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.

Being found not guilty or not being convicted doesn't mean he hasn't raped. It definitely doesn't make him 'innocent'. We have an appalling conviction rate for rape in this country, let alone the rapes that aren't even reported.

But

But

But

He says that Jane Smith of 1 High St 1/1/80 has agreed to have sex with him tomorrow. Police visit her and she says yes that's right. Sex begins, and she changes her mind. STILL RAPE but how fucking difficult to prove in court now?!

For those with concern - there has to be evidence of risk. The court were clearly satisfied that this existed to grant the order.

And for the PP that raised concern that it is a cost cutting exercise - that is simply not true, these have been used for some time now, with success.

In Scotland there are three verdicts, guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven essentially means that, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary.

The use of the Not proven verdict is a clear indication that this person likely committed the crime but managed to get away with it.

subject to consent of his partner.

LOL

I think it's quite clever; I suspect the powers that be are well aware that he won't actually comply with the order.

However, it does mean that if a complaint is made to the police by a woman, they don't have to prove consent.

We are all aware of how difficult rape cases are to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the jury could be 97% sure he did it but cannot convict - being not guilty does not mean he is likely to be innocent necessarily.

I'd rather one man not be able to have spontaneous sex than a woman raped because of that 1% of doubt.

Still about time men got used to being second class citizens eh ?

I wouldn't get too worried, I'm sure the patriarchy is safe.

He says that Jane Smith of 1 High St 1/1/80 has agreed to have sex with him tomorrow. Police visit her and she says yes that's right. Sex begins, and she changes her mind. STILL RAPE but how fucking difficult to prove in court now?!

The idea is that Jane Smith, upon hearing that he has to tell the police that he intends to have sex, will change her mind about having sex with a man who is probably a rapist but couldn't be proven guilty.

I'm as much against victim-blaming as the next feminist, but if Jane Smith agrees to have sex with him, despite all that info, she's quite stupid. (Also, it won't make much of a difference - if she initially consented, and changes her mind while he's thrusting away, she has a snowball's chance in hell for a conviction, anyway. At least she'll be able to tell police that she only consents to vaginal intercourse with a condom ... so his not using a condom or raping her anally is more likely to get him into prison than it would usually have.)

That sounds eminently sensible Sherlocked - I wish we could bring that in for the rest of the UK.

There is, of course, the possibility that he met Jane Smith on a "special interest" website and that she will still consent to him after a visit from the police because she shares the same predilection as the man concerned for sexual practices that most "vanillas"would not consider mutually enjoyable or respectful.

In which case, good luck to them both.

But forewarned is forearmed, and this does indeed seem to be about fully informed consent.

So after reading the actual court report, he was acquitted of a crime, but the police seem to have the power based on evidence that was not enough to convict him that he will be a danger. This is a terrifying prospect for our legal system, you are deemed innocent but can still have to face restrictions on your life, WTAF!

you are deemed innocent

He wasn't deemed innocent.

He was not found to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This is a very different thing.

He is considered to be such a risk to women because of his past behaviour that the police and a magistrate have felt it warranted this order.

And thank God for small mercies.

I have to have an enhanced police check for work. I would be out of a job, not just the chance of a shag, if I was in his position. Do you agree with that?

Yes, if you had a job where you were working with vulnerable people where you required an enhanced police check, and you were considered to be so much of a risk to women that the police and a magistrate felt this order was needed, then yes I wholeheartedly believe you shouldn't be in that job.

That was an x post Aye! I was making the point that we already 'restrict' people with no convictions based on a risk assessment. With bloody good reason IMO.

julibelle antisocial behaviour orders and restraining orders can be applied to people who haven't necessarily been convicted of a crime.
Police can disclose whether someone could be a risk to their partner, even if they haven't been convicted.
Some people will be banned from certain jobs that require DBS checks if there is information that suggests they are a risk, even if they haven't been convicted.
So its not a new thing.

Do you disagree with all those measures or is it just this case? If it is just this case, why do you think someone having some restrictions on their sex life is worse than restrictions on jobs they can do, places they can go or people they can talk to?

Sorry,xpost!

Ah right MrsTP!

I did think it was a bit unlike you

From a quick read, seems many of these orders were intended to protect children from sexual offences. So, suppose you have someone who has a clear pattern of behaviour and evidence that makes the police and specialists think he is basically almost at the stage of grooming and raping young kids. There is reason to suggest that this person is high-risk for that specific offence based on evidence.

Should they just wait until he commits an actual offence they can charge and convict him on?

Or should some action be taken to try and stop it getting to that stage? Should we, for example, prevent a potential child rapist from booking a ticket to Malaysia?

He is still innocent, remember, convicted of nothing, but would you really be happy with them taking no action despite the evidence they have?

If you think that no action should be taken in that case, then you are at least consistent. If you think the protection of kids warrants some sort of response, then why don't adults merit the same sort of prevention measures as regards serious risk from potential sexual offenders? As with domestic violence, someone may not have been convicted, but wouldn't you want your daughter/sister/friend to know if their new partners ex-partner(s) had a history of injuries that look like domestic violence? Appropriate, preventative action designed to protect potential victims before a further crime occurs.

As far as I can see, there are TWO types of order, one applied to people who have been convicted of a relevant offence, and one applied to people who have not been convicted. So in this case, it would be the latter that was applied.

If this chap (who remains anonymous, remember) was being so unfairly treated by this order, he would surely be more than happy to provide, totally anonymously, exactly what was discussed that he is considered such a risk. Except he won't, I suspect, because if most of us heard what it was, we might agree. So instead we have this 'it was all a fantasy', and thank goodness for umpteen shades of boring for normalising a bit of slightly naughty spanking............................

I also suspect that many people would be more willing to grant protection orders if someone presented as a risk to animals, than if they presented as a risk to women..........................

I also suspect that many people would be more willing to grant protection orders if someone presented as a risk to animals, than if they presented as a risk to women..........................

Well yes, probably. Because stopping someone having a dog they can't be trusted to look after doesn't impinge on a a rapey man's entitlement to sex (with women who don't want it).

Do the people who have a problem with this tyoe of order also believe that children shouldn't be removed from parents without a guilty verdict from a criminal court?

Which is just a trauma worse than death apparently and he'd rather be in jail with men.

Lurking Ah, the fiction of privileged communications ... not in the UK

I was under the impression that communication do Doctors etc is confidential, unless it involves harm to the person themselves or others and is perceived as a real threat.

On the subject of these orders as a man I am not worried about them, I know I will never be falsely accused of rape but if by some amazing chance I was I don't think I would be placed under one of these orders if found innocent. I believe the Judges/Police would need a lot of background knowledge and information to be able to use one of these orders.

It would be interesting to see the amount of these orders that have been given out to men who have been found not guilty, I would imagine the amount is very small indeed, even though there are a lot of men 'found not gulity'.

I'm pretty sure a psychiatrist would be able to tell the difference between a discussion about a fantasy and something that needed to be reported.