Man has to inform police in advance of having sex

[pipeman01]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

I'll start the list (feel free to add):

Jennifer Lawrence

[Deleted]

This man was cleared of rape. This beggars belief.
However if one is a 'preacher of hate' they seem able to spread their message scot free.

Welcome to the new UK.

[Get Off My Cloud]

Insane, just insane.

[*-SARIN-*]

Sounds dubious and i suspect that these restrictions will be removed after he consults a decent barrister. Either that or the full story is not being told. I can't believe that he agreed to these terms tbh, especially if he was acquitted.

[Deleted]

*-SARIN-* the legislation is set out in the penultimate paragraph.
In my opinion it is ridiculous however if it does stop people becoming the victims of sexual offences then this has to be a good thing.

As long as some scumbag does not name him on social media.

[yahoo2u2]

More to this than we are being told or are able to be told.

[*-SARIN-*]

Jan 22, 2016 19:20:30 GMT RangersBillyBoy said:

*-SARIN-* the legislation is set out in the penultimate paragraph.
In my opinion it is ridiculous however if it does stop people becoming the victims of sexual offences then this has to be a good thing.

As long as some scumbag does not name him on social media.

Yes i've just read it properly rather than skimming as i did before.  The real issue is that the guy was acquitted so essentially a non-guilty man has had these restrictions imposed on him.  What's stopping them putting these restrictions on you or me?  Other than that there is the stigma of having this order against you, like the guys life isn't already ruined.  The quicker it is law that not only the victim but also the alleged perpetrator's identities are kept hidden until a verdict is given the better.  I know more than one person that has had their whole life ruined by a fake rape claim, one was acquitted after just 16 minutes deliberation by the jury!

On the other hand the penalties for females that are caught lying about a rape isn't harsh enough.  I'm not talking about the cases where there is some doubt, i'm talking about the ones where they eventually say that they made it up. Not only do they cause untold misery for the innocent male but also add to the increasing number of females that don't report rape because they don't think that they will be believed.

NB.  I've had a beer, it could be a long night

*Jumped off my soapbox

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2016 19:31:19 GMT *-SARIN-* said:

Jan 22, 2016 19:20:30 GMT RangersBillyBoy said:

*-SARIN-* the legislation is set out in the penultimate paragraph.
In my opinion it is ridiculous however if it does stop people becoming the victims of sexual offences then this has to be a good thing.

As long as some scumbag does not name him on social media.

Yes i've just read it properly rather than skimming as i did before.  The real issue is that the guy was acquitted so essentially a non-guilty man has had these restrictions imposed on him.  What's stopping them putting these restrictions on you or me?  Other than that there is the stigma of having this order against you, like the guys life isn't already ruined.  The quicker it is law that not only the victim but also the alleged perpetrator's identities are kept hidden until a verdict is given the better.  I know more than one person that has had their whole life ruined by a fake rape claim, one was acquitted after just 16 minutes deliberation by the jury!

On the other hand the penalties for females that are caught lying about a rape isn't harsh enough.  I'm not talking about the cases where there is some doubt, i'm talking about the ones where they eventually say that they made it up. Not only do they cause untold misery for the innocent male but also add to the increasing number of females that don't report rape because they don't think that they will be believed.

NB.  I've had a beer, it could be a long night

*Jumped off my soapbox

*-SARIN-* my friend, I totally agree with you regarding females who make malicious complaints need much harsher sentencing.

Regarding the gentleman in this case (I need to tread very carefully) may have displayed other behaviour traits not necessarily linked to this case that warranted this order.

[*-SARIN-*]

Jan 22, 2016 19:43:41 GMT RangersBillyBoy said:

Jan 22, 2016 19:31:19 GMT *-SARIN-* said:

Yes i've just read it properly rather than skimming as i did before.  The real issue is that the guy was acquitted so essentially a non-guilty man has had these restrictions imposed on him.  What's stopping them putting these restrictions on you or me?  Other than that there is the stigma of having this order against you, like the guys life isn't already ruined.  The quicker it is law that not only the victim but also the alleged perpetrator's identities are kept hidden until a verdict is given the better.  I know more than one person that has had their whole life ruined by a fake rape claim, one was acquitted after just 16 minutes deliberation by the jury!

On the other hand the penalties for females that are caught lying about a rape isn't harsh enough.  I'm not talking about the cases where there is some doubt, i'm talking about the ones where they eventually say that they made it up. Not only do they cause untold misery for the innocent male but also add to the increasing number of females that don't report rape because they don't think that they will be believed.

NB.  I've had a beer, it could be a long night

*Jumped off my soapbox

*-SARIN-* my friend, I totally agree with you regarding females who make malicious complaints need much harsher sentencing.

Regarding the gentleman in this case (I need to tread very carefully) may have displayed other behaviour traits not necessarily linked to this case that warranted this order.

This i suspect is true.

[Bobsbeer]

It seems this order can be applied for by the police regardless of any charge or conviction. So I guess we all could have one of these applied if the police went to a magistrate and applied for an order. Seems a rather draconian measure given that no charge or conviction is required to hand out one of these orders. What evidence is required I don't know.

[Get Off My Cloud]

Jan 22, 2016 19:20:30 GMT RangersBillyBoy said:

*-SARIN-* the legislation is set out in the penultimate paragraph.
In my opinion it is ridiculous however if it does stop people becoming the victims of sexual offences then this has to be a good thing.

As long as some scumbag does not name him on social media.

How could this possibly prevent a sex offence?

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2016 20:05:20 GMT Get Off My Cloud said:

Jan 22, 2016 19:20:30 GMT RangersBillyBoy said:

*-SARIN-* the legislation is set out in the penultimate paragraph.
In my opinion it is ridiculous however if it does stop people becoming the victims of sexual offences then this has to be a good thing.

As long as some scumbag does not name him on social media.

How could this possibly prevent a sex offence?

Because it puts an extra hurdle in front of the person that is under the order. There would obviously be penalties for non compliance.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2016 20:01:09 GMT Bobsbeer said:

It seems this order can be applied for by the police regardless of any charge or conviction. So I guess we all could have one of these applied if the police went to a magistrate and applied for an order. Seems a rather draconian measure given that no charge or conviction is required to hand out one of these orders. What evidence is required I don't know.

Less evidence than that for a conviction I assume.

[Bluefish]

Sex ASBO, heard it all now.

[Deleted]

Jan 22, 2016 20:09:22 GMT Bluefish said:

Sex ASBO, heard it all now.

Essentially what it seems to be.