Give Police 24hr Notice of Sex.

Andy90 said:
Group of 18 -20 year old men (well tbh it doesn't matter what age they are) who buy groups of 14-15 year old girls drink, nice clothes, jewellery and take them for rides in their car and to some parties.
Click to expand...

An 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old (mere 3 year gap) is surely more acceptable than a 60 year old 'touching up' a 16 year old?
 
Andy90 said:
Lets throw this into the pot then for those that don't think these orders are a good idea.

Group of 18 -20 year old men (well tbh it doesn't matter what age they are) who buy groups of 14-15 year old girls drink, nice clothes, jewellery and take them for rides in their car and to some parties.

They don't touch them sexually - well not yet anyway. They keep going out with these girls, who think they're brilliant. The girls parents are at their wits ends, but the girls keep running away to be with these lads.

We all know where this is going to end up - its called Sexual Grooming.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you are coming from the copper angle (being one yourself) but, there are laws for this kind of thing, particularly s.15 Sexual Offences Act 2015
 
So a lady is lined up for a date, potentially a shag later, to then be casually told along the lines of: "oh yeah, I'm going to hand your credentials over to the police before I stick it in". I think most women will be running for the hills when they hear that O.o
 
I reckon this guy is on to a loser either way.

  1. He has sex with a woman and doesn't give the police 24 hours notice and her details: he's breached the control order and gets marched off to prison.
  2. He gives the police 24 hours notice and the lady's details, only he doesn't get to have sex for some reason: he's now guilty of lying to the police and gets marched off to prison!
:D
 
This should never happen to someone who hasn't been found guilty of a crime, it's absolutely outrageous and I have no idea how this got passed as a law
 
What does this achieve exactly? If he's going to rape someone he's not exactly going to tell them and it makes no difference if he tells them or not if a woman accuses him of rape.
 
Seeing as how this ridiculous thing states "it requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison", I wonder if having a quick knee-trembler round back by the bins counts? Because generally, drunken ****s are not planned, they just happen.
 
There surely must be more to this than we are being told. If he was found not guilty, how could they possibly make this stick. He would surely be fighting it wouldn't he?
 
Andy90 said:
Lets throw this into the pot then for those that don't think these orders are a good idea.

Group of 18 -20 year old men (well tbh it doesn't matter what age they are) who buy groups of 14-15 year old girls drink, nice clothes, jewellery and take them for rides in their car and to some parties.

They don't touch them sexually - well not yet anyway. They keep going out with these girls, who think they're brilliant. The girls parents are at their wits ends, but the girls keep running away to be with these lads.

We all know where this is going to end up - its called Sexual Grooming.

How would you as stop this from happening? (without all the usual keyboard warrior crap that keeps getting spooled out on these forums?)

Stuck for an answer really aren't you? The lads haven't touched the girls. the girls keep going out with them. At the moment there aren't any 'real' offences. Imagine if it were your daughter?

Then one of them does get sexually assaulted. What would your reaction be towards the Police if they hadn't done anything to protect the girls?

This is one of the real reasons these orders are put in place.
Click to expand...

I find it disturbing that you as a serving Police Officer would post such a thing, by your reckoning then everyone is Guilty before proven innocent. You would have everyone locked up or placed under restrictions because, lets face it, anyone is capable of committing a Crime at any time.

Andy90 said:
Group of 18 -20 year old men (well tbh it doesn't matter what age they are) who buy groups of 14-15 year old girls drink, nice clothes, jewellery and take them for rides in their car and to some parties.
Click to expand...


Or it could be just the girls themselves manipulating the lads and giving them the run around... Oh, wait. They are always the innocent victims, I forgot.

It's a good job we don't punish people for Thought Crime in the UK....:(
 
doofer said:
I find it disturbing that you as a serving Police Officer would post such a thing, by your reckoning then everyone is Guilty before proven innocent. You would have everyone locked up or placed under restrictions because, lets face it, anyone is capable of committing a Crime at any time.

Or it could be just the girls themselves manipulating the lads and giving them the run around... Oh, wait. They are always the innocent victims, I forgot.

It's a good job we don't punish people for Thought Crime in the UK....:(
Click to expand...

