back to article UK IT consultant subject to insane sex ban order mounts legal challenge

A homeless IT consultant will learn today whether his challenge to a draconian order, which forces him to tell police in advance if he is going to have sex, will succeed. John O'Neill, 45, must tell the cops 24 hours in advance even if he only plans on “kissing” or engaging in “sexually explicit conversation” – but has never …

  1. Pete4000uk

    Giving the police

    The ability to be Judge, jury and executioner.

    He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent and should be able to get on with what remains of his life.

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

      I don't think you understand the law too well. There is a high level of proof required - 99% doesn't do the job - so "not guilty" means that there was insufficient proof for the jury. It does not mean that he was innocent.

      From the BBC website report:

      "community psychiatric nurse notes said he had been sexually violent to past girlfriends and he was "not sure" if they had consented. He told her he needed women "to be scared" during sex or "I don't respond", the court heard."

      So I certainly agree that this is a disgraceful way for a civilised society to behave, very Orwellian, and I hope that this measure is repealed when some sense of decency re-emerges, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

      We, as outsiders, don't have all the facts, so we can give only personal opinions. Without the facts, we're just Sun & Daily Mail readers.

      1. Preston Munchensonton

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        Not guilty does mean that the defendant was found innocent for the specific charge brought. That does not mean, nor can it mean, the person is blameless in everything they have done in life.

        1. Bloodbeastterror

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          "Not guilty does mean that the defendant was found innocent"

          Yes, I accept that from the strictly legal point of view, but it doesn't mean that he didn't commit the offence - it means only that the jury were not sure that he did.

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            but it doesn't mean that he didn't commit the offence - it means only that the jury were not sure that he did.

            Innocent in fact, or otherwise, he was not found guilty by the jury and he therefore has the right not to be punished for it. It sounds like he should be bringing suit against the police for theft (of his phone, etc.). Hopefully someone will take on his case pro-bono.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "Innocent in fact, or otherwise, he was not found guilty by the jury and he therefore has the right not to be punished for it. It sounds like he should be bringing suit against the police for theft (of his phone, etc.). Hopefully someone will take on his case pro-bono."

              Although I agree with you, the actions of the Police, especially the implications for anyone who might one day upset a police officer are very worrying. What we need to remember here is that this SRO order was granted in a civil case, which has a much lower burden of proof. (leaving aside the legal argument over whether the conditions applied are allowed by the Order or even legal in themselves)

              There are shades of the O.J. Simpson case here except it's the Police bringing the civil case. Which is strange in and of itself because if you go to them and they decide it's a civil case, they won't touch it.

        2. Mike Shepherd
          Meh

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          "Not guilty...That does not mean, nor can it mean, the person is blameless in everything they have done in life".

          You are quite correct. So maybe we should hang you, just in case? It won't disturb our sleep. After all, you've as good as admitted that you're "guilty of something".

        3. hmv

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. They could be innocent, or they're actually guilty but there's not sufficient proof.

          That's not to say someone found "not guilty" shouldn't be treated as innocent.

          1. William 3 Bronze badge

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            "No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty."

            If it "means what it says" then "not guilty" means EXACTLY what it says "NOT FUCKING GUILTY"

            What it doesn't mean is what you're imagining it means in your fascist little world which is apparently,

            "OF COURSE THEY'RE FUCKING GUILTY, WE JUST HAVEN'T TURNED THE THUMBSCREWS ENOUGH SO THEY CONFESS"

            There was plenty of twats like you during the Spanish Inquisition, I have nothing but contempt for wankers like you. I can so picture you shouting Burn the witch because some poor old lady was found with unholy herbs in her pocket.

            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              There was plenty of twats like you during the Spanish Inquisition

              The Spanish Inquisition's jurisdiction was Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories (the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America). From 1480 to 1834 the inquisition executed ~3,000 people following trials of ~150,000. It was indeed the blood thirstiest of the three Inquisitions.

              For comparison, the 20th Century secular German National Socialist Party had planned to kill 80 million people in the Soviet Union alone. In the event, they managed to kill only ~10 million before the 2nd World War allies defeated the Axis.

              Historians are bemused by people who are so ready to condemn the Christian church for its excessive bloodlust, yet give the secular governments of the 20th Century a free pass.

              1. Pedro Cadiz

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                Utter nonsense. While I'm not disputing the figures in your post, there are two points I want to address:

                In what way did the Nazi party get a free pass? They've had plenty of condemnation and deservedly so. Is that just because the post you are replying to didn't mention them?

                Secondly: in what way was the Nazi party secular? Hitler made plenty of religious speeches and writings and the Nazi party made use of religious imagery and slogans.

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_Speeches_Against_Atheism

                Downvoted for perpetuating that myth.

