This is not about rape it's about civil liberties(75 Posts)
I just can't believe this I had heard mumblings about this but my word it's actually chilling
You can't strip people's rights because you feel they may be dangerous you need to get the fucking evidence and gain prosecution this is not the Islamic fucking state or Iran it's actually very scarey
And the sex bit is one thing but how the hell is this man supposed to hold down a job one would imagine you would need some sort of on line source to even look for work we don't even place this restrictions on known sex offenders
Can't believe in the uk this has been allowed to stand one would imagine chad evens is allowed to have a phone and have sex at will and he's convicted sex offender
This has been posted on here before, I think. I strongly suspect that they could not prove him guilty, but are convinced he is guilty.
Think about it - how would they actually know that he kissed a woman or had sex, if she doesn't tell them?
The law should be changed to make it easier to convict rapists. That would prevent this sort of thing from happening.
I am surprised, too - this seems like the weird sort of thing that only happens in the US ... well, except we all know that in the US, rapists walk free even if there are two male eye witnesses for the rape.
What an intriguing story! This guy must have made the judge's blood run cold. Presumably the police had very strong views on the matter too.
Given how pathetic the courts are with sex offenders I'd assume the assessment is that this man is so lethally and proliferatively dangerous the authorities feel going to such lengths is warranted
I think that this restriction will not have been made without a very good reason.
That is so so extreme that i cant help but think there is a bloody good reason for it.
How horrifying. Welcome to the Orwellian nightmare, 2016 version.
That is terrible
If he has not been found guilty he has the right to live his life as he wishes
It isn't fair but that's the justice system
I sort of agree with both points of view, my Guess is that if we knew his actual behaviours then we would concur that he is indeed a sexual risk.
I also feel very very uncomfortable about "innocent" people suffering legal punishments.
Who needs a jury when the judge can just impose a punishment on someone anyway? This is farcical.
It sounds like a judge trying very hard to protect women from someone they believe is a serious risk. Its such a massive decision, one that no-one has taken before, that it leads me to think there are some extremely worrying behaviours going on with this man that the judge felt it was worth whatever possible consequences to them for doing it.
"If you had told me two years ago it was possible to be arrested and thrown in jail having never committed a crime I would not have believed it."
Hes not very bright is he? how does he think it works in the run up to any trial?
Add message | Report | Message poster attheendoftheda
Until one day our sons or husband have this law applied to them
This is not a Zimbabwe or Isis you must must have proof you can't make Somone stand trial twice no less they are found not guilty them decided to impose punishment any way
you can have strong feelings that Somone committed a crime find some to be awful a dangerous but with out proof or a conviction that's just what they are feelings and slander that's it
As a person of colour with a black son whom is more likely to come into contact with police and or courts one would hope that the no smoke with out fire attauide is still no alive and well and that you still have to be found guily before you can be punished
The only other way I can see this could be allowed is if he had not been found guilty but had some mental health issue with Kent he could not consent to sex and needed to inform some appropriate adult but this is not the cas e
I would assume that the people involved with this case will have a lot more information than a tabloid journalist. And if what they know makes them feel he is a danger to women then it's awesome that they are actually going to do something, instead of waiting for the next "alleged" victim.
So you don't believe in inocent before proven guilty
You believe in innocent unless the judge and police feels otherwise
Shall we go back to Tudor times were the queen decided guilt , innocent and punishment
Or may be public referendum he looks guilty we think he's guilty no evidence but my spider seances are tingling
And if they judge or police no somthing eveyone dosent know maybe they should of put it to the frigging jury
As that's what we do in the uk if you start down this road of punishment with out evidence or guilt then you are a village mob
It's very attractive to want to meat out puishments with out having to prove anything however this is uk 2016 not Zimbabwe 2016
I just hope your never arrested for anything as I am sure you will be banking on only being punished if found guilty if you get a punishment any who then what's the point of jury , courts or defence
Even in the us you have to have a ruddy trial before you get punished
I think we don't really know what is going on from a newspaper report. The job of newspapers is to sell newspapers.
We know he got found not guilty that's is a matter of public record and we know he has this order
So what do we know Somone who has committed no crime has this order
I haven't checked the public records and I only have the newspaper report telling me about the "order".
I know nothing else.
There are quite a few "preventative" type orders a court can make even in the absence of a conviction. Evidence is put before the court and this type of order is only granted if the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has carried out actions that are a danger to children or vulnerable adults. It can't be granted on a whim, it requires evidence of dangerous behaviour (that might not be sexual per se, but could involve adult or child grooming, stocking up on 'date rape' drugs etc etc) proven to the criminal standard.
The local newspaper daily reports of the original trial are still online, although they may well get zapped.
If you read them, you will understand why the court order was made.
Can you link shhhhh, would be interested to read that.
I can see that it shouldn't be done because he was found not guilty (although the first jury obviously didn't agree) but the judge must feel really really strongly about this. They wouldn't do it on a whim. And how many false claims are actually made? Especially where it goes to court.
Ive had a google but without the right search terms i cant find any local news reports on the original trial. I dont know what area it was for starters other than (presumably?) yorkshire?
I did see that these SROs have been in place in england and wales for a couple of years so not a new thing invented just for him. And he has also already breached it which i had predicted would happen and was going to post but then googled and saw it had already happened.
I'd be interested to see the coverage of the original trial too
I agree with Gardencentregroupie. OP, have you read anything about Sexual Risk Orders and their purpose? It is quite legal for a court to impose one without a conviction.
You say above that he 'hasn't done anything wrong', but we don't know that. We know that the jury found the evidence insufficient to find him guilty of the crime for which he was brought to court. That doesn't mean he hasn't committed other dangerous behaviours. Yes, the use of Orders such as these needs to be carefully regulated, but in my view, it is positive that there is now a means of monitoring individuals who, albeit unconvicted, pose real risks to the community.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.