Man has to tell police when he plans to have sex

cowboyBuilder

This is crazy

Man ordered to tell police if he plans to have sex

A man cleared of raping a woman has been ordered to give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex.
The man, in his 40s, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted in 2015 at a retrial after claiming the alleged victim had consented.
An interim sexual risk order, initially imposed in December, has been extended for four months by magistrates in York.
It requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
The order - which was drawn up by magistrates in Northallerton, North Yorkshire, and extended in York - reads: "You must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth.
"You must do this at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place."

UK society really is disgusting.
Nazi Big brother SS state.

Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in March last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

Are they serious ???
- The man is innocent!!!

What next, all men be tagged, because lets face it, all men are equipped to be rapists :rolleyes:


Full story here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

Corpus Twisty

I'm guessing here, but he doesn't look like Brad Pitt, right?

Greenmachine

What if he decide to have sex with a guy? Same rule?

ygolometsipe

As articles go, it raises obvious questions like why did the police
want the order?
What pisses me off is that none of the papers have bother to answer that painfully obvious question, talking about sh1t journalism.

It a very click baity story, the way of the internet and the future.

recylingbin

I had to do that once upon a time. I was going out with her tbf.

cowboyBuilder

ygolometsipe wrote: »

As articles go, it raises obvious questions like why did the police
want the order?
What pisses me off is that none of the papers have bother to answer that painfully obvious question, talking about sh1t journalism.

It a very click baity story, the way of the internet and the future.

Agreed, but I'd expect more from the BBC!

PC Lackey

mynextwank. co.uk /bookings/reservations

jungleman

Surprised he can't be named "for legal reasons". Usually when there's a false allegation of rape the accused is named and their name dragged through the mud.

languagenerd

jungleman wrote: »

Surprised he can't be named "for legal reasons". Usually when there's a false allegation of rape the accused is named and their name dragged through the mud.

Probably because he's related to the alleged victim - the media are not allowed to publish anything that might identify a rape victim, so if the accused is a relation, he wouldn't be named either.

Very strange case, though, I can't see how that would even be enforceable unless he's under constant surveillance...

jungleman

languagenerd wrote: »

Probably because he's related to the alleged victim - the media are not allowed to publish anything that might identify a rape victim, so if the accused is a relation, he wouldn't be named either.

Very strange case, though, I can't see how that would even be enforceable unless he's under constant surveillance...

Very true.

I suppose as well, there's a difference between being cleared of rape, and a false allegation of rape.

Donald Trump

If he was guilty then f^$k him. If not, he should find out the schedules of the police who called for it and fill out the names of their wives/girlfriends for nights when he knows they are working!

Azalea

:eek:

Bizarre!

the_pen_turner

so basically this an has been convicted of raping a wan then appealed it found not guilty.
surely she must be guilty of falsely claiming he did rape her


why doesn't she need to tell police that she plans to have sex

the_pen_turner

so basically this an has been convicted of raping a woman, then appealed it found not guilty.
surely she must be guilty of falsely claiming he did rape her


why doesn't she need to tell police that she plans to have sex

ceadaoin.

I think there must be more to this story. Maybe he got off on a technicality and the police have reason to believe he is actually guilty?

Whatever the reason for the acquittal (it might have been directed on a technicality), the one thing I'd be fairly certain of is that there is much more to this story than was (or possibly could have been) reported in the papers.

whatismyname

the_pen_turner wrote: »

so basically this an has been convicted of raping a woman, then appealed it found not guilty.
surely she must be guilty of falsely claiming he did rape her

A defendant being found not guilty of rape doesn't necessarily mean that the accuser was making a false accusation.

It's not nearly as black and white as that.

Azalea

I agree there is likely more to it, but still... policing of when someone has sex - how the fook is that enforceable?

One eyed Jack

Azalea wrote: »

I agree there is likely more to it, but still... policing of when someone has sex - how the fook is that enforceable?

I wouldn't imagine it's something that's monitored as such, I'd imagine it's only likely to be an issue if the person does something while the order is in place, similar to the way a suspended sentence would work.

I have to admit though, it sounds like "thought police" sort of stuff just from reading up about it (I've never heard of it before now), but the way that BBC article is written, the judgement may well be unrelated to the order, and the article is ambiguous on this point.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-restrictions-on-sex-offenders

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

languagenerd wrote: »

Probably because he's related to the alleged victim - the media are not allowed to publish anything that might identify a rape victim, so if the accused is a relation, he wouldn't be named either.

Very strange case, though, I can't see how that would even be enforceable unless he's under constant surveillance...

He was cleared though - there;s no rape victim to protect.

Eugene Norman

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think there must be more to this story. Maybe he got off on a technicality and the police have reason to believe he is actually guilty?

Possibly but that law is a joke anyway. Firstly it wouldn't stop a rapist. The rapist isn't going to tell the police in advance of his future rape plans. In fact any future sex you are fairly sure about and would be in a position to tell the police about would be consensual.

It can therefore only be people who engage in consensual sex who would be affected by this (if they forgot to tell the police). It's an extraordinary intrusion on privacy and sexual freedom.

ceadaoin.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think there must be more to this story. Maybe he got off on a technicality and the police have reason to believe he is actually guilty?

Possibly but that law is a joke anyway. Firstly it wouldn't stop a rapist. The rapist isn't going to tell the police in advance of his future rape plans. In fact any future sex you are fairly sure about and would be in a position to tell the police about would be consensual.

It can therefore only be people who engage in consensual sex who would be affected by this (if they forgot to tell the police). It's an extraordinary intrusion on privacy and sexual freedom.

I've read about another case of this being enforced where a man was HIV positive and engaging in risky behaviours with sex workers who he knowingly infected.

There are also restrictions on this guys phone and Internet use so it could be something similar in this case. Or maybe he has been targeting/grooming vulnerable people? . If he doesn't inform the police and someone accuses him of something they can send him to prison for 5 years even if there isn't enough evidence for a conviction.

Seems like they are pretty sure he will reoffend and have come up with a way to make sure they get him locked up next time.

lazza14

Donald Trump wrote: »

If he was guilty then f^$k him. If not, he should find out the schedules of the police who called for it and fill out the names of their wives/girlfriends for nights when he knows they are working!

Brilliant !!!!

the_pen_turner

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I think there must be more to this story. Maybe he got off on a technicality and the police have reason to believe he is actually guilty?

I understand that he may had done it but in the eyes of the law he was found innocent . even if that was a technicality then he is still innocent. (maybe wrongly found innocent but still innocent).

how can you put a constraint on someone that is innocent.

surely there is a black and white line in the law where your innocent or guilty.

I think its a dangerous precedent to set where someone who is found innocent to have their rights stripped away like this

languagenerd

I'd say there has to be a lot more to this than the media can say. Those orders are only meant to be imposed when there's a significant risk to others. Maybe he has something like HIV and has previously infected others by not telling them in advance, or maybe he admitted in custody that he had fantasies he was going to act on, or maybe they found stuff on his phone/diary that implied he was planning something, or maybe he threatened someone. Or he could even have another case coming up that can't be mentioned in these articles as the media would be in contempt of court.

We don't know the full facts behind it but I don't think that they would impose an order like that without a good reason. I hope not anyway...

thattequilagirl

The article says he was cleared but then says he was acquitted, which is a different thing to being found not guilty.