British man who must give police 24 hours' notice of sex threatens hunger strike

A man cleared of rape who must give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex

The man... ...was acquitted at a retrial in 2015, but is the subject of an interim sexual risk order (SRO)

Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in 2015 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.

The order requires this individual to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.

the man “must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth... at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place.”

“I protest that even though a jury found me unanimously not guilty, after nearly two years I still find myself being punished for a crime that never happened.

Source

Well, if you think things in the US are bad, English and Welsh citizens can be subject to "Sexual risk orders". This means they can be imprisoned for up to 5 years if they don't give the police a 24 hour notice of any sexual activity they engage in, along with the name, address and date of birth of the person they plan on doing the sexual activity with... So the police can meet with the person beforehand and confirm that the planned sexual activity is in fact consensual.
Oh yeah, and they don't even have to be convicted of anything.

a reply to: trollz

How many guys would actually know 24 hours in advance that they are going to get lucky?

Poor bastard.

I'd guess this is the result of multiple allegations that couldn't be proven in court.

We all know the justice system isn't infallible, this seems a good compromise in my opinion.

a reply to: SprocketUK

A good compromise? He was acquitted. The law either works or it doesn't. It doesn't, I love the new breeds of law which restrict a natural human right.

and how offputting for any of his potential partners.... Sorry, but before we get hot, I'll need your name, address and D.O.B. as I am labeled a sex risk and must notify the authorities that we plan to copulate, we'll have to wait until tomorrow of course.....


Buh-Bye!!!

originally posted by: auraofblack
a reply to: SprocketUK

A good compromise? He was acquitted. The law either works or it doesn't. It doesn't, I love the new breeds of law which restrict a natural human right.

Hmm, yes.

Though this kind of thing doesn't happen to someone acquitted of a single count of rape.

Some people play the system . This is how the system can sometimes get a tiny sliver of restitution.

a reply to: trollz

Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in 2015 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.

The order requires this individual to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.

What utter horsepucky!

Yet, we Americans are the ones with our antiquated thoughts about owning firearms. At least we don't have this garbage (yet).

Seriously, though, who in their right minds would vote for this? What an infringement on civil liberties. I'm guessing it was some progressive feel-good legislation meant to look like they were doing something to fight some sort of perceived "rape culture" or something. What shameful legislation.

a reply to: SprocketUK

If the system is getting played, fix the system, don't rape (pun intended) individuals of their natural right to have unplanned sex or get up to five years in prison.

That's absurdity at the highest level.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SprocketUK

If the system is getting played, fix the system, don't rape (pun intended) individuals of their natural right to have unplanned sex or get up to five years in prison.

That's absurdity at the highest level.

Like I said, this was brought in as a response to allegations that far too many rapists were getting away with it.

I may be wrong, but one of the cases used to back it was one of those mass muslim paedo rings that have been in the news. A whole heap of them faced no charges because they used to get the girls drunk and stoned and could thus not be properly identified,
But where the police were sufficiently sure that they were wrong uns, they could use this power to protect other kids from them.


I don't see it as a retrograde step at all.
It's a rare case of common sense law enforcement.

More ludicrous insanity from our retarded criminal justice system. As if a convicted serial sex offender is gonna send the police an email saying "I'm feeling a bit rapey tonight, here's her deets"

What exactly is this supposed to prevent?

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
More ludicrous insanity from our retarded criminal justice system. As if a convicted serial sex offender is gonna send the police an email saying "I'm feeling a bit rapey tonight, here's her deets"

What exactly is this supposed to prevent?

Well, it means that the sneaky sod will be looking at five years for not planning ahead.

Like I said, I have no sympathy, this sort of thing doesn't get dished out for no reason. (I read also that his Internet use is subject to the order).

a reply to: trollz

I'm torn on this one.

When someone hasn't been proven guilty in English law they are considered innocent in the eyes of said law. That should mean nobody can be set adrift in a fudged state of 'innocent but presumed guilty.'

On the other hand, more information is needed and it'll be something the law, rightfully, prevents disclosure on. It'll be to protect/safeguard those who've made the claims that he's a sexual predator.

It's possible the individual has been accused of sexual crimes by enough people to warrant serious concerns. There may be a wealth of historical allegations that can't be substantiated but represent a weight of probability. 'Convicted' doesn't mean he hasn't been charged many times before. For example, he may have a string of date-rape charges from diverse, unconnected individuals involving stuff like rohypnol.

Maybe we should do this to Bill Cosby.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Thats what the authorities like to say, these muppets can't get anything right. Kids die nearly every year because someone didn't notice injuries or someone was off sick. The police lie blatantly and use any technicality under the law to criminalise you as a citizen. Who has the power to grant these?

Let me guess, some pedo who wears a wig? No, its the police.....nothing wrong with that of course.

Just done some more reading and it's also used in cases where someone has a disease like hiv and has failed to inform multiple partners before having sex with them.

I agree it may not be the best law ever, but I think it's better than just turning people lose who you know are bad but just can't prove it to the satisfaction of a court of law.

If he isn't convicted he should not be subject to any sanctions from the state.

Disgusting.

originally posted by: auraofblack
a reply to: SprocketUK

Thats what the authorities like to say, these muppets can't get anything right. Kids die nearly every year because someone didn't notice injuries or someone was off sick. The police lie blatantly and use any technicality under the law to criminalise you as a citizen. Who has the power to grant these?

Let me guess, some pedo who wears a wig? No, its the police.....nothing wrong with that of course.

I'm not the biggest fan of the cops etc. I agree with you broadly, though still think this a useful tool for protecting society.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Here is the thing. They can keep offences on file, but you have to be convicted first. No conviction = not guilty, thats the system....When they want mind you. I have personally witnessed police officers in this country openly discussing making false charges against people so that local people might take matters into their own hands....... The person they wanted to stitch up was not a kiddy fiddler has they were threatening to say.....

Nothing to see here, move along.

This is so wrong on many levels. They claim Laws protect us all but they don't. They can't even use the system they designed to keep us in check for its purpose that they put acts like this in.

a reply to: SprocketUK

yes I see how this protects people..... After they have infected someone and there is evidence they can then prosecute..

I'm sure this comforts the newly HIV pos person. IN itself, its too far reaching whilst being not enough. This act is too open to abuse. In a situation like that stated about HIV infection a response of imprisonment for five years isn't enough. I don't trust any authority in this country because it is all infected with politics, where there is rot..

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: SprocketUK

If the system is getting played, fix the system, don't rape (pun intended) individuals of their natural right to have unplanned sex or get up to five years in prison.

That's absurdity at the highest level.

Like I said, this was brought in as a response to allegations that far too many rapists were getting away with it.

I may be wrong, but one of the cases used to back it was one of those mass muslim paedo rings that have been in the news. A whole heap of them faced no charges because they used to get the girls drunk and stoned and could thus not be properly identified,
But where the police were sufficiently sure that they were wrong uns, they could use this power to protect other kids from them.


I don't see it as a retrograde step at all.
It's a rare case of common sense law enforcement.

Those rings were in south yorkshire, this is in north yorkshire.

This is not common sense law enforcement what so ever.

This is a case of we can't prosecute so we will try to inflict suffering anyway.

Its a disgusting abuse of power designed to ruin someones life.