Man acquitted of rape cannot have sex without informing police 24 hours in advance
Scroll to see replies
Original post by a noble chance
The article is linked in the OP. It is also pasted into the OP.
So your reason for supporting a man acquitted of rape having the degrading measure of having to inform the police 24 hours in advance of any sexual activity is that it doesn't happen very often in rape cases and that therefore they must have good reason to believe he's a risk.
The measure being used against him only came in to force last year, so inevitably it won't have been used for many previous rape cases. The only other information available to you is that he was acquitted of rape. A court did not find enough evidence to be persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt that he had committed rape. If a court didn't have enough evidence, neither did the police. This is good enough for me to believe that he should not have this measure imposed upon him; it makes a mockery of our trial system and goes against our legal tradition of presumption of innocence.
It's also an Orwellian precedent for other areas of law. Someone says you cut them with a knife; you didn't. 'Well, they had a cut and they said you did, so just to be on the safe side you'll need to be accompanied by a police officer on every trip outside your house and conform to a curfew in the evenings for a few months'.
So your reason for supporting a man acquitted of rape having the degrading measure of having to inform the police 24 hours in advance of any sexual activity is that it doesn't happen very often in rape cases and that therefore they must have good reason to believe he's a risk.
The measure being used against him only came in to force last year, so inevitably it won't have been used for many previous rape cases. The only other information available to you is that he was acquitted of rape. A court did not find enough evidence to be persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt that he had committed rape. If a court didn't have enough evidence, neither did the police. This is good enough for me to believe that he should not have this measure imposed upon him; it makes a mockery of our trial system and goes against our legal tradition of presumption of innocence.
It's also an Orwellian precedent for other areas of law. Someone says you cut them with a knife; you didn't. 'Well, they had a cut and they said you did, so just to be on the safe side you'll need to be accompanied by a police officer on every trip outside your house and conform to a curfew in the evenings for a few months'.
These Sexual Risk Orders were intended to be used against serial sexual offenders, particularly against children, so as to help police them in the community - the main discussion when the order was passed was about stopping paedophiles being free to do as they wished once released from prison.
As always, there seems to be some drift in the original purpose and it is being widened. I share your concern about putting an order like this on someone not convicted. It appears to be against the basic spirit of English common law and sense of justice.
It's worth noting though that there are also websites developing around the world that seek to exchange information about predatory men and warn women about them in advance. Maybe it's going to get harder and harder to keep this kind of thing private anyway. I don't doubt that the magistrates who administered this order felt that they had good reasons, although it was heavily dependent on information from the police.
There has to be a basic assumption that the state cannot interfere with people's private sexual lives. In this case though the law is about seeking to control people who are repeatedly predatory and disturbed.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
It's worth noting though that there are also websites developing around the world that seek to exchange information about predatory men and warn women about them in advance.
More info?
Maybe it's going to get harder and harder to keep this kind of thing private anyway. I don't doubt that the magistrates who administered this order felt that they had good reasons, although it was heavily dependent on information from the police.
There has to be a basic assumption that the state cannot interfere with people's private sexual lives. In this case though the law is about seeking to control people who are repeatedly predatory and disturbed.
There has to be a basic assumption that the state cannot interfere with people's private sexual lives. In this case though the law is about seeking to control people who are repeatedly predatory and disturbed.
The only requirement BBC reports for using one of these orders is that the police think they pose 'a risk of sexual harm'.
There isn't any information in the article about him being either predatory and disturbed. The context implies that the order came about as a result of him being charged with rape, albeit acquitted in the end. I think they would probably include the crucial tidbit that the man had some bad history that warranted the use of the order as lots of people are probably keen to know that the police are exercising appropriate restraint with these powers.
How are these orders even enforceable? Are people under them monitored? I seriously question how effective what is otherwise self-monitoring will be for those people who are 'predatory and disturbed'. The only people who will comply with these orders are people that shouldn't be on them in the first place.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by 0123456543210
I don't usually support human rights, but this shall be an exception. They have totally denied him a right to be presumed innocent before proven guilty and pretty much made him guilty without any possibility of proving otherwise.