                1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                  Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                  Utter nonsense. While I'm not disputing the figures in your post, there are two points I want to address:

                  If you are not disputing the figures in my post, then my remarks cannot be "utter nonsense".

                  Your first point is valid; I should not have made that comment; me culpa, maxima culpa. Sometimes I'm a very bad Git.

                  Your second point misses the mark in many important ways.

                  First, the National Socialists were not a religious movement; it was a political party. Most Germans were Roman Catholics (40%) and Protestants (54%)*. It seems very unlikely that the remainder of 6% were all adherents to the religion that AH wrote of in Mein Kampf.

                  The National Socialists had great antipathy to Jews, Moslems, Gypsies, Slavs and other "mental defectives" and what they did about them is a matter of history. It should also be fairly obvious these groups are not religions. Nor was there any chance of redemption. My father was an Austrian Jew raised in the Roman Catholic faith. He was not given the chance of converting to National Socialism to save him from slave labour.

                  The Inquisition was set up in Spain to ensure that Muslims and Jews who converted to Roman Catholicism rather than leave the country were true to the faith. As I originally wrote, of some 150,000 brought to trial over a period of 350 years some 2% were killed -- hardly a Holocaust.

                  * May 1939 census.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                But remember "NO ONE expects the Holocaust"....

              3. P. Lee Silver badge

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                I doubt arguing with someone who takes their history from Monty Python is a winning strategy.

                Dumb Yanks not withstanding, the Church's general view is that witches don't exist - its basically a pagan fantasy which won't die and generally tried to ban media which talked detecting them.

                I wouldn't suggest that the Spanish Inquisition was staffed by good people but the main distaste for it in northern Europe/the USA comes via Protestantism's assertion that that Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity which misrepresents God. The issues are theological. As an icon of All That Is Wrong With Over-Reaching, Intrusive, Torturing and Executing Government it pales into insignificance alongside our current "liberal" governments. There is no need to go as far as looking at the Internet's Favourite Bad Guys.

                As to the case at hand, there are a few things I would mention:

                1. This kind of system makes a mockery of the legal process. Why bother with a trial if the police can do this? Is this any different from the Inquisition, if you can just go to a judge who can effectively overrule a jury verdict?

                2. If this kind of restriction can be placed on those who have committed no demonstrable crime, how long will it take for these powers to be extended? Who is safe if the authorities no longer have to follow the rule of law?

                3. I'm sure the police and the judge have a very reasons for this order. I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this, but all that old-fashioned morality which told women not to be alone with men? That was not about spoiling your fun, that was about protecting you. Sure, "No means no" but guess what? There are lots of bad people who don't play by the rules. Do you really want to have to be the one who has to sue for Assault and Battery? Even if you won, that would not be justice - justice would be never having been beaten. Find a partner you can trust who is capable and willing to love you for life - you deserve no less.

                1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                  Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                  I doubt arguing with someone who takes their history from Monty Python is a winning strategy.

                  True, but even people who believe the most utter tosh may be led to learn how wrong they were. Even Pompous Gits!

                  I have been taken to task by a fellow historian for claiming that the Spanish Inquisition executed ~3,000 when in fact they do not appear to have executed anyone. The 3,000 were executed by the secular authorities. My colleague also pointed out that it wasn't unknown for the accused in a secular court to commit a heresy so that the case could be heard by the Inquisition instead since they were far less likely to sentence the accused to death.

                  He recommended The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision by Henry Kamen, a book I have yet to read since my special area of interest is medieval science.

              4. tabinnorway

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                The communists soviets were not secular in any real sense of the word. They had plenty religion. Their religion was called socialism. A secular mindset can not be used to motivate atrocities since it is the absence of something, and the absence of something can not be a motivator.

                1. Schlimnitz

                  Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                  Sorry, that's sophistry.

              5. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Spanish Inquisition

                If you want a modern day equivalent...

                Who is the person whose single handed action has lead to the death of the most people?

                Someone who banned the use of Condoms as a lowly Vatican official, continued the ban whilst in office and ensured that all Priests in Africa told their flock that using a Condom would lead quickly to hell. And the Catholic Church went and fast tracked him to Saint, when at least 30M people have died of Aids due to unprotected intercourse.

          2. Archtech Silver badge

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            The important point is that someone found "not guilty" is LEGALLY innocent. People may think of him what they will, but the justice system should not punish him in any way whatsoever.

          3. Dr. Mouse Silver badge

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. They could be innocent, or they're actually guilty but there's not sufficient proof.

            Our legal system presumes innocence. Unless a person is found guilty of a crime then, legally, they are innocent and should be treated as such. If a person is found not guilty, they are legally innocent of that crime full stop*.

