24 hour notice for sex?

Richeh said:
I think this is one of those cases where there wasn't enough evidence of the actual rape but the testimony of the GP led to this being implemented. Some may think its unfair but if you take the recent case of the toddler who died from what are believed to be sexual injuries caused by her father but due to poor investigation/evidence keeping he has been let off scott free, not for evidence against that he did it. Now if something like this appropriate to his situation was put in place despite not being convicted would you disagree with that?
Click to expand...


It isn't that it is unfair it is totally stupid, how does this punishment stop him raping someone?
 
They contact the woman he tells them he is going to have sex with to warn her that he can't get off unless the woman is afraid of him, that he wasn't sure if he had consent from the other women he slept with in the past and that he fantasises about killing himself and others. So if they still want to shag him they can, but otherwise they are aware of the risks.

It's certainly an interesting case. I was listening to a discussion about it on LBC on my drive home.
 
Richeh said:
I think this is one of those cases where there wasn't enough evidence of the actual rape but the testimony of the GP led to this being implemented. Some may think its unfair but if you take the recent case of the toddler who died from what are believed to be sexual injuries caused by her father but due to poor investigation/evidence keeping he has been let off scott free, not for evidence against that he did it. Now if something like this appropriate to his situation was put in place despite not being convicted would you disagree with that?
Click to expand...

Point is he was found innocent.

Okay he is perhaps dangerous and likely to commit a crime but then so are lots of the population.

Isnt this almost like minority report where you are treated like you were going to commit the crime?

I see the judge today ruled that the terms of his SRO was "disproportionate" and unenforcable and needs revising.

Did anybody realise that his order meant not actually 24 hours notice before sex but 24 hours notice of anything sexual or might lead to sex. eg he is not allowed to flirt sexually verbally or by message and he has to let the police read his phone text messages.

So he has to give the police 24 hours notice before he even talks to a women - as in "chatting up" even if that wasnt going to lead to sex within 24 hours.
 
What has been enforced on him is utterly stupid and has to now be infringing on some of his basic human rights, especially as he is not guilty?*

Seems like an idea some extreme feminists would come up with as a way to 'teach him a lesson.'

*I don't know the ins and outs of this case, I'm just going off the overall result and what has been said.

edit: So it turns out after actually looking into it that he really does have some sort of problem that needs addressing. Which it currently isn't."Very dangerous" individuals should never be left to roam the streets.
 
Last edited:
"I'm giving you 10years notice - I shall be having sex every night. Either with myself or with *insert name*. Please log it."

Yeah, he's into weird stuff that cold quite easily be misinterpreted so it's very much a grey area where so much trust is involved however a slight misjudgement could end horrifically? I don't know but like you say - he hasn't been convicted so why is he on a list? Surely a tracking device or tag would be better and easier to conceal? They don't know what he's up to but they know where he is.
 
timmeh said:
He's living a wood outside of York now as he's not allowed to use any 'communications devices' so is ineligible for unemployment benefits as he can't make himself available to all jobs. He's also now ineligible for legal aid so has to represent himself in court. It's really screwed him over.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37118850
Click to expand...

I don't get it - that contravenes so many basic human rights the guy could sue and become a millionaire at the taxpayers expense!

The trouble is women claim rape etc and then it's down to the man to prove it wasn't the case. He did and won but he's still being hailed over the coals for it....

If he was guilty - castrate him. But a court of law found the case prosecution unjust?
 
IIRC the BBC news covered it earlier in quite some detail about the fact that he'd been violent with sexual partners and wasn't sure if they'd consented etc, and that he's mentioned it to several officials (who have a duty to report certain risks to the general public).

I suspect until today's hearing all the press (any press) had to go on was his side of the story and what the order said, as the CPS etc won't go giving out a lot of details about an individual case that is going through the system.

From what I've heard today I'm not surprised that the courts consider him a risk to women and have taken some form of preventative action, action that may not stop him but will mean that if he's caught breaching it he's going to be acting contrary to a court order which means that they can do something (in the same way giving someone who hasn't got a driving licence a ban won't necessarily stop them driving again, but it means the next time they have a lot more options if it happens again).

[edit]
Found this on the BBC site from after the court case today.
 
"Oh hai police.... I intend to have sex tomorrow at around 7pm. I don't know who with yet, and she probably doesn't know yet neither"

Obviously he went to seek help for a serious fetish or issue, the system doesn't really care about blokes ....so was turned away and instead put through this.

The guy needs to go into a secure mental hospital for 60 days and be properly vetted. But that costs money and doesn't come under "Women's services".
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
"

Obviously he went to seek help for a serious fetish or issue, the system doesn't really care about blokes ....so was turned away and instead put through this.

".
Click to expand...

Did you bother to read any of this before posting such rubbish.

A woman claimed he raped her and he went to trial for that rape.

The judge obviously believed he was a very dangerous individual but he was not convicted.

But of course he is the victim in all this and not the woman because she cannot prove she did not agree to be sexually and physically beaten by the guy.

And of course without this order the next woman that claims to have been raped and beaten by him is back at square one his word against hers.
 
Domi said:
Did you bother to read any of this before posting such rubbish.

A woman claimed he raped her and he went to trial for that rape.

The judge obviously believed he was a very dangerous individual but he was not convicted.

But of course he is the victim in all this and not the woman because she cannot prove she did not agree to be sexually and physically beaten by the guy.

And of course without this order the next woman that claims to have been raped and beaten by him is back at square one his word against hers.
Click to expand...

Let's assume he didn't actually rape her...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom