Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Having to give police 24 hours notice before sex is not having less freedom than if you were in prison.....

114 replies

Felascloak · 09/06/2016 16:25

This man has a sexual risk order in place which says he must notify police 24 hours before he intends to have sex.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

He likens this to "putting and end to his life" and says he had more freedom in prison. This baffles me unless he was having lots of gay sex in prison.

AIBU to think he's being melodramatic in his descriptions and overly focussed on the importance of sex in his life? He can still have sex and there don't appear to be other restrictions.

OP posts:
Original poster
Felascloak · 09/06/2016 16:25

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

OP posts:
Pootles2010 · 09/06/2016 16:27

He's clearly a complete twat. Nasty piece of work.

MrsTerryPratchett · 09/06/2016 16:30

While I am nervous about people being subject to any kind of sentencing without a trial, I am also appalled at (in my area) only 3 out of every 1000 sexual assaults getting to a conviction. People with no criminal histories who have done nothing wrong are not usually held for 14 months on remand in the UK.

He seemed very sure of his entitlement to sex. Which does support that he is a risk. Sex with someone else isn't a right.

LurkingHusband · 09/06/2016 16:32

A trial would have been nice. Probably too much work though.

x2boys · 09/06/2016 16:33

He did have a trial he was found not guilty .

MrsTerryPratchett · 09/06/2016 16:35

But the trial system does not work in the case of sexual assault. It just doesn't. We don't have a better system unfortunately. How do we protect women from sexual predators who know there is very little chance they will ever see the inside of a prison?

EatShitDerek · 09/06/2016 16:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

steff13 · 09/06/2016 16:43

So, he's being punished even though he's been acquitted?

Quimby · 09/06/2016 16:45

Yep

LurkingHusband · 09/06/2016 16:45

He did have a trial he was found not guilty

One idly wonders what a guilty verdict might have meant ?

I am sure the criminal justice system fails all sorts of people all of the time. However there's a whiff of arbitrariness about this. It seem a little like when ASBOs were introduced and perfectly legal behaviour could be deemed a criminal offence.

I'm no lawyer, but I also wonder how this impinges on any potential partners right to a family life ? Maybe he should get a cat ?

EverySongbirdSays · 09/06/2016 16:49

Surely this is completely unenforceable though?

What happens if they think he's had sex without telling them?

How the hell would they prove that one?

LurkingHusband · 09/06/2016 16:49

Removing the contentious sexual element from the equation, as far as I can see, it's the equivalent of being found "not guilty" of shoplifting, but then having a requirement placed upon you that you need to give 24 hours notice before you go shopping.

I'm sure there is more to the story than reported. Key to the issue is what avenues the person has to appeal or fight against the order.

Original poster
Felascloak · 09/06/2016 16:55

I assumed it was give notice for each new sexual partner. If so, then it doesn't impinge on family life as it would have been done by the time the relationship got to that stage.
I think they've done it to give them another means to prosecute if he is accused of rape again. By having to give notice, it puts more onus on him to gain consent, as the police can check.
On the other hand that means disclosing his history to any potential partner.
Still think its melodramtic to claim his life is over.

OP posts:
Quimby · 09/06/2016 17:02

"I assumed it was give notice for each new sexual partner. If so, then it doesn't impinge on family life as it would have been done by the time the relationship got to that stage."

Why would you assume that?
The article you linked states what the order contains.

"It declares 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"."

That's fairly unambiguous. 24 hours before any sexual activity taking place. Nothing to suggest it's "24 hours before any new sexual relationship begins"

Original poster
Felascloak · 09/06/2016 17:05

That suggests to me the details of a new woman. Not having to call 24 hours before each instance of sex with the same woman.

OP posts:
MrsTerryPratchett · 09/06/2016 17:06

If you think about it from a practical, rather than legal, position, it's very clever. If he never informs the police and lots of great consensual sex, there is no way the police will ever knows. If he assaults someone, she goes to the police and they can then do him without having to prove rape, which is very tough. Since women rarely 'cry rape' Hmm and men get away with sexual assault all the time, it's actually brilliant.

LurkingHusband · 09/06/2016 17:06

Felascloak

I assumed it was give notice for each new sexual partner. If so, then it doesn't impinge on family life

from the linked article:

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

Nothing about "new partners" at all. (We''ll put to one side the fact that wording (a) would include masturbation, and (b) exclude unplanned sexual activity)

I think they've done it to give them another means to prosecute if he is accused of rape again.

the key word there being "accused". Not "found guilty".

If merely being accused of a crime - irrespective of the verdict of a criminal court is enough to impose a punishment then God help us all.

MLGs · 09/06/2016 17:07

It's ok, the order apparently only says 24 hours before sexual activity with a female. So he can have sex with any men he likes (much as he could have done in prison I guess).

MLGs · 09/06/2016 17:08

Sorry for gallows humour, undoubtedly misplaced.

MrsTerryPratchett · 09/06/2016 17:10

And if things are left how they are God help women and children.

clarrrp · 09/06/2016 17:11

Sucks for him then. No sympathy at all.

MLGs · 09/06/2016 17:11

Mrsterry I think idea is that women might want to be informed about his "past"/the risk before entering into a sexual relationship with him.

ChocChocPorridge · 09/06/2016 17:12

What it does mean, is that if he doesn't notify them, and the woman subsequently reports a rape, there is no discussion. He broke the terms.

If he has sex with women who are consenting, then sure, no-one will know.

It's not to control him having sex I think, it's to make a rape conviction more likely if he rapes someone.

steff13 · 09/06/2016 17:12

If merely being accused of a crime - irrespective of the verdict of a criminal court is enough to impose a punishment then God help us all.

Amen.

ChocChocPorridge · 09/06/2016 17:14

If merely being accused of a crime - irrespective of the verdict of a criminal court is enough to impose a punishment then God help us all.

It's a bit naive to say that. Police, judges, and other court officials aren't idiots, if someone comes before them, who isn't convicted, but they feel is a danger, they have a responsibility to do what they can within the law - this doesn't seriously impact him at all - it just gives him a cooling off period.