 |
By *pa and d OP Couple
over a year ago
Barnet |
Saw a story on the BBC news website today which on first reading sounds a little harsh on the guy who it's been applied for.
To surmise, and you can go and read the whole story over there if you wish:
"A man who must give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex after he was cleared of rape has said the ruling "puts an end to your life".
The man, in his 40s, was acquitted last year at a retrial.
He has been charged with breaching the terms of the order by refusing to give police the pin to his phone.
He accused North Yorkshire Police, which declined to comment, of "sour grapes" in applying for a sexual risk order after the case.
The order requires him to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
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.
He said: "Can you imagine, 24 hours before sex? Come on.
He gave the example of chatting to a woman and saying: "There's a nice French restaurant I'd like to take you to, but first the police are just going to come around for a little chat."
"Knock, knock, knock, this is the police, (Mr X) is subject to a sexual risk order and is considered to be potentially dangerous... then they leave."
It's always difficult to comment without knowing the full specifics of a case, but it does make you wonder how the guy, previously found innocent in court could realistically expect to form a normal relationship with anyone in the future whilst this 'order' is in place.
I know there's a need to balance the risk going forward against a person's freedoms but if you're found innocent, then you surely have the right to a normal life going forward?
You could even argue that by denying him the ability to form a normal relationship in this way, it becomes more likely that he'll do something illegal to get his sexual satisfaction (though by saying that I'm not justifying it, just stating a possibility).
What do you all think?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have sympathy for him. The report I read said he was into masochism and fantasised about "50 Shades of Grey-type scenarios".
Fantasising has never been a crime, has it? By those standards, many on here should also be served with the same order! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Saw a story on the BBC news website today which on first reading sounds a little harsh on the guy who it's been applied for.
To surmise, and you can go and read the whole story over there if you wish:
"A man who must give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex after he was cleared of rape has said the ruling "puts an end to your life".
The man, in his 40s, was acquitted last year at a retrial.
He has been charged with breaching the terms of the order by refusing to give police the pin to his phone.
He accused North Yorkshire Police, which declined to comment, of "sour grapes" in applying for a sexual risk order after the case.
The order requires him to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.
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.
He said: "Can you imagine, 24 hours before sex? Come on.
He gave the example of chatting to a woman and saying: "There's a nice French restaurant I'd like to take you to, but first the police are just going to come around for a little chat."
"Knock, knock, knock, this is the police, (Mr X) is subject to a sexual risk order and is considered to be potentially dangerous... then they leave."
It's always difficult to comment without knowing the full specifics of a case, but it does make you wonder how the guy, previously found innocent in court could realistically expect to form a normal relationship with anyone in the future whilst this 'order' is in place.
I know there's a need to balance the risk going forward against a person's freedoms but if you're found innocent, then you surely have the right to a normal life going forward?
You could even argue that by denying him the ability to form a normal relationship in this way, it becomes more likely that he'll do something illegal to get his sexual satisfaction (though by saying that I'm not justifying it, just stating a possibility).
What do you all think?
"
I read this article and thought, he was found not-guilty.... wheres the issue? Obviously we don't have details, but to me he has been imprisoned without any further charges brought against him; is that we do in this country now?
If the police believe he is dangerous can't they prove this some way and then have him incarcerated in the correct institution? Or are we all now to be subject to restrictions because what we may potentially do? Because that is a world I don't want to live in.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Was he found innocent OR was there just not enough evidence to make what he'd done stick ?
Why any sane person thinks that police officers have the time to check on people for the hell of it is beyond me.
There'll be other aspects to this I bet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I suspect there may not have been enough evidence to make it stick. I've had family in the police and they've said its so frustrating because you know when someone's done it but if there's not enough evidence, they walk away.
But we don't know, and we'll never know all the facts. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The case is due back in court on July 14th before a hearing in August. So it's not all cut and dried.
In any case - he was cleared of rape but there may be other sexual offences relating to his that he will be found guilty of.
The police are trying to stop further sexual offences and people are bleating about this man's rights.
I'll wait until after the next court case methinks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If there is not enough evidencew to secure a conviction and someone is found not guilty in a court of klaw then how is it riht to punish them?
This sort of order does have a place, for people released on licence it would be hard to object but this seems wrong to me. And while there are huge problems securing rape convictions this isn't the way to resolve it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not enough of this story.
I can't help think a decision like this would not have been taken lightly against his Human Rights and the litigation shit storm he could unleash.
I wonder why no barnstorming Human Rights lawyer is not fighting his corner?
Which takes me back to not enough of this story is known as to the risk he poses. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