Consider yourself fortunate you live in a society where you don't need to worry about your human rights and them being infringed on.
Original post by the bear
is he allowed to have a **** or does he have to fill in a form first ?
I think an SMS suffices
Original post by a noble chance
I think an SMS suffices
Before undertaking your act of self-pleasure you are required by the Chief Constable of Kafkashire to provide the following information:
i) Location
ii) Start time
iii) Estimated duration
iv) Any accessories to be used during said act
v) Nature of fantasies you propose to use during said act. A brief description of not less than 300 words is required.
vi) An outline of how you will deal with hazardous material arising from the said act. For a small fee we will be happy to arrange an appointment for you to discuss the health and safety aspects with our specialists. Once they have certificated you there will be no further input required for the next six months.
Original post by Daniellaaa
So do they need to sign a consent form on the dotted line? 
yes , it will be ideal situation that both signs and the police will come round to check after 24 hours expires that all is a "smoothy"!!
What this world is leading to!!
Original post by the bear
Before undertaking your act of self-pleasure you are required by the Chief Constable of Kafkashire to provide the following information:
i) Location
ii) Start time
iii) Estimated duration
iv) Any accessories to be used during said act
v) Nature of fantasies you propose to use during said act. A brief description of not less than 300 words is required.
vi) An outline of how you will deal with hazardous material arising from the said act. For a small fee we will be happy to arrange an appointment for you to discuss the health and safety aspects with our specialists. Once they have certificated you there will be no further input required for the next six months.
i) Location
ii) Start time
iii) Estimated duration
iv) Any accessories to be used during said act
v) Nature of fantasies you propose to use during said act. A brief description of not less than 300 words is required.
vi) An outline of how you will deal with hazardous material arising from the said act. For a small fee we will be happy to arrange an appointment for you to discuss the health and safety aspects with our specialists. Once they have certificated you there will be no further input required for the next six months.
Permission denied. Insufficient care was taken in the preparation of tissues.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Permission denied. Insufficient care was taken in the preparation of tissues.
this is a tissue of lies
Original post by 🌹💖👦🏻👩🏻💘🌟
Any man is automatically guilty of rape if he gets accused of rape. Doesn't matter if he did it, the law cares not about the truth.
Someone has been mistaken for a rapist ..: ¬¬
following input from the public the Chief Constable of Kafkashire is pleased to make the following announcement:
In response to the feedback we have received regarding our ground-breaking Self- Pleasure regulations I have decided to open a special facility at Headquarters. We appreciate that the paperwork system was not ideally suited to the needs of all of the masturbators of Kafkashire, so we are delighted to unveil our new solution.
For the modest sum of £35 + VAT members of the public may indulge in Onanism for up to half an hour in the modern fully equipped Pleasure Chambers. No paperwork is needed after the preliminary certification process. Fully qualified therapists will be on hand to provide assistance throughout the session.
This scheme will run in tandem with our original home-based system. Members of the masturbating public may if they wish avail themselves of a life-time subscription for the very reasonable one-off payment of £3000. A life-membership barcode will be tattooed discreetly on their person allowing instant verification.
Anyone wishing to indulge in the Sin of Onan within the boundaries of Kafkashire must comply with these requirements. Non-compliance will result in the severest penalties.
Your servant
K O'Brien
Chief Constable
In response to the feedback we have received regarding our ground-breaking Self- Pleasure regulations I have decided to open a special facility at Headquarters. We appreciate that the paperwork system was not ideally suited to the needs of all of the masturbators of Kafkashire, so we are delighted to unveil our new solution.
For the modest sum of £35 + VAT members of the public may indulge in Onanism for up to half an hour in the modern fully equipped Pleasure Chambers. No paperwork is needed after the preliminary certification process. Fully qualified therapists will be on hand to provide assistance throughout the session.
This scheme will run in tandem with our original home-based system. Members of the masturbating public may if they wish avail themselves of a life-time subscription for the very reasonable one-off payment of £3000. A life-membership barcode will be tattooed discreetly on their person allowing instant verification.
Anyone wishing to indulge in the Sin of Onan within the boundaries of Kafkashire must comply with these requirements. Non-compliance will result in the severest penalties.
