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.

[Lovelydiscusfish]

I'm totally with previous posters on this.
This order does not in reality prevent him having sex. Any sex he has will never be reported to the police. Who reports someone for having sex with them?
Anyone he rapes or sexually assaults may report him for this, and then they will be more quickly listened to/believed, than they might otherwise have been.
I can shed no tears for a man because he needs to ensure all the sex he has is consensual, ie. not rape. Welcome to the real world of human beings!

[MrsTerryPratchett]

It isn't illegal to be a severe alcoholic living in squalor with no food in the house - but it may well mean that you are deemed incapable of caring for a child. But that is neglect, which is criminal. Or they are abusive, which is criminal. Pretty much anything that would get your children taken away if you could prove it in a Court is criminal. SS don't wait for a criminal conviction because there would be dead children as a result.

And taking someone's kids away or taking someone's job away is massively more dreadful than requiring that someone gets proper consent before sex, which is what this order actually is. For some reason tens of thousands of raped women every year isn't enough...

[UptownFunk00]

How many people agree to have sex in advance?

Hardly romantic.

[DoinItFine]

Rape.

Hardly romantic.

[LaBelleOtero]

Plenty of people don't decide to have sex within 24 hours of meeting someone. If this guy can bother himself to build a relationship he'll probably get his end away, plenty of unsavoury types have before him. But his zipless fuck 'em and forget 'em Tinder dates may be over. So sad.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

In fact the children of parents with a learning disability are more likely than any other group of children to be removed from their parents’ care. I worked at the LD Team and parents with LDs were supported to care for children if they could. Often they couldn't, even with support. At which point it is abuse or neglect. Which is criminal. Now someone with LDs may not have capacity and won't be prosecuted but still. Having a lower IQ won't get children taken away in and of itself.

This man appears to want to have casual sex of a BDSM nature. Not entirely romantic, I wouldn't have thought. My passing acquiescence with BDSM is that it requires a much greater amount of forethought, discussion about consent, limits and safety then other sex. Unless you're just a rapist, in which case it really doesn't.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

acquiescence acquaintance

[AugustaFinkNottle]

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

But the article clearly shows that you have to have the approval of a magistrate and that in this case there are going to be further hearings to decide whether to continue the order. Therefore this man will have plenty of opportunities to challenge the legitimacy of the order in court it's not purely arbitrary.

I looked up the criteria for Sexual Risk Orders. They are imposed:

"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. They replace the previous Risk of Sexual Harm Orders.

The court needs to be satisfied that the order is necessary for protecting the public, or any particular members of the public, from sexual harm from the defendant; or protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.

A prohibition contained in a Sexual Risk Order has effect for a fixed period, specified in the order, of not less than 2 years, or until further order. The Order may specify different periods for different prohibitions."

So there are a number of safeguards built in.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

But then I suppose the reason for that is accepting a person doesn't have to be a criminal (or even a bad person) to be unfit to care for children

Unfit is quite an interesting word to choose when the criteria for a family court removing a child is significant harm.
A child has to have suffered or be at risk of suffering significant harm.
The main difference between civil an criminal is criminal is beyond reasonable doubt whilst family court is ballence of probability.
That does not mean that a SW can make up any old shit they want with out worrying about proving it because the court still wants to examine facts it just means they an decide if it's highly likely or not.

Almost everything that a child can be removed for if it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt could result in conviction.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

LADO panels routinely decide on someone's suitability to work with vulnerable people they have the power to mark a DBS guarenteeing a person won't get work in anything that requires a DBS again and they don't require a conviction either