Rivals set to clash as Lewis Edmondson ordered to defend Commonwealth title against Ezra Taylor
Lewis Edmondson, 11-0 (3), and Ezra Taylor, 12-0 (8), will swap trading barbs for exchanging blows, with BBBofC ordering the two light heavyweights to meet for the British and Commonwealth titles.
Southampton-based Edmondson currently holds both titles, with Taylor named his mandatory challenger after the latter's victory over Troy Jones on the undercard of Cacace-Wood last weekend.
In the build-up to Taylor's bout with Jones, Edmondson attended a press conference to exchange words with his light heavyweight rival.
Watch over 150 boxing events a year live on DAZN - subscribe now
29-year-old Edmondson earned both belts with a majority decision win over Dan Azeez in October 2024, despite being deducted a point in the eighth round for punching on the break.
It will be Edmondson's second defence of his Commonwealth title, having beaten Oluwatosin Kejawa of Nigeria in March, with Taylor watching on from ringside. However, Edmondson is yet to defend his British title, which will also be on the line against Taylor.
A statement from the BBBofC outlined the next steps for both fighters, reading: 'The Stewards decided to put out the above mandatory defence contest to Purse bids to be submitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions to the Board's Head Office by 12:00pm on Wednesday, 11th June 2025, the contest to take place by the end of October 2025.'
The BBBofC also confirmed that Edmondson's fellow Southampton fighter, super featherweight Ryan Garner, will be competing for the British title when he faces belt holder Reece Bellotti in Bournemouth, on Saturday, July 26.
A statement from the board read: 'The Stewards decided to approve a request from Promoter Frank Warren for the above voluntary defence contest, which will take place on Saturday, 26th July 2025 in Bournemouth.'
Alongside Garner, both Edmondson and Taylor are signed to Frank Warren's Queensbury Promotions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Children could be banned from spending more than two hours on any one phone app and blocked from social media after 10pm in new anti-doomscrolling measures
The government is considering measures to ban children from spending more than two hours on any one mobile phone app at a time. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle is mulling a move to cap the amount of time per app youngsters can spend on their phone as part of a swathe of measures designed to reduce 'doomscrolling'. The package could also include preventing children from accessing social media apps, such as TikTok or Snapchat, after 10pm and during school hours. 'My approach will nail down some of the safety challenges that people face online, but also start to embrace those measures that deliver a much healthier life for children online,' Mr Kyle told the Mirror. 'That's what I want young people to have, a developmental safe and nourishing childhood online, just as we strive to for young people offline.' He is focused on exploring how curfews and restrictions on accessibility to apps as a starting point and is aware such measures may not solve the problem entirely. The MP for Hove and Portslade has reportedly held discussions with former and current employees of social media sites, who are open to the idea of preventing access to apps at night or during school. They are also said to be willing to restrict how long children can use an app for, by blocking access once they have reached a certain time limit. There have been suggestions this could be up to two hours. However, Mr Kyle has not yet made a decision on what age bracket these changes could apply to, according to The Mirror. He is also reportedly exploring raising the age at which children consent for their personal data to be processed by online sites. This currently applies to youngsters aged 13 and above, although ministers could raise this to 16. Mr Kyle has previously said that he has taken a keen interest in TikTok's recent introduction of various tools to limit screen time. These include a 10pm curfew for under-16s, which features the device screen being taken over and calming music played, although the tool can be dismissed to continue using the app. Another tool, Time Away, allows parents to set specific times that TikTok is available on their teen's devices. Children can request extra time to remain on the app, but their parents must approve it. Mr Kyle said he wanted to see evidence of how these tools are helping young people before implementing anything, but said he was especially interested in anything that will 'empower parents' to control how long their children are spending on social media platforms. Experts have long cited social media as a factor that can disrupt young people's sleep, relationships and socialisation skills. Data from the Millennium Cohort study, published last January, revealed 48 per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds felt they had lost control over how much time they spent online. A team at the University of Cambridge examined data from the study which tracks the lives of 19,000 Britons born in 2000-2002. When those in the cohort were aged between 16 and 18, they were asked about their social media use. The survey revealed 48 per cent of the 7,000 respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: 'I think I am addicted to social media.' Girls were most affected with 57 per cent agreeing, compared with 37 per cent of boys, according to the data reported by the Guardian.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
James expected to start at left-back as Tuchel prepares to experiment against Andorra
Reece James is in line to be trialled at left-back by England manager Thomas Tuchel in what promises to be an experimental and attacking starting line-up against Andorra in Barcelona this evening. Tuchel's most natural defensive midfielder Declan Rice is expected to be among the substitutes, which points to the England head coach sending his team out very much on the front foot. It is understood that James has been primed to play on the left side with Curtis Jones potentially starting as an inverted right-back and Rice being given a rest. That may open the door for Jordan Henderson, who has not started for England since November 2023, to make an appearance in midfield. Conor Gallagher has been left out of the matchday squad. On Friday, James said that his preferred position is at right-back but Tuchel needs to look at his options on the left with Arsenal teenager Myles Lewis-Skelley the only natural left-back in his squad. Tuchel has previously said that he does not believe James is suited to midfield, despite him playing in that role for Chelsea under Enzo Maresca. Asked about his best position, James said: 'My preferred position is right-back. I've been playing there for a number of years now.' Aston Villa defender Ezri Konsa is in line to play in the centre of defence with Newcastle United's Dan Burn hoping to be given another chance to impress Tuchel. Chelsea star Cole Palmer is said to have been England's best performer in training in Spain and he may be rewarded with a role in what should be an attacking England line-up that could also include his club team-mate Noni Madueke, captain Harry Kane and Aston Villa's Morgan Rogers. Bukayo Saka has been left out of the squad after Tuchel revealed that the Arsenal forward had only completed one full training session during the week due to a small fitness issue. It was confirmed on Friday that Ollie Watkins would be leaving the squad to return to England as precaution due to a minor injury.
