Sexual Risk Orders: Pre-Crime and the Restriction of Civil Liberty.

Sexual Risk Orders were part of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act which became law in the UK in 2014.

Sexual Risk Orders can be made where a person has done an act of a sexual nature as a result of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made, even if they have never been convicted.

...from Spike

They are served in cases where there isn’t enough evidence to convict someone of an actual sex crime. As one leading lawyer says, they’re given to people whom the authorities think ‘might commit an offence’; they’re about ‘predicting crimes’. So Britain in 2016 is policing ‘precrime’; it views certain individuals as precriminals whose rights can be restricted, not on the basis of what they’ve done, but on the basis of what they might do; on the basis of the fantasies of the self-styled seers of officialdom who now police the future as well as the present.

... and reported in the Telegraph this morning.

A man has been banned from having any form of sexual activity with a woman unless he tells police 24 hours in advance. He is also subject to controls on his use of the internet and must tell the police about every phone and device that he has that he could use for accessing the internet or calling or texting people.

Has he been convicted of a crime? No he hasn't. So the police now have powers to restrict individual civil liberties where weak or no charge have been brought.

I don't know where this is all heading but it I find it deeply concerning. We were told last week that thought identification technology is moving away from the realms of science fiction towards actual science.

Minority Report, knocking on your front door very soon.

I will leave the last words with Spike.

A society in which a non-guilty man must provide the police with information about his every sexual conquest is not a free society. It’s the opposite; it’s a society in which no zone of life exists independently of officialdom, and in which more and more of us are viewed as precriminals, and sex is viewed as pre-rape.

Sexual Risk Orders

Man banned from having sex unless he gives police 24 hours notice

In dystopian Britain, the police now hunt down ‘pre-rapists’

yep, it is a pre-crime division then, and no doubt the harbinger of thought crime being formed.

give this a 100 year developing and watch how intolerable the environment becomes to any bad think.

fight this.


And of course, being pushed under the yucky banner of sex..so only perverts would try to argue against it.

-sigh-

originally posted by: Layaly
What's the question?

its not a question, its a heads up, the uk has decided to punish non criminals because they could possibly commit a crime based on no doubt very shaky psychological considerations.

a reply to: SaturnFX

That's not the answer

a reply to: Layaly

I am reporting it as its worrying. Do you think it is right or wrong?

a reply to: SaturnFX

And of course, being pushed under the yucky banner of sex..so only perverts would try to argue against it.

I couldn't agree with you more. This tactic has been used by the government before.

originally posted by: Layaly
What's the question?

Because if can be done to "potential sex offenders" it can be done to anyone. I live in the US. I don't like government over-stepping its authority. I am armed. A pre-emptive strike seems in order if you follow that logic. No one likes sex offenders, but this looks like a test case.

a reply to: Layaly

There isn't one. Just passing on important information on how laws are introduced to protect vulnerable people, but also contain laws that could be used to contain people, that may pose a risk. Who gets to decide what risk someone poses? Oh, that's right, our Governments will have defined that, then refined that, and re-defined it again.

There's no question, just information to do with how you see fit.

This is ridiculous. There are people who, what some people would call, really rough sex and that's what they like. So now the state can issue an order for them to notify them every time they are going to have sex because according to some prude cop is hating?

The start of the era of thought crime. At least it still in the UK, those folks should start a campaign to get this law repealed because this is plain wrong on so many levels.

Good thing the police can't do this in America.

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Who gets to decide what risk so one poses?

Exactly.

My first thread on ATS showed a huge number of men in the UK being prosecuted by the CPS where no charges where brought.

a reply to: Morrad

Certainly, on its face, this is ridiculous. I agree with your position.

My first question is: what did the man do that has authorities thinking he's a danger? Not that that would justify this action, but they didn't just pick some random guy to place this order on... I know he hasn't been charged with a crime, but what did he do?

According to your Sexual Risk Order link, this is to replace a previous, but similar order. So, this has been "creeping" for years. This current Order is much more invasive than the previous one! Risk of Sexual Harm Order

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

His name or background has not been reported. I did search alternate news sites.

I forgot to mention. If he breaks the restriction orders. he can be imprisoned for up to 5 years.

a reply to: Morrad

A few nights ago I was listening to the news on my car radio, and there was one very small comment on this, they said -
"A man has been ordered to give police 24 hours notice if he intends having sex"
That was on the bbc, and that was all they said!

When I heard it I roared with laughter. And that is why I refuse to have a television in my home, because the bbc and the other channels teach us to laugh at what we should be angry about! Had they included the details you have posted I would have been angry!
See how it works?

This is disgusting and the public should be in uproar about this, but they wont be because they've been inoculated against such reactions, instead they laugh like I did!

a reply to: Morrad

Is this a result of a settlement to avoid trial? If no charges have been filed, that's the only way I could see it making sense.

a reply to: Morrad
"reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made"
This right here insinuates that the British authorities have unlimited power of their people-- It's too nonspecific.
Also it echoes the hypocrisy we see in the Catholic church, where men wag the finger at people they deem to be "debaucherous", and condemn sexual activity, many of whom are pervert's themselves simply BECAUSE they are condemning the sexual activity.
Its no secret that the United Kingdom is home to some pervert's. This COULD be effective if they are very careful about issuing these orders.
I myself am a VERY unlikely advocate for social conservatism. Sometimes I feel like I've woken up in a dystopian nightmare, where the "traditional values" of the Western world have been all but completely eroded. I miss the days when women had modesty. There's a lot of unwanted crap that comes along with it, but I miss the 1940's when I believe people had a better sense of right and wrong.
EDIT:I also recognize that women's rights have come ALONG way and have tremendous respect for this. I respect feminist's except for the radical's who take it too far.

a reply to: VP740

There is limited reporting of the case but I can see what you are getting at. I would like to think where the CPS has enough evidence to prosecute, they would proceed rather than offer an unofficial plea bargain.

Could you envisage an actual rapist, who knows the evidence is weak, agree to such terms?



Edit: added more information

a reply to: Morrad

So... what can one do to be given one of these orders? there's no list of what could be deemed possible sexual assaultist?

How would they assume someone might go out and rape? What would they need to be doing? Would it be 'flashing' in public?

originally posted by: TruthxIsxInxThexMist
How would they assume someone might go out and rape? What would they need to be doing? Would it be 'flashing' in public?

That's my question as well... I would think "flashing" in public is against the law, and one could be charged and prosecuted for it...