            I find it incredibly disturbing the amount that a person can be punished for a crime he has not been convicted of now in this country. This case is yet another example, and it is a completely draconian punishment, with few restrictions. I really hope it gets quashed: Whether this guy did anything wrong is irrelevant, unless he is found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers, he should not be punished for that crime. His life has been destroyed by this. He can not work in his field with this order in place, or in any office environment. At best, he may be able to work as a labourer, some unskilled job. He has no right to privacy, would be unable to have a relationship, has none of the basic freedoms we have a right to. In short, he is practically an unperson just for having "abnormal" sexual fantasies.

            *Yes, I know that he could be retried, given the seriousness of these charges. However, this is only if sufficient new evidence comes up AND an appeals court overturns the original verdict. Until then, he is legally innocent of the crimes he was charged with.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          So effectively, the SRO eradicates any presumption of innocence? If he had been convicted, many measures could have been applied, i.e., incarceration, restraining orders, etc.

          But if this person was found innocent, why is he still being punished for crimes he has not yet committed (or may have committed in the past, but for which he has not been arrested)? Apparently, that is OK now in the UK. And if he is indeed into S&M, leather and edgy sexual behavior, there are undoubtedly peers within the elite who are too. Shouldn't they all be wearing ankle bracelets 24/7?

          You can slice this anyway you like, it still looks very fucked up.

          What is next?

          Bans on transgens entering certain areas (think toilets), global surveillance of "suspect" categories of people (think muslims, shouty Reg commentards, parking violators, sexual deviants, porn watchers....).

          Don't say it can't happen. The authorities have the technology and will soon use it however they see fit. TM looks like she is well off on a mission to fully purify UK society. Good luck to you if you don't meet all the purity criteria.

          If this still isn't clear to you, re-watch Brazil and Demolition Man for some mental re-adjustment.

        5. Scorchio!!

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          "Not guilty does mean that the defendant was found innocent for the specific charge brought. That does not mean, nor can it mean, the person is blameless in everything they have done in life."

          Nor does the fact that you and I can walk down the street, free of control orders, no restrictions at all, nor does this mean that we are innocent of anything at all.

      2. The bigger, blacker box.

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        >>I don't think you understand the law too well. There is a high level of proof required - 99% doesn't do the job - so "not guilty" means that there was insufficient proof for the jury. It does not mean that he was innocent.

        Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

        i.e. Presumption of innocence, it means legally, he is innocent until proven guilty, as he wasn't proven guilty, he is legally innocent - whether he is actually innocent is a different matter (which of course is your point), the problem here is two fold, firstly is it even legal to impose a legal constraint on someone not found legally guilty of something, secondly this legal constraint appears to exceed the boundaries of the guidelines.

        In this "safe not sorry" environment it disturbs me slightly to feel comfortable that his life is messed up on the possibility that this protects innocent people (even if he is practically and legally innocent of anything), it seems as if he has been dealt with in a very draconian way and the SJW in me doesn't like it, I guess, as a test case if his appeal is successful, this might protect innocent people, the risk is (of course) if he is a "wrongun" and he then attacks someone where the restrictions would have protected them.

        I can't help feeling that there's some bad stuff going on, just can't put my finger on it, perhaps there's just better ways of dealing with aberrant desires than presumption of guilt.

        1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          There seems to be a trend to apply some sanctions on civil levels of proof, i.e., balance of probabilities. You then make the ASBO, SRO etc. subject to criminal sanctions if broken.

          This is an extreme example if what I've read (in this and other August organs) is true and completely OTT. If he has a problem surely the answer is to section him and get suitable treatment.

        2. Michael Dunn

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent" @ the bigger blacker box

          "i.e. Presumption of innocence, it means legally, he is innocent until proven guilty,"

          No, No, No! It means innocent _UNLESS_ proven guilty; the police are assuming guilt, and expecting evidence to turn up which will prove him so.

      3. Richard 81

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        "I don't think you understand the law too well."

        You say this and then demonstrate that you don't understand how our legal system works.

        Within our justice system there is no grey area; you are either innocent or guilty. If you are proved not guilty, then you are innocent. If there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, then you are also innocent. The question of actual, moral innocence is irrelevant.

        The fact that this sort of power has been given to the police is frankly horrifying.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          Except in Scotland, where you have "Not Proven".

          1. katrinab Silver badge

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            In Scotland, you have "Proven" and "Not Proven", which are the equivalent of "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" in England. There is an additional verdict of "Not Guilty" which is given in circumstances where the jury are absolutely sure the defendant didn't do it, or where the alleged act isn't illegal.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Or countries where the rule of law applies. The court case was in England. What's your point?

        2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          On this side of the Pond there is a Constitutional provision of "Double Jeopardy" which means the state only gets one chance to try someone and if found not guilty the defendant walks. Not sure of UK or EU law on that point. This sounds like a form of double jeopardy.

          1. AndrueC Silver badge
            Meh

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            We have double jeopardy as well but a few years ago it was modified to allow for retrial if the evidence has significantly changed.

