Man ordered to tell police of sex plans 'devastated'
 

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".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-36481127

I had no idea this law existed. Seems very odd to me and I don't quite understand why it would be applied to someone who hasn't committed a sex crime.

How can they order him to do anything if he was acquitted, that doesn't seem right

That's what I thought. It looks like it's because he has an interest in sado-masochistic sex, but if that's the reason they applied the order, then why not make that kind of sex illegal, or apply it to everyone who has an interest in it, ie. make it the law that if anyone is going to have sado-masochistic sex, they have to give 24 hours notice first :laugh: It's just really odd. (And what's also strange is that the order to give notice, isn't specific to sado-masochistic sex, it seems to be any 'normal' sexual contact.) Again, strange considering he was acquitted :shrug:

:laugh: If the above became Law Jamie - a huge percentage of the Judiciary, Corporate bosses, Politicians, and the Aristocracy, would spend half their time giving 24 hour notices. :hee:

:laugh: Indeed

i would not mind

One email a year is not a great hardship

:idc:

The old Lib Dem headquarters on Cowley Street had several ink paintings outside the ladies powder room depicting headmasters caning young ladies.

At one event I attended, a high court judge put his arm round my waist and then patted my arse. When I turned to him and said, did I give you permission to do that? he giggled like a schoolboy and asked me if I wanted to spank him :nono:

:joker:

Because sado- masochism includes blindfolding and tying someone's wrists to the bedhead, it includes a light spanking or a bit of rough sex. I think most people experiment with that sort of stuff don't they?

This sounds outrageous. If he's been aquitted then he's innocent. Why don't the police spend more time going after drug dealers and paedophiles, the ones who cause real harm and stop harassing people, who legally, haven't commited a crime?

If he'd given the police the pin to his phone it'd be all over now, with no order. Makes you wonder why he refused to cooperate. And of course, we don't know the background to the case nor whether he is a repeat offender. I'd like to know all these things before I call the law an ass.

Pull your finger out Mokka :fist:

:joker:

That's a really good one Kirk.
I have genuinely missed your humerous but true responses to issues.:joker:

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.

They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police

So basically, the police can now do as they wish

If they've never been convicted of a crime, what constitutes a "risk"?

It's ridiculous, a person should not be punished by the law when they are declared not guilty in court.

A completely mockery of the law, what's the point of trials if the police can pull **** like this , win or lose?

:joker: at least then we'd know what their spending their time doing!

Yes and personally I don't think it should be made illegal, if it's consenting adults then they can do whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. I just meant it as an example to highlight the hypocrisy of how this man is being treated compared to what the actual law is. (Also, I'm just assuming his interest in sado-masochism is a factor, I don't know the full details but that's how it's suggested in the article).

He would have been acquitted if it's considered that there is not enough evidence to find him guilty. That doesn't mean there is no evidence at all. There is a reason that the legal system isn't quite done with this man. These orders are not handed out to anyone who is innocent with no evidence to prove otherwise. Which isn't the same thing as being found not guilty because there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It'll be interesting to see how his hearing goes.