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

a reply to: SprocketUK

No, it's not common sense at all.

If your country has a justice system, then use it. If that system finds that there is lack of evidence for a crime, then that's the s**t that we have to deal with, as no system of judgment is perfect.

That said, you don't just get to say, "Well, our system must be getting it wrong, so we're just going to punish people anyway, because we can." That's utter nonsense and is the antithesis of common sense.

There is no worse offense, in my opinion, than taking someone's freedoms without proof of a crime. That's what pisses me off so much about things in the U.S. like the TSA watch list.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
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.

I was sitting here wondering how this law can actually be in place without people storming the streets.

This explains it, i guess.

Wow. I'd rather die than live like that. Even if i was celibate....just the humiliation of having to share my most private actions with a monolithic legal authority.

Im glad the comprimise works for ya'll. I'd end up on the evening news over it, personally.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
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.

There is no evidence that he harmed anyone.

Why are people in the UK so authoritarian??

Lads, this ain't the kind of law that just gets thrown round willy nilly.
Only a bent magistrate will agree to putting someone on this register without a ton of information that shows the person is a possible danger to society.

Tell you what, you all enjoy your concealed carry laws and we will enjoy our right to restrict the freedoms of ar5eholes who we know are guilty but manage to skip the noose.
Deal?

a reply to: SprocketUK

You're literally praising a system that punishes people without evidence.

originally posted by: LordSatan
a reply to: SprocketUK

You're literally praising a system that punishes people without evidence.

No I am not. I am praising a system that punishes people who have gotten away with multiple sex crimes.

There has to be evidence else the magistrate won't sign the order.

a reply to: SprocketUK

If I lived under such laws, I would just get the women I know to falsely accuse my enemies of rape so I could ruin their lives.

Punishing people based on testimony alone is ridiculous, if you're going to encourage such things, you deserve to be falsely accused. Let the system you're championing work the way it is intended to.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
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.

If that's the case, then that should be against the law (it probably is), and the courts should be able to find him guilty of it.

Declaring a person not guilty and then punishing them anyways simply because you think the courts let you down is ridiculous. If you're going to punish them no matter the outcome, then why take them to court in the first place?

a reply to: SprocketUK

But this an act that is supposed to protect the public, not punish.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think in the cases of hiv etc it's tagged on after they get out of jail so they can be locked back up right quick again if they do the same thing.




ETA Auraura good point, poor choice of words on my part.

a reply to: Aazadan

You've heard "perception is reality"? In a system where your rights are not guaranteed, due process doesn't exist, and double jeopardy is possible, you keep up trials to maintain a perception of freedom. And since its a democracy, and the rights of individuals are not "guaranteed", the fact that a majority of people in the country will be ok with punishing what they perceive as perverts allows this sort of thing to stand.

I read that and instantly translated it to mean

"Innocent, but presumed guilty anyway--just because."

This is an example of, though not the only one, a State run amok. All for our safety, of course.

Well, when the sons of billionaires in the us rarely see the inside of a cell for long enough to make a cup of tea, then I think we all have "justice problems"

As I've already said, I think it's a reasonable law and I've seen nothing so far to make me think it has been misapplied or over used.

a reply to: SprocketUK



you said a mouthful right there.

and im happy to lay out the accusations against my own system. but as it pertains to the op...ya know...

a reply to: auraofblack

But this an act that is supposed to protect the public, not punish.

That may have been, at some point, the intent...

Yet, somehow or other, the intent has been bent into a shape unrecognizable.

Their case wasn't proved, but the guy is being punished anyway. Where's the justice here?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: SprocketUK

you said a mouthful right there.

and im happy to lay out the accusations against my own system. but as it pertains to the op...ya know...

Fair enough. :-)
It's law where I live, I see no reason to oppose it.
Yes it can be misused if the government is bad enough, but if they wanted to ruin your life they could just take your pc away and say they found a couple of gigs of kid stuff on there.

I have no love for loads of regs off the government but to be fair, they do a better job than I would, if it was up to me I'd put a bullet in the head of anyone I thought was guilty of thst kind of stuff and I know that I'd get it wrong at some point.

a reply to: trollz

Can't he just make a report everyday? Saying he's in a relationship and that he plans to have sex everyday...load the cops down with paperwork and show them how ridiculous it really is...

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I'd guess this is the result of multiple allegations that couldn't be proven in court.

And how would you guess that? And isn't that the point? If the state can't prove something in court they shouldn't be harassing people.

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

How on earth does that make any sense?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: SprocketUK
I'd guess this is the result of multiple allegations that couldn't be proven in court.

And how would you guess that? And isn't that the point? If the state can't prove something in court they shouldn't be harassing people.

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

How on earth does that make any sense?

I guess that because it's not used against every single bloke who is had up on a rape or sex assault case.

There are plenty of people who get off such charges even though they are guilty as hell, so this is a compromise between letting them off Scotfree to do as they wish and convicting them without due process because we know they did it but can't prove it.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

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.

So why doesn't the news report mention anything else in this particular case? Why hasn't the court made any comments as to what else the man might have been accused of?