            More info here.

            1. Archtech Silver badge

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "We have double jeopardy as well but a few years ago it was modified to allow for retrial if the evidence has significantly changed".

              Just another of the myriad ways in which our old-fashioned and inefficient justice system is being continually revised, reformed and improved.

              "Oh look - a gun that has been fired with the accused's fingerprints on it! How could we have overlooked that? And see - we have just discovered that his DNA was plastered all over the crime scene. Definitely grounds for a retrial".

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                @Archtech:

                Ugh.

                You consider Double Jeopardy to be old-fashioned?

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            On this side of the Pond there is a Constitutional provision of "Double Jeopardy" which means the state only gets one chance to try someone and if found not guilty the defendant walks. Not sure of UK or EU law on that point. This sounds like a form of double jeopardy.

            Maybe, but Double Jeopardy simply means, as you say, that you can't be tried twice.

            This is more like being found not guilty for a DWI/DUI charge and then having the state cancel your driver's licence anyway. That also doesn't stop the police from paying a closer eye to you, excessively patrolling your neighborhood (just in front of your house), etc.

          3. King Jack Silver badge

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Double Jeopardy is scrapped in the UK. Now you can be tried repeatedly if new evidence comes to light. I think it was when DNA evidence became a thing but I'm not sure. I do remember Blair announcing it.

          4. Dave Bell

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            The concept is there, but it's not simple. Sometimes a pattern of lesser offences is significant, but it isn't easy to present them to a jury as evidence. It will be argued about in each case where it comes up. And sometimes it gets argued several times, in different courts. In this case, this is the first step of such a chain of arguments.

            Anyway, I knew a few magistrates. Apart from anything else, the police were known to have a list of favourite magistrates. I could see why. Some could have been more sceptical.

            1. Wayland Bronze badge

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "The concept is there, but it's not simple. Sometimes a pattern of lesser offences is significant, but it isn't easy to present them to a jury as evidence."

              No the concept is very simple. The court decides if the person is guilty otherwise they are innocent of the charge. Yes in the real world they may have done it but the court is drawing a line, making a judgement. What the court says is what the law must go on.

              You can't keep hounding the person because you know they did it. You can't just keep at it until you get them. If you failed in court then tough luck, you have to wait until they do it again.

          5. Radio Wales
            Thumb Down

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Double jeopardy used to be the law here too until the present Tories got their hands on it.

            Now, They can accuse and try you: and if found Not guilty - then they can accuse you again - and again - and again - until they do get a guilty verdict or you die accused. And soon the ECHR won't be there for us any more.

            One possible scenario is: Indicted but found Not guilty, can be followed up with a second accusation but without going to court. Leading to the dodgy Innocent in the eyes of the law but guilty in the eyes of the police or CPS situation that seems to have manifested itself here.

            Double jeopardy was there initially for a reason along with a binding sentence from the court which tried the case - because they possessed all the facts. No it's never over. Beware.

      4. tony72

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        @ Bloodbeastterror

        I 100% agree with you*, and I would support some sort of extra monitoring order for people like this. But that doesn't change the fact that the terms of this particular order seem to be unworkable and draconian. I'm surprised he hasn't made a Human Rights Act challenge to it, but I suspect that'll be on the cards if he doesn't get it overturned by other means.

        *except for the Daily Mail reader bit, The Sun FTW though ;).

        1. Richard 81

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          "I would support some sort of extra monitoring order for people like this"

          People like who? This "no smoke without fire" nonsense makes a mockery of our legal system.

          1. tony72

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            People like who? This "no smoke without fire" nonsense makes a mockery of our legal system.

            Sorry, but I disagree. A judge looked at details of the case, and based on what he saw, elected to grant the order against this guy, and he did that for a reason. Do you also think that people who've been linked with terrorist or extremist organisations and radicalised, but haven't yet been convicted of any crime, shouldn't be subject to extra monitoring?

            People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place. Denying that is what I would say makes a mockery of justice.

            1. Triggerfish

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place.

              Thought police then?

              1. Archtech Silver badge

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                So why the hell didn't they arrest Blair before he started his career of mass murder?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them

              I have one thing to say.

              Minority Report.

              That is all.

            3. Just Enough

              Clear signs

              "People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place. Denying that is what I would say makes a mockery of justice."

              I believe you are showing clear signs of being on a path to removing the legal basis of "innocent until found guilty". It is entirely right that the legal system you wish to over-throw identifies you and takes steps to prevent you committing any crimes against human rights.

              Please hand yourself into the nearest police station, where you can be tagged, photographed and interrogated.

              1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Clear signs

                ""innocent until found guilty"

                FFS people! That's the fourth or fifth time I've seen that misquoted. That is exactly the problem here.

                It's UNLESS, not UNTIL.

