It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

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?


Dunno their reasons for not releasing more info but it can be anything from child protection right up to national security.




posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


Their case wasn't proved, but the guy is being punished anyway.


Not exactly "punished"; his freedom has been restricted a little. He's walking the streets, he's not in prison.

SROs are issued exceptionally in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe an individual to be a danger to the public; they are an acknowledgement that the court system is flawed.

As everyone is aware, being acquitted of a crime doesn't necessarily equate to being found innocent.

If it did then OJ Simpson would be an innocent man.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

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?


Dunno their reasons for not releasing more info but it can be anything from child protection right up to national security.


Well, it sounds like a stupid reason to me and I think if they're going to do this to people they should be required to say why. Especially if the person is publicly challenging it. If this man was guilty of anything he hasn't been convicted of you wouldn't think he would go out of his way to challenge it in the news media. I would think he probably believes this is unfair. If he feels it's unfair that strongly, there's a good chance it is.
edit on 1-7-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Look, it ain't perfect, but it's the best we got over here.
Whilst there are some flaws in our system, they are usually balanced out by letting the judges have the freedom of interpretation on any laws.

If this bloke has a squeaky clean past then this will get overturned by the law lords (if it goes that far) and he'll get a load of money in compo.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I would just execute the cops then continue to # my bitch until they shot me just to make a point.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

If this bloke has a squeaky clean past then this will get overturned by the law lords (if it goes that far) and he'll get a load of money in compo.


Yeah. Well, I hope he gets it regardless of whether or not he has a squeaky clean past. People should not be punished for things that can't be proven. That's the worst possible precedent.
edit on 1-7-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-7-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: SprocketUK

If this bloke has a squeaky clean past then this will get overturned by the law lords (if it goes that far) and he'll get a load of money in compo.


Yeah. Well, I hope he gets it regardless of whether or not he has a squeaky clean past. People should not be punished for things that can't be proven. That's the worst possible precedent.


That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Mine differs.

That's why the world is so interesting



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders


People should not be punished for things that can't be proven. That's the worst possible precedent.


yes it is.

and since we come from a nation with a no fly list....it seems we have our own issues with due process. the only difference: us Americans walk around thumping our chest about rights that we just don't have the stones to keep ahold of.

At least Britain doesn't lie to themselves about who they are. In America, we just can't say the same.
edit on 7/1/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: SprocketUK

If this bloke has a squeaky clean past then this will get overturned by the law lords (if it goes that far) and he'll get a load of money in compo.


Yeah. Well, I hope he gets it regardless of whether or not he has a squeaky clean past. People should not be punished for things that can't be proven. That's the worst possible precedent.


That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Mine differs.

That's why the world is so interesting


Life is not supposed to be "interesting" in a police state sort of way.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: BrianFlanders


People should not be punished for things that can't be proven. That's the worst possible precedent.


yes it is.

and since we come from a nation with a no fly list....it seems we have our own issues with due process. the only difference: us Americans walk around thumping our chest about rights that we just don't have the stones to keep ahold of.

At least Britain doesn't lie to themselves about who they are. In America, we just can't say the same.


I am older than the "no fly list" precedent. I'm in my 40s and I don't remember voting for any no fly list. Nor any of the other side benefits we've been blessed with to go along with it.

I have been protesting these things since the first time I heard the words "Patriot Act". And I have been consistent about it. I have been on the internet arguing with people who support these kinds of laws for at least 10 years (longer, actually). I have done everything I can within the law and within my limited means to try and convince people to be more skeptical and objective about these kinds of things.

The things we can legally do about it are basically limited to speech. So I think it's a little odd to be rebuked for it when you simply say this is a bad law. When I'm talking about American laws, I also just say so if I think it's a bad law. I usually don't get involved in discussions about British laws but this one is kind of shocking. I'm sure there are others I just haven't heard about because I'm not British.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: SprocketUK

If this bloke has a squeaky clean past then this will get overturned by the law lords (if it goes that far) and he'll get a load of money in compo.


Yeah. Well, I hope he gets it regardless of whether or not he has a squeaky clean past. People should not be punished for things that can't be proven. That's the worst possible precedent.


That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Mine differs.

That's why the world is so interesting


Life is not supposed to be "interesting" in a police state sort of way.


As far as a list of laws I'd like to see changed, this one is so far down the list I don't even really care about it.

