Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

This is not about rape it's about civil liberties

74 replies

pleasemothermay1 · 14/07/2016 18:15

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/14/it-consultant-says-his-life-is-ruined-after-police-forced-him-to/

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 offenderShock

OP posts:
RochelleGoyle · 14/07/2016 22:17

Sorry OP, it was Pearlman, not you, who said 'insufficient evidence was presented that he did anything wrong'. I disagree with this - it was insufficient evidence that he had committed the crime in question, not insufficient evidence that he had done anything wrong.

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 14/07/2016 22:18

A Sexual Risk Order appears to be designed to prevent dangerous men from accessing victims. They have been used against paedophile groups where the police had evidence of conspiracy to offend but not enough to convict a gang. We all know how few rapists get convicted. This appears to be a way to protect victims from notably dangerous individuals.

This man told 2 different doctors at different times (one knew him socially) in detail about violent and sex crimes he claimed to have committed. He later said that he was just describing sex fantasies but both doctors, one being a psychiatrist, believed he was reliving real events. The rape charge didn't stick but it sounds as if the authorities are listening to HCP with no motive to lie who are sure this guy is a sadist and a rapist. They're probably thinking that if he goes on to rape/torture or murder women they don't want it coming out that this was entirely predictable.

Felascloak · 14/07/2016 22:23

I don't think it's as dire as he is making out, he is allowed to have sex, he is allowed phones and Internet access, he just needs to tell the police. If he's not doing anything wrong then it's a pain in the backside yes but not massive curtailment of his life. I don't see how it's stopping him getting a job.
We already use orders to prevent antisocial behaviour and domestic violence, no doubt the curtail the liberties of those under them but no one is complaining about that.

Felascloak · 14/07/2016 22:33

Just reading those, what are the courts meant to do? Nothing until he actually murders a woman, when he's already told several people that's what he wants to do? That doesn't seem right to me

Noonesfool · 14/07/2016 22:35

That gives a rather different perspective. OP, I'm interested to know what you think?

JackieAndHyde4eva · 14/07/2016 22:42

I notice that it was a female GP and a female psychiatrist along with female friends he confessed his dangerous thoughts and alleged previous acts of rape and murder to. Hmm i'm sure thats all a coincidence though.

Noonesfool · 14/07/2016 22:46

What do you mean Jackie?

That part of his profile might be getting his rocks off talking about violent sex to women?

JackieAndHyde4eva · 14/07/2016 22:47

Exactly that.

Noonesfool · 14/07/2016 22:48

One of the HCPs says she considered just that.

Original poster
pleasemothermay1 · 14/07/2016 23:01

Sorry but I still think to up hold the fundamental right guilty until proven innocent

We need to treat people in that way still maintain we don't have room for feelings and hunches in our law the court there is only one thing that can convict and prosecute

Evidence

I think if you start punshing people who have been found not guilty were on a slippery slope

I have no doubt he is dangerous however the police need to get there arse is grear and find the dirt this is not they way

OP posts:
JackieAndHyde4eva · 14/07/2016 23:07

Sorry but I still think to up hold the fundamental right guilty until proven innocent

It looks like the SRO was nothing to do with the alleged rape he was accused of but rather because of what he actually told separate unconnected parties. The reason the police and courts became aware of his confessions was because he was accused of rape, yes, but its entirely possible they could have requested an SRO based on his own confessions if either of the doctors he spoke to had reported him. The evidence was that of the professionals and other women he had confessed to.

HarryPottersMagicWand · 14/07/2016 23:10

Read all the links.

I'm gobsmacked that they found him not guilty. How many more women does he need to brag to about this before they realise that all these people cannot be wrong! He definitely gets a perverse kick out of telling these fantasies to women. Now it's obvious what the judge saw in him to impose this order and I'm bloody well glad they did!

Noonesfool · 14/07/2016 23:11

So, OP, if a homeless man with mental health needs approaches a HCP and says he needs to be stopped, should the authorities ignore this or take action to support that person in stopping their dangerous/disturbed behaviour?

ChocChocPorridge · 14/07/2016 23:23

If he convinced enough people that he was this dangerous, then how is it really even that inconvenient to inform the police 24hrs before having sex with new partners.

I think I could probably have managed that with pretty much all of my partners except DP in fact, without having any impact on my life at all.

People do not have a human right to have sex with people within 24 hours of meeting them.

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 14/07/2016 23:25

The more I find out about this man the more it seems suitable that he's been issued with this SRO. This is the sort of situation they seem to be intended to cover. I noticed that the judge made a point of raising reporting restrictions, i.e. wanted this bloke's name and photo in the media. I'd guess the police are v worried about what he might do.

powershowerforanhour · 14/07/2016 23:35

Reckon they think he's a Graham Dwyer in the making and want to identify and help any vulnerable Elaine O'Haras. Good.

Misselthwaite · 14/07/2016 23:51

Not guilty doesn't always mean innocent. Wasn't one of the issues raised with the Soham murders that Ian Huntley should never have had the position of caretaker due to his past? He'd not actually been convicted of sexual offences but the number of complaints made it likely he wasn't innocent either. I know a friend of mine who deals with teacher recruitment and they get people they are not able to use because they do not pass the enhanced DBS/CRB not because they've been convicted of anything but because of notes on their files from the police which makes them unsuitable to work with children.

There is a conflict between the rights of individuals and the rights of other members of society and it can be difficult to draw the line. But I can imagine that this man could conceivably rape and murder a woman and when it came out that he'd previously asked for help to stop him then there would be criticism of health professionals, the police and whoever else open for blame for not doing so.

JackieAndHyde4eva · 15/07/2016 00:01

Well I for one am extremely glad to see that those in authority are creating laws that can be used to prevent rape that doesnt involve inhibiting women's behaviour but rather affects only those who flag themselves up as a serious risk to women.

I have to say i think if someone visited 3 healthcare professionals saying they wanted to blow up downing street the police would have their door kicked in before breakfast and that person would find their liberty severely restricted! There would be no hesitation and nobody suggesting they shouldnt be watched 24/7.

practy · 15/07/2016 00:06

Legally, it is worrying.
But it is so difficult to get a conviction for rape, and it is rarely prioritised by the police. So I suspect a lot is known about this man that can't be said.
Long before DBS checks, I remember the local police confidentially contacting all schools, scout groups and the like telling them not to employ or let a particular man volunteer to work with children. He had never been convicted. But I had never ever known the local police to do that before or since, so I thought they must have had very good reasons for doing so.

practy · 15/07/2016 00:10

It is like Jimmy Salville. So many people knew he was raping underage children, but he has never been convicted. Legally Salville has still done nothing wrong.

inlawsareasses · 15/07/2016 00:22

In a lot of cases that I know of there may have been multiple allegations of secular assault that have either been withdrawn or there isn't enough evidence for a successful trial.

These orders are a massive step forward especially for vulnerable women who other wise may not know that the charming man they have fallen for is actually a unconvinced sexual predator

hownottofuckup · 15/07/2016 00:24

It is absolutely right this order has been made. What it tells us is that the authorities have information to suggest he is a very real danger to sexual partners, this order means any potential partner can be pre-warned.
The police's duty is to 'serve and protect' and that is just what they are seeking to do.
There is no way that order has been made on a judges 'hunch' ffs

inlawsareasses · 15/07/2016 00:26

*sexual assault fgs