                "innocent until found guilty" implies that you ARE guilty of something and they'll keep trying 'till they get you for something, anything. That's the whole basis of this story.

                1. kain preacher Silver badge

                  Re: Clear signs

                  I understand what you are saying john , but clearly in this case the cops are operation innocent until proven guilty.

                2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                  Re: Clear signs

                  "innocent until found guilty [...] It's UNLESS, not UNTIL."

                  [Caveat: This is a repost of an earlier post I made a while back tackling this misunderstanding]

                  I used to belabour this same argument about "unless" vs "until", but eventually someone who was actually a lawyer showed me that the case is "until" and always has been, dating right back to Roman law in essence and back to the 17th century in practice.

                  The bottom line is that in law neither Unless or Until are used, but instead it is called "presumption of innocence" and fundamentally means that the state (or prosecuting power) must begin with the assumed innocence of an accused party.

                  Even the universal charter of human rights says "until". So, whilst I might agree that "unless" would be more grammatically and linguistically accurate, it is not the case that using "until" is newspeak.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

                3. Kiwi
                  Joke

                  Re: Clear signs

                  It's UNLESS, not UNTIL.

                  Have you looked at this world lately?

                  Hell, much of the time today it's "Guilty, despite irrefutably being proved innocent".

                  But yes, nice to see someone who also knows the original (though seemingly no longer correct) version :)

                  1. Kiwi

                    Re: Clear signs @myself

                    But yes, nice to see someone who also knows the original (though seemingly no longer correct) version :)

                    Replying to myself.. Must be time for the police to seek some sort of mental health order against me!

                    Anyway.. Seems from other comments that I was wrong after all..

            4. Justicesays

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place. Denying that is what I would say makes a mockery of justice."

              I think I've seen where that sort of thinking leads.

            5. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              A judge looked at what the police showed him.

              Unfortunately the police force is full of judgemental people who aren't really very clever but who have had years of practice presenting "evidence" to judges and know how to tick the right boxes.

            6. Archtech Silver badge

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "Do you also think that people who've been linked with terrorist or extremist organisations and radicalised, but haven't yet been convicted of any crime, shouldn't be subject to extra monitoring?"

              By that, do you mean members of the government, the civil service, the police, the intelligence agencies and the armed forces? Because they are the only significant terrorist organizations in this world. Compared to the number of people who die violently because of governments, so-called "terrorists" or just a minor blip. Barely noise level. To be fair, the British government is not by any means the worst terrorist organization in the world - just its willing accomplice.

              As for "people who've been linked with..." anything, that all depends on who did the "linking" and whether they had any credible evidence. That insidious passive voice ("have been...") is always a red danger sign. And "radicalised" essentially means "convinced of the need to use violence to rectify a situation that otherwise can't be fixed". As in when we are told that the UK armed forces "must" bomb Syria, or Iraq, or Libya, or Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia, because diplomacy won't work and it is our appointed task on Earth to right all wrongs and destroy all evil dictators.

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                By that, do you mean members of the government, the civil service, the police, the intelligence agencies and the armed forces? Because they are the only significant terrorist organizations in this world. Compared to the number of people who die violently because of governments, so-called "terrorists" or just a minor blip. Barely noise level. To be fair, the British government is not by any means the worst terrorist organization in the world - just its willing accomplice.

                That deserves more than one upvote.

              2. Wayland Bronze badge

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                "Do you also think that people who've been linked with terrorist or extremist organisations and radicalised, but haven't yet been convicted of any crime, shouldn't be subject to extra monitoring?"

                What you mean like asking the terror suspect to give 24 hours notice before a terror attack and to hand over their phone and computers to police at a moments notice so they can see what websites they have been looking at?

                Monitoring people is not the same as imposing restrictions on them. However it is still assuming guilt.

            7. Wayland Bronze badge

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place. " - no. Better that they commit the crime or not than are punished before they commit the crime. Otherwise you have the Police State. Did you not see Minority Report?

            8. tabinnorway

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              >> prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place

              You are right. However, first we are going to have to shut down this thing we call "democracy".

            9. Kiwi
              FAIL

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent" @AC

              Do you also think that people who've been linked with terrorist or extremist organisations and radicalised, but haven't yet been convicted of any crime, shouldn't be subject to extra monitoring?

              You mean like certain Brazillian(?) electricians running to catch a train?

              These orders (similar has been discussed (and may even exist) here in NZ) are an abomination. Yes, someone I love may be hurt or even killed in some terrible way by someone who has acted suspiciously but has not done enough to justify such an order against them, I accept that. But to see an innocent person (even if they've engaged in risky behaviour or have had but have overcome desires to do something nasty) treated in such a manner? That's worse, and appalling.

              As to thoughts of killing self/others, how many of us haven't dreamt of "going postal" when depressed or dealing with some self-righteous legalistic fuckwit at a large bureaucracy or dickhead at work? I know I have. And like probably every one else who reads this, I have the brains to figure out that it would be fun and oh so satisfying, but long-term would have even worse consequences for myself and my loved ones, and would solve little (if anything).

              People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them

              But the vast majority of these people never actually go on to commit an offence. People fantasize. Some people take some steps to see if they could do the deed, some even see if they could get away with it. But that is a far cry from proof they would ever actually complete their plan, even if they start out fully intending to do it.

            10. Basic

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              Problemw ith that approach is that there's no evidence required, nothing objective at all really.

              The police could claim tomorrow that lots of anarchists recently had been posting on El Reg, thus all register readers should be monitored more closely as they're "on the road" to being anarchists.

              You could make an argument that is as valid for almost any person in the country.

              The bottom line is "Innocent until proven guilty". If you havne't been proven guilty of a crime, the state has _no_ right to interfere in your life.

            11. Happy_Jack

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "A judge looked at details of the case, and based on what he saw, elected to grant the order against this guy, and he did that for a reason."

              The story suggests that it was a magistrate that imposed this order and not a judge. There is a big difference. Also it is not stated that the person imposing the order was actually a "he".

          2. lotus49

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            "People like who?"

            How about people who admit that they are only sexually aroused when their partner (victim?) is scared, that's who. He has effectively admitted to being a dangerous and deviant individual so bollocks to his freedom. I don't know how many of the commentards here have a daughter (very few I'd guess) but I'd be interested to know whether those of you who do would be happy for her to be exposed to a man like this. Those of you who don't and are men are expressing a view on something that will never affect you.

            A court of law is not the only way to establish whether someone is a danger to society.

        2. Cameron Colley

          Quick, arrest then hang tony72!!

          tony72 is a terrorist paedophile and I know because a dog told me. That is surely enough evidence to bring back hanging?

      5. Triggerfish

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        "community psychiatric nurse notes said he had been sexually violent to past girlfriends and he was "not sure" if they had consented. He told her he needed women "to be scared" during sex or "I don't respond",

        Which in would be like consensual noncensent or similar in the BDSM community if I am correct? Not illegal between partners.

        Admittedly not sure if they consented could be a grey area, but then again could be open to misinterpreation as he claims.

        Not really sure it justifies how this guy is being treated, especially as he has been cleared of any wrongdoing, and lets be honest what prosecutor does not try and make the defendant look bad?

        Also note if you think people being cleared at trial can still be presumed guilty, you do realise you are leaving yourself open to any trumped up charge someone throws at you? Even if you are cleared by your logic the best thing to do would be to go no I dont believe the jury and treat you like the scumbag you must be.

        Just a question how would you like to be on the receiving end?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          Within the BDSM community consensual non-consent is a thing, But its something that has to be approached with great care as this case demonstrates.

          Normally it would be between two people who are already involved in an on-going BDSM relationship and already have a high level of mutual trust in place.

          The important thing here is its CONSENSUAL non-consent so at some point there should have been a discussion and and clear consent given that from that point on consent would not be sought at every 'event'. Some people even go to the lengths of signing a contract, though not legally enforceable or binding but at least an indication of intent and consent.

          These would normally include 'soft limits' that the submissive would be willing to explore and experiment with. And 'hard' limits that are 100% off-limit.

          If as the Dominant party you are unsure consent is in place then you don't do it!

          But I agree as he has not been found guilty of any crime and a tenant of British law is presumed innocent until found guilty, then these measures, if as reported, are very Orwellian and totally disproportionate.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Within the BDSM community consensual non-consent is a thing, But its something that has to be approached with great care as this case demonstrates.

            You may see that from the BDSM community perspective, but for outsiders and policemen who need something they can say in court that plays well in the newspapers it forms a very convenient stick to beat someone with (pardon the unintentional pun).

            "Outsiders" tend not to see the whole picture, only what the screech papers feed them. In addition, any "insiders" inside the force and judicial system will happily throw the first stone in that context to camouflage their involvement which tends to result in even further skewed judgement.

            That said, the psych report does not exactly make for encouraging reading. I can see why he may have been able to walk out of a court without a conviction but still be considered a risk. However, how the SRO was implemented seems weirdly ineffective and more aimed at pushing this guy to go off the rails completely. In addition, I'm no expert but it strikes me that it's easier to hide victims in a bush than it is when living in a house...

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Is there some general connection between BDSM and British Law?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "Is there some general connection between BDSM and British Law?"

              Only that a number of Conservative lawmakers and High Court judges enjoy being soundly thrashed.

              Allegedly.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          There is more to the case than the Psychiatric Nurse's statement. To quote:

          "The nurse noted he had suicidal thoughts and had been "preoccupied with killing himself and others" - an idea he found "soothing"."

          With a discussion with a GP

          '...he discussed "biting and choking" sexual partners'

          '...had said his sex life had become violent.'

          'Thinks he may have raped someone, it went further than she expected'

          'Patient thinks he is dangerous and needs to be stopped.'

          '... he thought about killing a partner "a lot" and had "choked her unconscious several times," '

          You can see why the medical practitioners and the police are very concerned.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Quite disturbing that a doctor and nurse are testifying against a patient.

            Is it possible they misunderstood?

            Is it possible he exaggerated to seek attention?

            If doctors are testifying against patients, who is going to be honest with their doctor in future?

            Is someone in a similar position going to seek help from a medical professional after they hear about this case?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "Quite disturbing that a doctor and nurse are testifying against a patient."

              No it's not. They should and are expected to disclose safeguarding issues to the appropriate authorities. The hippocratic oath does not stop someone who states something from having that information divulged to the relevant authorities if it is felt that there might be serious consequences from not disclosing it. In fact the doctor could face litigation if they did not disclose information.

              They will try to arrange help for a patient and encourage self disclosure but are under no obligation to keep all conversations private.

              If a patient says that they are have given up hope and are going to hang themselves and the doctor feels it is credible then the police will be informed. If a patient states that they are thinking of murdering someone or commit mass murder then expect that to be disclosed as well. If someone is deemed to have CP issues that will be escalated. Even if you are deemed unfit to drive and you do not volunteer this information to the DVLA then expect you doctor to disclose it on your behalf.

              This is all right and proper, and the public would expect it, why on earth shouldn't they? Otherwise you get situations like the one where the Germanwings pilot downed a plane.

              1. steward
                Holmes

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                If patients are not assured of confidentiality in talking with psychiatric personnel.. rest assured that they won't talk with them. They'll just escalate to violence instead.

              2. Gordon861

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                "If a patient says that they are have given up hope and are going to hang themselves and the doctor feels it is credible then the police will be informed."

                Would they? I'm not sure they have the legal right (or requirement) to interfere unless they feel the patient should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, and I think you can be suicidal and still technically considered sane.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                  "Would they? I'm not sure they have the legal right (or requirement) ..."

                  Yes, of course they will. There is no legal right/wrong and it is not interfering, it is a duty of care. The Police part was assuming they have refused treatment and left, obviously the first instance they will be encouraged to attend hospital.

                2. Archtech Silver badge

                  Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                  "I think you can be suicidal and still technically considered sane".

                  Of course you can. Most people who live safe, comfortable lives in the UK can't or won't imagine it, but there are many circumstances in which it is perfectly sane and indeed reasonable to choose suicide. Specific cases are left as an exercise to the student. Hint: try browsing through any newspaper, or reading the news online.

              3. Timto

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                "This is all right and proper, and the public would expect it, why on earth shouldn't they? Otherwise you get situations like the one where the Germanwings pilot downed a plane."

                You are missing the point.

                If all doctors have to 'tell tales' on any pilot who is suicidal, what do you think is going to happen? It won't stop pilots potentially comitting suicide. It will stop them talking to doctors.

                The same applies here. This man told the doctor/nurse some things, presummably because he wanted help. Now his life is ruined. What will the effect be on anyone else having similar thoughts? Will they ever talk to someone? No. Does that make the world a safer place?

              4. Archtech Silver badge

                Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

                "This is all right and proper, and the public would expect it, why on earth shouldn't they? Otherwise you get situations like the one where the Germanwings pilot downed a plane".

                So encourage medical staff to inform on anyone who sounds dodgy to the police. Then anyone who is in the slightest doubt will avoid them like the plague. That couldn't lead to any harm.

              5. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                "Doctors" directly from Stasi

                " In fact the doctor could face litigation if they did not disclose information."

                Yes, that is totally horrible as it makes the doctor the police, the jury and the executioner at once.

                _You must not tell a doctor anything that can be used against you, ever_.

                Basically a government spy whose motivation is not to heal you, but put you in jail. Like in this case, lies upon lies and a doctor can't be sued for lying whatever he wants in the reports. Totally legal as it's 'diagnosis', not personal opinion or even true, no-one cares about that as it's a tool for prosecutor.

                A method widely used in Soviet Union is spreading to the west with totalitarian governements. No-one is surprised: East Germany with Stasi was only 30 years ahead of their time, now everybody lives in similar system.

                And then the jesuits whine about 'confidentality' which is not there: The doctor is reporting everything you do and are to the police, same day delivery.

            2. Mark 75

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              "Quite disturbing that a doctor and nurse are testifying against a patient"

              So some poor woman has to die *before* a doctor or nurse can raise alarm bells?

