Man banned from having sex unless he gives police 24 hours notice

[Kalis]

How do you know he is even a human and not a chicken is disguise?

I'm not the one assuming things, you are.

I don't know the background of the case, I have nothing to base a decision on as I don't have the information, so how exactly are you doing it?

[Phookah]

How do you know that he doesn't have prior convictions?

That doesn't matter at all? He didn't get convicted... A court doesn't get the right to say "Okay, well we didn't convict you, but I think you should probably be punished anyway"

[Kalis]

That doesn't matter at all? He didn't get convicted... A court doesn't get the right to say "Okay, well didn't can't convict you, but I think you should probably be punished anyway"

How do you know he hasn't been convicted? We know he was acquitted of one charge, not that he has no convictions.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I'm not the one assuming things, you are.

I don't know the background of the case, I have nothing to base a decision on as I don't have the information, so how exactly are you doing it?

No you are shifting the goal posts and one of them is currently behind the corner flag .

- - - Updated - - -

How do you know he hasn't been convicted? We know he was acquitted of one charge, not that he has no convictions.

Why would he even be free if he was convicted for a relevant crime?

[Kalis]

No you are shifting the goal posts and one of them is currently behind the corner flag .

I haven't shifted any goalposts, I'm asking how you can base a decision on something you have no details about.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would he even be free if he was convicted for a relevant crime?

Not every offence carries a prison term.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I haven't shifted any goalposts, I'm asking how you can base a decision on something you have no details about.
- - - Updated - - -
Not every offence carries a prison term.

No you try to create abstruse scenarios where he has been convicted of another crime or multiples, supposedly also sex related (hence relevant) to warrant the special treatment, but somehow is running around outside, and already has fought a legal battle, through 2 instances no less, for yet another crime. Please.

[klogaroth]

Given that we know almost nothing about the case I will add this to the conversation, from the official Guidance on Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (updated March 2015).

"The requirements also apply to individuals ‘found not guilty by reason of insanity’"

Do we know that hasn't happened?

Pretty much all we know about the guy is that he's in his 40s. We know NOTHING else about what went on during the trial.

[Deleted]

Not every offence carries a prison term.

So there was a guilty verdict?

[Kalis]

No you try to create abstruse scenarios where he has been convicted of another crime or multiples, supposedly also sex related (hence relevant) to warrant the special treatment, but somehow is running around outside, and already has fought a legal battle, through 2 instances no less, for yet another crime. Please.

As it is highly unusual to be put on an order like this, I've never heard of a similar case, why has he been put on it in this instance? You presumably know, as you're claiming that it is wrong to put him on it, so explain please.

[klogaroth]

So there was a guilty verdict?

We don't know.

We know that he was acquitted of rape.

Do we know if he was also charged with any other crimes at the same time?

[Stop Pretending]

Even if its my country fucking it up? Is it okay to bash your own countries government?

Not allowed, I got an infraction for stating how stupid my country is sometimes. ( US ). For " Nation Bashing ".

[Kalis]

So there was a guilty verdict?

We have no idea of any previous convictions.

People get acquitted of rape every day, yet they aren't put on these orders, so what makes this man different? Why are the police so worried about him that they've asked the court for the order?

[Cosmic Janitor]

As it is highly unusual to be put on an order like this, I've never heard of a similar case, why has he been put on it in this instance? You presumably know, as you're claiming that it is wrong to put him on it, so explain please.

Precisely because it is highly unusual this case is interesting. I'm almost sure most people haven't even heard about the possibility, most likely because it is a rather new law. I also don't claim to know the case, that is just something you decided to read into it. As to why I think it's wrong, that is fairly simple: I'd argue it wrong to put anyone on such a notice, as it doesn't serve any purpose besides degrading the person and limiting them in their basic human rights without a valid conviction. If the person is dangerous then he belongs in jail, if he isn't then stop harassing them.

That is usually how it goes: You do something bad, you get caught, then put on trial (maybe after an interim period of somewhat limited rights) and then the system limits your rights for a time because of what you did. Going ahead and saying you are not guilty, but you still kinda are is a no-go in any decent justice system. Even if he was on probation, then this is the wrong approach, because either he violated his probation terms or not.

[dextersmith]

The constitution doesn't do much there....

[Deleted]

How do you know he hasn't been convicted? We know he was acquitted of one charge, not that he has no convictions.

I have to have extended records checks for work. These search for records of absolutely everything including malicious complaints that are investigated. The police can use these for investigation when needed. I am not saying there exists a no smoke without fire argument. I am saying it is improbable a man has an arse capable of spontaneous combustion and a fire starts in whichever chair he sits.

It is highly likely that this guy has a extensive catalogue of targeting unconnected, but perhaps similar in some way, vulnerable victims (he may also have a normal sex life outside of this)who might make poor witnesses. The fact that he was acquitted at a retrial might be a case of a witness that could provide evidence and did so, he then gets a retrial on a, perhaps unrelated, technicality and the (alleged) victim cannot face going through the mill again. All hypothetical but also very possible. Everyone involved might know he did it but it they cannot secure a conviction without due process. They cannot report upon the reasoning because it will most likely identify the man by the details of the past cases or his history as they may have been reported on as unconnected events. There is a very good chance they have made assault charges stick before but never anything sexual that they could have put him on the sex offenders register for. There is also a very good chance that he is involved with compulsory mental health treatment and a psychiatrist has reported a genuine concern of his danger to others. Again this cannot be reported due to its identifying nature.

Given how uncommon these orders are there is, and I am not overly trusting of "the system," probably a very genuine cause for concern. I highly doubt its the police and the legal system trying to stop "some thoroughly decent chap getting a shag."

[Deleted]

That's awfully strange coming from you, I have to say.

Anarchist is actually totalitarian undercover we knew it all along.

[GennGreymane]

Well this absolutely disgusts me.

[Kalis]

Precisely because it is highly unusual this case is interesting. I'm almost sure most people haven't even heard about the possibility, most likely because it is a rather new law. I also don't claim to know the case, that is just something you decided to read into it. As to why I think it's wrong, that is fairly simple: I'd argue it wrong to put anyone on such a notice, as it doesn't serve any purpose besides degrading the person and limiting them in their basic human rights without a valid conviction. If the person is dangerous then he belongs in jail, if he isn't then stop harassing them.

That is usually how it goes: You do something bad, you get caught, then put on trial (maybe after an interim period of somewhat limited rights) and then the system limits your rights for a time because of what you did. Going ahead and saying you are not guilty, but you still kinda are is a no-go in any decent justice system. Even if he was on probation, then this is the wrong approach, because either he violated his probation terms or not.

How do you know he doesn't have a valid conviction? We only know he was acquitted of one rape charge after a retrial and it came down to consent, that's it, nothing else about him is known - no prior convictions are known, no explanation of why the police believe he is a threat, nothing.

So explain to me exactly why he isn't a threat and the police are wrong to believe that he is.

[Deleted]

So explain to me exactly why he isn't a threat and the police are wrong to believe that he is.

The police has to prove that he is a threat not vice vera.

[Kalis]

The police has to prove that he is a threat not vice vera.

They've proved it to the courts, who issued the order.