercing or other body adornment. What the defendant undertook for reward in this case was a series of medical procedures for no medical reason … The personal autonomy of his customers does not provide the appellant with a justification for removing body modification from the ambit of the law of assault.”

McCarthy was refused permission to appeal to the supreme court.

An online petition set up to support the “knowledgable, skilful and hygienic” body modification artist claimed the case was a threat to “the right to express ourselves in whatever modified manner we wish in a safe environment” It was signed by more than 13,000 people.

Adjourning the case for the preparation of a pre-sentence report, Nawaz told McCarthy: “These are serious matters. Ordinarily a sentence of custody would be inevitable but there are differences in this case.”

McCarthy was bailed with a condition that he does not undertake surgical procedures. He will be sentenced on 21 March.

Tattoo artists and piercers have to be licensed by local authorities but there are no formal qualifications. Some have called for body modification procedures to be regulated amid concerns they are becoming more extreme.

[Bjornebye]

He doesn't have a leg to stand on is because he chopped them off trying to pierce his nose 

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I remember seeing a programme about body modification, and there was a woman who cut her little finger off with bolt cutters, because she thought a stump finger looked cute. 

 

No idea how people commit to such permanent physical changes - I get worried just trimming my moustache.

[manwiththestick]

Did he charge one million dollars?

[Bjornebye]

8 minutes ago, Babb'sBurstNad said:

I remember seeing a programme about body modification, and there was a woman who cut her little finger off with bolt cutters, because she thought a stump finger looked cute. 

 

No idea how people commit to such permanent physical changes - I get worried just trimming my moustache.

Lifey veets his bollocks 

[Trumo]

Quote

McCarthy, from Bushbury in Wolverhampton, carried out the ear removal at his studio in 2015 without using anaesthetic

 

Was the patient that Fowler1972 blert who used to blog about his missus 'The Gardener'? He had no ears either.

[manwiththestick]

3 minutes ago, Trumo said:

 

Was the patient that Fowler1972 blert who used to blog about his missus 'The Gardener'? He had no ears either.

Whatever happened to that lunatic?

[Captain Turdseye]

11 minutes ago, manwiththestick said:

Whatever happened to that lunatic?

 

Last time I checked he was still on Twitter desperately begging for ‘clicks’. 

[General Dryness]

All this body modification stuff has been going on for years hasn't it? Theres that lizard chap, and the tiger one, and I'm sure I remember seeing some bell end that had turned himself into resemblance of a parrot. It's all a bit fucking silly. 

 

But why suddenly start with the legal intervention now?

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 minutes ago, General Dryness said:

All this body modification stuff has been going on for years hasn't it? Theres that lizard chap, and the tiger one, and I'm sure I remember seeing some bell end that had turned himself into resemblance of a parrot. It's all a bit fucking silly. 

 

But why suddenly start with the legal intervention now?

It's probably down to the differences between US and UK law, as the above folks are US based. 

[Carvalho Diablo]

 

[General Dryness]

11 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

It's probably down to the differences between US and UK law, as the above folks are US based. 

Nah, the parrot fella was in the UK. He was on the Jeremy Cunt show.

 

ETA apparently he had his modifications done by a surgeon. Which I guess must be ok then.

[Aventus]

34 minutes ago, manwiththestick said:

Whatever happened to that lunatic?

He's probably still lurking on here. 

 

I honestly have no idea whether he's a weird cunt, or a legendary WUM for getting under so many peoples skin, including mine. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

10 minutes ago, General Dryness said:

Nah, the parrot fella was in the UK. He was on the Jeremy Cunt show.

 

ETA apparently he had his modifications done by a surgeon. Which I guess must be ok then.

Probably not okay. You'd still imagine they'd be prosecuted. It's not necessary surgery. 

 

I'd never seen him before, but just read that he's refusing to say who chopped his ears off. Probably so they won't get prosecuted. 

[Trumo]

21 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Probably not okay. You'd still imagine they'd be prosecuted. It's not necessary surgery. 

 

I'd never seen him before, but just read that he's refusing to say who chopped his ears off. Probably so they won't get prosecuted. 

 

Maybe he didn't hear the question.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

"who's a pretty boy?" 

 

Not you. You look like a twat. 

[SammyAftershave]

2 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Lifey veets his bollocks 

Wait till you see what he does with his breakfasts.

[Strontium]

There's something wrong when consenting adults can't legally modify their own bodies, but non-consenting babies can have theirs modified by their parents.

[SammyAftershave]

52 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

"who's a pretty boy?" 

 

Not you. You look like a twat. 

Take it to 'The Bird Fancying Amnesty' thread.

[Anubis]

Throw him a frickin bone...

[Lario]

I just wanted to be a shark with frickin' laser beams attached to my head!

[TheHowieLama]

It looks uncomfortable - dead sure I would catch one of my horns in the shower or something

[Hades]

6 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

There's something wrong when consenting adults can't legally modify their own bodies, but non-consenting babies can have theirs modified by their parents.

Agree, the same should apply to birth. We should have the right to euthanise ourselves or sue our parents for being born.

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

There's something wrong when consenting adults can't legally modify their own bodies, but non-consenting babies can have theirs modified by their parents.

Is that an argument against circumcision or against abortion (I doubt it’s the latter, just checking). I also wonder how far that view point goes. Things like vaccinations, etc? 

[Jose Jones]

29 minutes ago, Slippin’ Jimmy said:

Is that an argument against circumcision or against abortion (I doubt it’s the latter, just checking). I also wonder how far that view point goes. Things like vaccinations, etc? 

Also cosmetic surgeons legally modify people's bodies all the time right?  As do piercers and tattooists.

 

It just seems this fella went a bit too far on the old chop suey, without being a qualified surgeon or working in any medical practice.  

 

Seems fairly reasonable to me that you need to have the qualifications in place - not really sure it is impinging on individually liberty to a great degree.  Unless Stronts is advocating that you can chop whatever you like off people with no training whenever you like, so long as they agree to it.