This isn't about thought crimes, this is about proactively protecting vulnerable people - especially those who are likely to be victims of CSE. The people subject to these orders are known to be a threat to the public, not joe random.
 
Moses said:
I know nothing about this area, other than looking at the aforementioned document briefly... but yeah, that's what it looks like. A longer quote from the same part,



https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...2015-07-03_FINAL_Guidance_Part_2_SOA_2003.pdf

Page 42.

So, like you say, they can be prohibited from doing certain things - I don't know the full range, but I imagine it'd be eg. not being able to go to hang around outside schools, or be within a certain distance of someone's home, etc. But that's all just prohibiting certain things... and it says they can't have to take positive action (eg. informing them of an intention to have sex), outside of notifying them re: name/address changes. I guess they could be saying he's prohibited from engaging in sexual activity without informing them first, but that seems weird/a lot like they're requiring positive action :p.

Edit ::



In the document I've linked to you can see examples of when these orders will be applied for
Click to expand...

But in those passages you have quoted it says "from the offender". I thought he was cleared and therefore was not an offender.
 
Hades said:
But let's take what you suggest without anyone being found guilty of any crime. Let's say you fancied a girl at work (legal age) and kept talking to her. Would you then find it reasonable to be seen as a pest and need to register all your sexual activity as a result, when you have not been found guilty of anything?
Click to expand...

Except the Police need to prove that the subject of the order poses a threat, which you couldn't do here. I'd also like to make the point that although a conviction isn't required, the subject may have a long list of previous sexual offences before the one for which he was acquitted.
 
People are talking as if the police can go around handing these out as they please. To get a court to impose something like this will require a certain amount of evidence that the person is a risk.

You're not privy to the whole story. Don't forget that.

You'd all go mad if you read up on DVPNs and DVPNs!

doofer said:
Or it could be just the girls themselves manipulating the lads and giving them the run around... Oh, wait. They are always the innocent victims, I forgot.
Click to expand...

When your discussing sexual offences against children, yes, the child is always the victim. Sometimes people's freedoms have to be impacted upon in order to protect a vulnerable person.
 
doofer said:
I find it disturbing that you as a serving Police Officer would post such a thing, by your reckoning then everyone is Guilty before proven innocent. You would have everyone locked up or placed under restrictions because, lets face it, anyone is capable of committing a Crime at any time.




Or it could be just the girls themselves manipulating the lads and giving them the run around... Oh, wait. They are always the innocent victims, I forgot.

It's a good job we don't punish people for Thought Crime in the UK....:(
Click to expand...

I find it quite disturbing that you could insinuate such a thing.

You clearly don't know me, have no idea what I've done or the experiences I had as a Police Officer. If you ever meet me, you'll find an Officer who is firm but fair. There is only one person I believe as regards what they have seen or heard and that is me. Everyone else has to provide evidence to me that is credible, compelling and backed up.

I don't make assumptions as to the guilt or innocence of the suspect. It isn't my place to do that. I gather evidence and have a duty to reveal that evidence both to the prosecution and the defence. I have proven on more than one occasion in the past that a suspect hadn't committed the Offences that were alleged against them by making proper enquiries.

I still, despite what you may personally believe, think that people are innocent until proven guilty.

This isn't about that. I agree he has been acquitted of the allegation. This order is likely not based on that particular matter. It is likely to be based on previous intelligence/behaviour of the individual.

The scenario I suggested, despite Glaucus condemnation of being 'ridiculous' is actually one of the main reasons the Act and power came into being. It came off the back of similar matters and was fully ratified by Parliament.

It isn't there to stop men from chatting up women in a nightclub or in their workplace. It is there specifically to prevent individuals who have a known history of predatory behaviour which is backed up with intelligence from potentially harming vulnerable women. The orders are issued by Magistrates not the Police and are fully tested in Court.
 
Andi90:
'The orders are issued by Magistrates not the Police and are fully tested in Court.'
BBC news item:
'They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.'
So how does the magistrate come to the conclusion that this order is justified seeing as any previous convictions are not revealed to him/her unless the defendant is found guilty by the court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom