This is not about rape it's about civil liberties

[pleasemothermay1]

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 offender

The Yorkshire links bring more context to the story as the Telegraph story never mentioned the information that came up in court.

He sounds unhinged.

I think it's a difficult situation. He certainly sounds dangerous and I guess the order gives some protection, but surely if he wanted to rape someone he'd just do so and try to make sure he wasn't identified. Also, I don't think waiting 24hours for sex is a problem, but I am somewhat asexual so may be unusual in this. And if he's close enough in a relationship to want to progress to sexual relations surely he would be close enough to his partner to explain things?
If they do nothing and he murders someone people would be asking why nothing had been done to protect people from a dangerous individual.

Where is OP?

It's not much different to an asbo, which lots of people not convicted of anything have. I think the butcher who wasn't allowed to cut meat in his butchers shop early in the morning had more infringement on his career than this guy and was much less risk to the public.

I wonder if the courts decided that just listening to his vile fantasies would be terrifying and revolting for any woman - enough to scar you for life just listening to them - so want potential partners to be aware that there are major concerns about this bloke.

but surely if he wanted to rape someone he'd just do so and try to make sure he wasn't identified.

Thats the same for any order. If someone wants to breach it they will. But we cant just say "oh no point placing an order, there's a chance it wont be adhered to" can we? Might as well scrap the law if thats your thinking.

I think the Telegraph story is quite irresponsible, it leads you to think that he was just accused of rape and found not guilty. The reason he has this order is because of his disclosure to more than one person that he himself thinks he is a danger to women!

You believe in innocent unless the judge and police feels otherwise

I believe I live in a country where the overwhelming majority of accused rapists will walk out of a courtroom scot-free because rape is an incredibly hard crime to prove. I believe that anything the authorities can do to protect women in the face of these appalling odds should be applauded.

I also believe that no-one is going to knock this guys door down and beg him to have sex with them. I believe that it's a very good thing that the police will get to speak to any vulnerable woman he attempts to groom or coerce.

I have posted many times in support of this SRO on this individual.

Having now read the articles linked, it's 100% the right thing IMO.

If someone tells a medical professional they are going to commit suicide, there are protection measures put in place (which also restrict their liberty).

Here, a man has confessed he is likely to rape/kill women, so they've put what protection measures they can in place.

TBH, I'd be more worried about the fact he's still walking free and able to rape/kill than I am about his suffering by not being able to have sex with a new partner within 24hrs.

Very careless reporting going on with this.

I think he is probably a dangerous man about whom something should be done, I'm just not sure how a SRO on its own will help. Could they not have combined it with an order for psychiatric help so there was some sort of keeping an eye on him.

I think the members of the jury who were unsure beyond reasonable doubt he was guilty in the first trial, and the jury who let him off in the second one for the same reason, probably did so because of rape myths. The rape myths in question would be that if someone had really been raped they would not get back into bed with the alleged rapist and they would not continue to be in contact with them on facebook and they would not delay reporting. But those are myths. Raped people do those things because of giving up individual will, or shock, or attempting to minimise what has happened or self blame of some sort.

A lot of women arent sure if they have actually been raped when they have. Even when it is blindingly obviously rape we have been so conditioned to minimise, explain, justify why men do things that we doubt our own thoughts and feelings because of course the man is the authority on these matters and if he is relaxed enough to fall asleep then nothing as traumatic as rape could have just occurred right? We have been sold so much bullshit (rape=stranger in a dark alley) we dont recognise rape when it happens.

Jackie that's spot on and very powerfully expressed. Thank you.

JackieAndHyde4eva Fri 15-Jul-16 23:25:41
Yes.
It may not be relevant in this particular case, but another confusion for a raped woman is that if her body has a reflex physical response like wetness or even an orgasm during the rape she may blame herself. There was someone on MN quite recently that the first happened to and the rapist used that to tell her she wanted it. That left her very confused even though it was absolutely clear she had been raped. These are just common automatic, involuntary responses and do not mean rape has not occurred or that the victim was consenting.