Your servant
K O'Brien
Chief Constable
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by a noble chance
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. It also sounds like something straight out of 1984; I almost went to check the date to make sure it wasn't 1st April. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted or never even arrested for in the first place?
Perhaps someone can explain to me what the hell is going on here. Do we no longer operate a system of innocent until proven guilty, or is this just for rape cases? This sounds like presumption of guilt to me. It also sounds like something straight out of 1984; I almost went to check the date to make sure it wasn't 1st April. Surely this must breach some kind of constitutional convention or international human rights law? What is the point of trials if we are going to assume that people are a risk and treat them accordingly on the basis of charges of which they have been acquitted or never even arrested for in the first place?
This is the legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/schedule/5/paragraph/4
There are a lot of problems with the case as reported.
Firstly, we do not know whether the application for the SRO is made in respect of a acts for which he was acquitted of rape. The report is the form of "an interim SRO has been made in respect of Fred Smith who bought a new coffee table last year". The report narrates the rape acquittal as a past event but doesn't say that the present application is consequent on the acquittal. If it isn't, then we are commenting without really understanding what is going on.
If the act of a sexual nature relied on to support the application is the same act as that for which he was acquitted of rape, then we certainly have a problem. The SRO application is a "balance of probabilities" application. Obviously the rape trial was a "beyond reasonable doubt" case. It is possible to have someone acquitted applying the criminal standard but later found to have done the act by the civil standard, but the key thing is that the parties to the two proceedings are different. So for example a man may be tried for rape and acquitted but then sued by the victim for battery and be found liable. However in that situation the Crown has prosecuted and the victim is not a party to the case. The victim is not bound by the outcome of proceedings to which she is not a party. Here the Crown prosecuted for rape and the Chief Constable applies for the SRO. To regard them as different parties is stretching it. Normally the Crown is not allowed to dispute the outcome of a criminal case in other proceedings.
The requirement is that respondent has done an "act of a sexual nature as a result of which it is necessary to make such an order". Act of a sexual nature is not defined but the government's interpretation is far wider than one might think
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/442151/2015-07-03_FINAL_Guidance_Part_2_SOA_2003.pdf
It is perfectly obvious that posting on TSR could be an act of a sexual nature (which is one of the reasons that older posters on TSR tend to be very clear about who they are so there are no misunderstandings)
However, in this case the man clearly did an act of a sexual nature (it was not in dispute that he had the woman had intercourse) but if, as he said, the intercourse was consensual, why was it necessary to make an SRO? Although a few fathers might think differently,
why do women need protecting against a man who engages in consensual intercourse?Under the old law where an unreasonable belief that a woman was consenting was a defence to rape, one could see why then women might need protecting against a non-rapist with extremely bad judgement (the woman does not consent, the man thinks she does, that belief is unreasonable) but under the present law where any belief in non-existent consent has to be reasonable, why do women need protecting?
This is an interim SRO so the police have not yet proved the grounds for an SRO.
An SRO can only impose negative requirements. "do not give sweets to children". One can make virtually all essentially positive requirements negative or vice versa by appropriate wording. If one allows the textual form to dominate, then the limitation to only negative requirements is worthless. If one looks at the substance, is the requirement here "do not have sex" (a negative requirement that would satisfy the legislation but is most unlikely to be ECHR compliant) or "tell the police before you have sex" (an unlawful positive requirement). I would suggest it is the latter dressed up in negative form.
I do not think the legislation was ever intended to cover situations like this. SROs are first cousin to an ASBO. The point about an ASBO is that each act of anti-social behaviour is either not illegal or is only trivially illegal but the aggregate behaviour is seriously harmful. I think an SRO was designed to be similar. It wasn't designed to catch acts which could be, and in this case apparently were, the subject of separate prosecution.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
Here is a court refusing an SRO
http://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/155481/court-throws-out-sexual-risk-order-bid-against-old-colwyn-oap.aspx
http://www.northwalespioneer.co.uk/news/155481/court-throws-out-sexual-risk-order-bid-against-old-colwyn-oap.aspx
A court has thrown out a police bid for a "sexual risk order" against a shorts-wearing pensioner who claimed any exposure by him had been "unintentional" - when he had been foraging for nuts.
