3 ms·

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

13 points by apsec112 11y ago

pedrocr 11y ago
So he needs to call every 24 hours to say "I am planning on having sex in the next 24 hours"?
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  No, the order requires him to identify the woman.
  - lostdatagram 11y ago
    I'm curious if he's required to inform them of any men he plans to have sex with.
venomsnake 11y ago
> Sexual risk orders are a civil order and can be made when the person concerned has not been convicted of a sexual offence. the whole story is when Kafka meets Orwell.
kweinber 11y ago
What amazed me is that thr police have restricted his freedom before even convicting him of anything... Seems like a lot of power- anyone here know how thry justify these orders? "[These orders of protection] are used when someone has not been convicted of a sexual offence, but the police convince a court it is necessary for one to be made against the person to protect the public from him or her.'
- DanBC 11y ago
  It's a bit scary. Here's the relevant (I think, I could be wrong) bits of law. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/risk-of-sexual-harm-orders http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crosshead... The sex that is being prevented is listed: > (3)The acts are— > (a)engaging in sexual activity involving a child or in the presence of a child; > (b)causing or inciting a child to watch a person engaging in sexual activity or to look at a moving or still image that is sexual; > (c)giving a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains a reference to such activity; > (d)communicating with a child, where any part of the communication is sexual. Here's a press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-restrictions-on-sex-offenders https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-re... Here's an explanatory PDF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251341/27__28_sexual_offences_and_VOO_fact_sheet.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
DanBC 11y ago
The Telegraph here doesn't name the man, but links to three other stories: Paedophiles and rapists let off with cautions by Cumbria Police Woman who laughed as she filmed sex attack jailed Children forced to have sex with animals, court hears In the UK context there are two things pulling in different directions: Jimmy Saville spent years abusing girls. Many people knew this, and no-one protected the women. So, people are careful now ot investigate all claims. But then we had the Satanic Abuse scare, where a bunch of untrained interrogators planted false memories of abuse in children, ruining many lives. Chidren do need to be protected from abusers, but I hope the police and courts are careful to protect freedoms.

13 points by apsec112 11y ago

pedrocr 11y ago

So he needs to call every 24 hours to say "I am planning on having sex in the next 24 hours"?

thaumasiotes 11y ago
No, the order requires him to identify the woman.
- lostdatagram 11y ago
  I'm curious if he's required to inform them of any men he plans to have sex with.

venomsnake 11y ago

> Sexual risk orders are a civil order and can be made when the person concerned has not been convicted of a sexual offence. the whole story is when Kafka meets Orwell.

kweinber 11y ago

What amazed me is that thr police have restricted his freedom before even convicting him of anything... Seems like a lot of power- anyone here know how thry justify these orders? "[These orders of protection] are used when someone has not been convicted of a sexual offence, but the police convince a court it is necessary for one to be made against the person to protect the public from him or her.'

DanBC 11y ago
It's a bit scary. Here's the relevant (I think, I could be wrong) bits of law. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/risk-of-sexual-harm-orders http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crosshead... The sex that is being prevented is listed: > (3)The acts are— > (a)engaging in sexual activity involving a child or in the presence of a child; > (b)causing or inciting a child to watch a person engaging in sexual activity or to look at a moving or still image that is sexual; > (c)giving a child anything that relates to sexual activity or contains a reference to such activity; > (d)communicating with a child, where any part of the communication is sexual. Here's a press release: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-restrictions-on-sex-offenders https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-re... Here's an explanatory PDF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251341/27__28_sexual_offences_and_VOO_fact_sheet.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

DanBC 11y ago

The Telegraph here doesn't name the man, but links to three other stories: Paedophiles and rapists let off with cautions by Cumbria Police Woman who laughed as she filmed sex attack jailed Children forced to have sex with animals, court hears In the UK context there are two things pulling in different directions: Jimmy Saville spent years abusing girls. Many people knew this, and no-one protected the women. So, people are careful now ot investigate all claims. But then we had the Satanic Abuse scare, where a bunch of untrained interrogators planted false memories of abuse in children, ruining many lives. Chidren do need to be protected from abusers, but I hope the police and courts are careful to protect freedoms.