For all the people saying he wasn't found guilty... neither was OJ Simpson!

A judge wouldn't arbitrarily place this restriction on somebody for no good reason.

So people at risk of serious sexual harm are afforded less protection because of perpetrators rights than children?

Are you this upset that we remove children from abusive parents with no proof and no beyond reasonable doubt evidence, just a probability of harm and future risk.

And most of the time we do this perfectly correctly. Or is someone's right to have sex more important than the right to keep a child?

These are just common automatic, involuntary responses and do not mean rape has not occurred or that the victim was consenting.

Indeed, another proof that sex education for women is falling depressingly short of the mark. We are having rapists tell us what our bodies natural behaviours mean. And we're believeing it because we dont know.

People lose certain rights or are detained over risk more often than you'd think, you just don't hear about it.

A simple example, a sentenced prisoner is admitted to a psychiatric hospital for whatever reason, and then their determinate prison sentence ends, are they free to leave? Nope. Not if the staff caring for them are concerned that they are a risk to themselves or others. Someone expressing rape fantasies would fall into this category, even if their original offence was not sexual. They need to have reduced their risk before they can walk out the door. That's why if you end up in hospital rather than jail, for a crime where you wouldn't get a life/indefinite sentence, you can spend a great deal longer detained. I have worked with several people who would probably have only spent 2-4 years in prison, but wound up in hospital and were still (thankfully) detained decades later, because of their clearly high risk of harming others should they be released.

Health care professionals working with forensic populations get very good at assessing risk. I wondered when I read about this, whether it was the rape he was found not guilty of that led to that order, or was it actually something else that made it clear that he is an extremely dangerous man. Having read this thread it makes a lot more sense. I'm just relieved that there are starting to be things in place that can keep the public safe. Juries are great, but they aren't experts, and personally, I would trust a group of professionals/experts over 12 well-meaning members of the public for things like this.

Bluehouse
That is interesting, I agree about it being a relief that things are starting to be put in place that keep the public safe.

It's good the judge in this case was brave enough to do this.
It's good there is a sentence that seems to be saying, OK, no one can absolutely prove you raped this woman but you are still potentially dangerous.

Apparently he's on Victoria Derbyshire saying that his children have deleted him on FB cos everyone is talking about their fathers liking for sadomasochism.............

"John O'Neill, from York, told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme it "must be horrific" for them to see his sexual predilections shared online."

No, it was horrific for them to discover from the trial what did go on (even though he was not convicted of rape), and that a judge was convinced enough that he represents a very real threat to women that they saw fit to impose a sexual restriction order. Dad has an SRO, no surprise if they have deleted him..................

And Daddy probably hasn't helped by making sure this stays in the news, so that even though his kids live overseas, their local press might still be talking about it.

It's a real shame the judge and police have no right of reply.

He's going on all these shows mouthing off about how unfair it is and how it's ruined his life and he's not even done anything. That's the only side people hear.

So, basically a jury didn't find him guilty. I've been in a jury and I thought they were too cavalier with how they reached their decision, including wanting to go home. So, I'd never use the expression "cleared", just not found guilty.
The judge would probably have found him guilty, if it didn't depend on a jury, as in other countries.
And the judge decided to apply measures to protect women.

From the report he can have electronic devices. He must submit them for inspection when requested.
Better than jail, although it seems like a lot of faff and it doesn't seem very effective.

"The judge would probably have found him guilty, if it didn't depend on a jury, as in other countries.
And the judge decided to apply measures to protect women. "

TWO different judges in TWO different courts because the rape trial in a criminal court is a different procedure to the one where the police ask for a sexual restriction order. You make it sound as if the lovely judge in the rape trial disagreed with the jury verdict so stuck an SRO on him anyway, which is a gross misrepresentation of the facts (and just the sort of guff this chap is spouting BTW).

Surely it is very effective if he hasn't had sex since the order?