Original post by the bear
A court has thrown out a police bid for a "sexual risk order" against a shorts-wearing pensioner who claimed any exposure by him had been "unintentional" - when he had been foraging for nuts.
A court has thrown out a police bid for a "sexual risk order" against a shorts-wearing pensioner who claimed any exposure by him had been "unintentional" - when he had been foraging for nuts.
As you do
Do you think the District Judge was:-
(a) incredibly naive; or
(b) thought the police were using a sledgehammer on those nuts?
Original post by the bear
following input from the public the Chief Constable of Kafkashire is pleased to make the following announcement:
In response to the feedback we have received regarding our ground-breaking Self- Pleasure regulations I have decided to open a special facility at Headquarters. We appreciate that the paperwork system was not ideally suited to the needs of all of the masturbators of Kafkashire, so we are delighted to unveil our new solution.
For the modest sum of £35 + VAT members of the public may indulge in Onanism for up to half an hour in the modern fully equipped Pleasure Chambers. No paperwork is needed after the preliminary certification process. Fully qualified therapists will be on hand to provide assistance throughout the session.
This scheme will run in tandem with our original home-based system. Members of the masturbating public may if they wish avail themselves of a life-time subscription for the very reasonable one-off payment of £3000. A life-membership barcode will be tattooed discreetly on their person allowing instant verification.
Anyone wishing to indulge in the Sin of Onan within the boundaries of Kafkashire must comply with these requirements. Non-compliance will result in the severest penalties.
Your servant
K O'Brien
Chief Constable
In response to the feedback we have received regarding our ground-breaking Self- Pleasure regulations I have decided to open a special facility at Headquarters. We appreciate that the paperwork system was not ideally suited to the needs of all of the masturbators of Kafkashire, so we are delighted to unveil our new solution.
For the modest sum of £35 + VAT members of the public may indulge in Onanism for up to half an hour in the modern fully equipped Pleasure Chambers. No paperwork is needed after the preliminary certification process. Fully qualified therapists will be on hand to provide assistance throughout the session.
This scheme will run in tandem with our original home-based system. Members of the masturbating public may if they wish avail themselves of a life-time subscription for the very reasonable one-off payment of £3000. A life-membership barcode will be tattooed discreetly on their person allowing instant verification.
Anyone wishing to indulge in the Sin of Onan within the boundaries of Kafkashire must comply with these requirements. Non-compliance will result in the severest penalties.
Your servant
K O'Brien
Chief Constable
Owing to government cuts, Kafkashire Police Sexual Monitoring Unit are to be merged with Orwell Police Sexual Forecasting. The new force will be known as "Big Prude".
Sensationalism on TSR? Nah, I don't believe it possible, kind sir!
Original post by callum_law
Sensationalism on TSR? Nah, I don't believe it possible, kind sir!
Who's being sensationalist?
Original post by a noble chance
Who's being sensationalist?
A court will only impose an interim sexual risk order only if it considers it "just to do so" (s122E(3) of the ACPA 2014). For such an extensive and restrictive order to be considered, there must have been some considerable body of persuasive evidence for the court to consider it just to impose such an order—and the court has seriously engaged the order on two separate occasions, once when it was made and again when it was renewed. It seems as if you are not considering the complexity of the issue and you are assuming a very simplistic scenario of acquittal and presumed innocence. This is seemingly not the case.
S112A of the ACPA amends (only slightly) s123 of SOA 2003 which was exclusively concerned with protecting children (s123(3)). This provision of the ACPA therefore is inherently protective and designed to be mainly protective to vulnerable persons. We do not know the particulars of the acquitted case, but we must assume that the novelty of the order and the provenance and nature of the provision utilised that the court has a very persuasive body of evidence indicating a pressing need which has bound them to this course of action. This is not your ordinary case of "lad accused of rape after meeting a bird in a club and found not guilty, but some court decided to ban him from having sex" which likely the people in this thread have envisioned by the description offered by the BBC.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?