There are way more deserving things such as secret family courts for instance that need sorting out before we need to worry about nonces rights.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

To be clear, im not rebuking you. or anyone. im trying to apply a little context.

im in my 40's as well, and have gone beyond complaining to just saying 'screw it". And people like me, and you, are whats wrong here. we complain, and we give up. but we don't FIGHT.

our grandfathers, our great grandfathers...the provenance of our nation....they wouldn't have tolerated this crap. they would have done something

like i said to someone the other day; we are a pale shadow of what we once were. we use the laurels of our forefathers as a comfortable cushion from which we recline and do nothing more than give lip service to their values. because that is all we are legally allowed to do.

what we have forgotten (and that our national provenance once knew) is that "legal" and "lawful' are 2 different things, and we have a lawful right to do something and not just complain.

if i rebuke you, i rebuke myself. So instead im just going to be honest. Even if it hurts my own ego a bit.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well, you might as well blame yourself for not trying hard enough to educate people because the reason all of this happens is because the majority chooses ignorance and silence. If EVERYONE was making as much noise about it as we have been it wouldn't be politically possible to keep it up.

Most people simply don't care. And that's how it happens. So if people like us try to get people to care and they just shrug, they (or their great grandchildren) will reap what they have sown. Ignorance and slavery. You see how hard it is to simply get one person to care. If people don't care then the only thing that will wake them up is being wrong and living with the consequences.
edit on 1-7-2016 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   

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.


A good compromise of what? Guilty while innocent????? Multiple allegations mean absolutely nothing. A single crime can have multiple charges. Even murdering a single non-pregnant person, can have multiple murder charges which is crazy but true.

So an analogy COULD be, if you had say, multiple charges of bank robbery against you, and you aren't convicted of any wrong doing but you must call the police and tell them 24 hours ahead of time that you will be entering a bank to perform normal banking activities. Do you think that's okay?



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
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.




Actually no, if you do a little research you'll find that conservative members of parliament (Nicola Blackwood and Damian Green just to name a couple) are responsible for this by making amendments to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of 2014. But nice assumptions!



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I don't know if this has been said before, but he could hire prostitutes and just go through the paperwork with prearranged appointments.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux

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.


A good compromise of what? Guilty while innocent????? Multiple allegations mean absolutely nothing. A single crime can have multiple charges. Even murdering a single non-pregnant person, can have multiple murder charges which is crazy but true.

So an analogy COULD be, if you had say, multiple charges of bank robbery against you, and you aren't convicted of any wrong doing but you must call the police and tell them 24 hours ahead of time that you will be entering a bank to perform normal banking activities. Do you think that's okay?


Frankly mate, anyone who has multiple, separate allegations of rape made against them is likely to be rotten.
Do you Honestly know of anyone in that situation who you think of as squeaky clean?

Look at it this way, if the guy is dating someone and they go back to his place to get it on and it is truly consensual, the cops aren't ever gonna know, are they?

But if he gets some girl so wasted she doesn't even know her own name, and she wakes up horrified that he had sex with her in that state when she intended no such thing, she can go go the cops and it's a simple matter to send him down for 5 years.

Alternatively, would you be happy for your daughter or your sister or your mum to enter into a relationship with someone who has a bunch of rape allegations against them?
Honestly now, would you really be ok with it?
I wouldn't.



posted on Jul, 2 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I see where you're coming from but the law is the law and rules are rules. If the rules aren't respected then they're useless. Get him on something and convict him else step away. Suspicion is not grounds for penalty. I mean sure, sometimes there seems to be truth to allegations but without facts, it's a dead end. Many innocent men have lost their lives to suspicion and erroneous but heartfelt accusations.


edit on 2-7-2016 by StoutBroux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: StoutBroux
a reply to: SprocketUK

I see where you're coming from but the law is the law and rules are rules. If the rules aren't respected then they're useless. Get him on something and convict him else step away. Suspicion is not grounds for penalty. I mean sure, sometimes there seems to be truth to allegations but without facts, it's a dead end. Many innocent men have lost their lives to suspicion and erroneous but heartfelt accusations.



There's truth there, but can you name one man who has a sting of such allegations against him who you really think is innocent?
I can't.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: charolais

My assumption being correct or not is irrelevant, because no matter what ideology those who created the legislation may say they hold, this is some over-the-top, lacking-due-process infringement on society.

I guess it just goes to show that both parties really ARE the same big-government, low-freedom parties of control.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join