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

[Felascloak]

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.

Is nobody concerned that a man who a jury found not guilty of rape is nevertheless subject to quite draconian restrictions on his sex life?

Is nobody concerned that a man who a jury found not guilty of rape is nevertheless subject to quite draconian restrictions on his sex life?

Clearly not. Still about time men got used to being second class citizens eh ? Why waste time trying to improve all our rights when it's much easier to boil them down to the lowest common denominator ?

I think this is outrageous. He was found not guilty.

I'm assuming he was into some sort of BDSM practice where his defence were able to argue successfully that No meant Yes?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the police are able to check up on the sex life of someone who is yet to be convicted of a crime, but there's clearly a grey area somewhere which wasn't reported in detail in the article.

I don't understand how they could possibly police this, unless he actually had something tied to the end of it that had to be removed 24 hours in advance. How would they possibly know if he'd had sex last night?! The mind boggles tbh.

FFS Lurking read the responses. Stop knee jerking. Of course it's very concerning and worrying. But at the moment women are being sexually assaulted as a norm. Go on those threads when they come up. There are very few women who haven't been groped, harassed, touched, raped, treated like a piece of worthless meat.

Women are 'sentenced' to fear, harassment, limits on their behaviour and blame for sexual assault as a norm. Even if they are never touched. Tell me how the current system is going to protect my DD.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect our important rights to trial by jury and so on. But the Police and the Courts clearly believe this man is a serious risk. And I know that a very large proportion of men who either never face trial or are acquitted are rapists as well. They just are. So what do you suggest?

Is nobody concerned that a man who a jury found not guilty of rape is nevertheless subject to quite draconian restrictions on his sex life?

I can live with it. The police have a very hard time getting convictions for sex offences - they won't have imposed this for fun. Most likely they know a lot of stuff that we do not.

From the BBC link;
Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales last year 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.

They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.
The man, who said the complainant had consented to sex, was cleared of rape after being held on remand for 14 months.
His trial heard he had an interest in sado-masochistic sex.

But the Police and the Courts clearly believe this man is a serious risk

I feel a lot better knowing that. Police and courts in the UK are unique in the world in never ever making a mistake and getting it wrong. Just ask the Birmingham 6. Guildford 4. Or Stefan Kizsko.

Or Jean Charles de Menezes

Jian Ghomeshi. He was acquitted.

People with no criminal histories who have done nothing wrong are not usually held for 14 months on remand in the UK.

Not necessarily. He was charged with rape, which is an indictable-only offence - same as murder, armed robbery etc. Depending on the details of the allegations, it's entirely possible for someone charged with a crime for the first time to be remanded in custody if the offence is serious enough and the prosecution make a strong enough case. It's also equally possible for it to take 14 months to get to trial, with all the delays that can be all too frequent in the CJS.

I'm not familiar with these orders and I don't know enough about the facts of this specific case to comment on this individual, but in general terms I am very uneasy about people who have been acquitted being subject to this type of restriction. The prosecution haven't proved their case but he's punished anyway? That's the start of a slope that's not just slippery, it's thick with engine grease.

I would love to see an end to rape culture and victim blaming, to see rapists who have raped convicted and sentenced appropriately, for women who have been attacked to be able to come forward without fear of being automatically disbelieved or of humiliation or of death threats on Twitter, but this...this is not the way forward.

This is the latest thing in court to stop men who have shown rape tendencies and or was not enough evidence to convict if I recall. Don't quote me but I think it is also to do with Knowingly infect someone because of lack of protection used.
This is happening all over the country, do not know if it can be policed though, heres hoping, one less sexual deviant out there is one less woman having her life destroyed.

This order means that if this bastard rapes someone else, tgey can lock him up.

Unless his sexual partner isn't willing, the police will never hear about his sex life.

Like with most people.

This just means that a man who the police believe to be a dangeroys sexual predator is going to find it harder to get away with future rapes.

Boo fucking hoo.

When men up and down the country aren't raoing away with impunity, I'll start worrying about their "second class citizen" status.

This measure is in place to protect the real second class citizens.

Page, it is even worse when the case does not go ahead because you are actually married to the rapist!!! the worst time of my life, feel so sorry for his new partner who is blissfully unaware, worries me sick.
Hell on earth.

I work with sex offenders and the police. The reported wording of the Order, if accurate, suggests he needs to advise the police of new sexual partners - at least 24 hours in advance. He could do that weeks before having sex with the new partner. They are basically asking him to disclose the details of new intimate relationships. Of course, this will become a problem for him if he wants to have lots of casual sex.

But in the eyes of the law he hasnt raped someone he was found not guilty, lots of people are charged with crimes they didnt commit and lots if people no doubt get found not guilty when they are but according to the law he didnt do it .

Totally agree Doinit, well said.

I think x2boys, the reason why he got acquitted was either a witness could not testify so this order is in place to make sure he is watched is my understanding, and yes there are innocents out there I agree, but they have have had some evidence to justify this order surely.

I think I'm with Mrs Pratchett on this one. We don't know the details of the rape acquittal and we don't know the evidence the police had that he is considered a threat. I seem to recall reading something about what he said to a psychiatrist during the trial? Okay, he has shown an interest, it would appear in S&M sex. Well, if that is what floats his boat, there are, I'm sure loads of S&M proponents he could get together with, safe words and all that. That, frankly, would be no threat to anyone but themselves (I'm thinking Operation Spanner here BTW). But if what actually interests him is S&M sex with women who didn't really know that was what they were agreeing to, or if the fact that they have been conned or coerced into it is what really gets him going, then that perhaps explains why he would be considered a very real risk.

I plump for the women. The purpose of the order here is to try and protect the public (i.e. those women) from harm. Informed, really informed consent is what is obviously needed from any woman thinking of getting involved with this man!

Rochelle, so what happens if he breaches the order ?

The jury also heard evidence from a doctor with whom he had discussed his past.
He claimed the doctor had misunderstood a discussion of fantasy for a confession, which police later seized upon.
"Thank God 50 Shades of Grey came out when it did, it helped my barrister normalise that," he said.

Somedyke...Consent, very apt word, well said.

I find this disturbing actually. Another case of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. I think this is dangerous invasion of privacy even if this man is a horrible person who deserves to be a jail, that it what a trial if for. This comes very close to circumventing justice to levy a punishment imo.

FreeFromHarm He could be sentenced with up to 5 years custody but in realit, he might be more likely to get a community based sentence. It's hard to comment further without knowing more about the specifics of the case.