            3. buyone

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              The law is black and white. A person should not be punished for something they have not done. The verdict was not guilty. Otherwise this is straight "Minority Report",

              What is the doctor doing testifying about words in a consulting room.I thought that medical information is privileged,

              His sexual behaviour is dangerous and goes beyond any form of BDSM. The correct procedure is to try and make him safe in society. He himself is worried, which is why he sort medical help. Pity that the doctor was unable to refer him for treatment.

          2. steward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            If violent fantasies are banned, Quentin Tarantino better steer clear of the UK.

          3. Whiskers

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            If the medical and psychiatric practitioners believe he is a danger to himself or others, surely their proper course of action is to direct him to a suitable hospital. If he resists he could be 'sectioned'. <http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/legal-rights/sectioning/#>. Of course that would cost the NHS money and would't titillate any police.

          4. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            So this guy spoke frankly to a medical professional, recognising that he had a problem and was in need of help.... and the response was to impose an order that pushes him to the far margins of society unable to work or conduct any kind of normal life.

            If he now, having so little left to lose, snaps and acts out his darkest reported fanstasies, how much blame should we attribute to the police who imposed this order?

            I feel ashamed of this country.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Absolutely, but some form of mental health support would surely be a better way of dealing with those concerns than effectively policing him out of daily life. Isn't concern for both (or either) an individual's and others' safety pretty much the exact reason we have Sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act? Of course, for that, we'd need a properly funded (Mental) Health service, so I guess just banning him from everything and getting police to keep an eye on him is easier. Not remotely better, safer, fairer or saner, but much easier.

          6. evilhippo

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            "You can see why the medical practitioners and the police are very concerned."

            Who cares? Since when can medical practitioners and the police punish a man without either sectioning him under the Mental Health Act or convicting him of a crime? The "concerns" of the police and medical practitioner is utterly irrelevant or we *are* living in a Police State.

        3. Gordon861

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          "Admittedly not sure if they consented could be a grey area, but then again could be open to misinterpreation as he claims."

          This may have been a 'grey area' right up until the point he was charged with another offence and this whole case went public. You can pretty much guarantee that if one of the prior 'grey area' partners had came forward to the police with a complaint the police would have tried to add that to the charge sheet too.

          The fact that this has had so much publicity in the press etc means that you have to assume that these 'grey areas' are less grey now and were in fact consensual.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Graham Bartlett

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            "The fact that this has had so much publicity in the press etc means that you have to assume that these 'grey areas' are less grey now and were in fact consensual."

            Or you assume that the women involved have a correctly low opinion of the legal process. Most rapes do not result in a conviction, even those that make it to court. And the standard method of defence lawyers is to stomp through their private life with hobnail boots to make them feel as shitty as possible. Many rape victims who go to court say they feel like they've been raped twice, once by the rapist and again by the court. And it's most likely that they'll be doing this for nothing, because the rapist is most likely to be found "not guilty".

            Added to that, if they're interested in BDSM but had their consent violated, they may not want to be outed as interested in BDSM. It's illegal to be sacked because of what you do in private, but that hasn't stopped numerous employers, and if you run your own business or do anything else relying on your public image then you're basically dead meat. Many people who are outed are ostracised by family and friends. The family courts shouldn't care either, but if you're in a divorce case then you can forget having access to your children. If you're gay then all this is explicitly illegal under anti-discrimination legislation. But if you like to be tied up and have your bum smacked then it's totally legal to discriminate based on that sexual preference. You would then have to go to court to explicitly show how your sexual preference does *not* affect your ability to do your job or look after your children - as quite a few people have had to, over the last few years.

        4. This post has been deleted by its author

      6. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          ... but somehow the police did have enough evidence to convince a judge to issue this SRO, .

          .... because it could never happen that plod just makes it up because "they KNOW he is guilty".

          1. ex_ussr1

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            Plod is routinely making it up as he goes along.

            The guilty one is to be found in the uniform these days, lying like a toad and covered with sanctimonious coating from the judges bench.

            Nobody in the justice system gives a toss about innocent or guilty anywhere, they just want statistics, forms filled in and the coppers are about as bent as they come.

            Lying under oath, no problem your honour I've got a uniform...

      7. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        Guilty until proven innocent?

        "The burden of proof lies with he who asserts, not he who denies."

      8. Why Not?

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        From his various statements today it looks like he has a mental health problem not a criminal one.

        He admits to being a Sado-Masochist which if done right is fine. However he doesn't seem to be respecting his partner's safety which isn't legal.

        He admits to having serious thoughts about hurting himself & others since he was a kid. These don't appear to be sexually based.

        He has been on hunger strike and on benefits since the imposition of the order.

        The order does effectively prevent him working and the public accusation he is a sexual pervert / predator means no one will employ him.

        I suspect they tried to jail him, then tried to section him , failed and then deployed the SRO. The Police are now desperately trying to save face and keep him from possibly offending.

        Whilst I wouldn't like women anywhere near him on the evidence presented it does seem they have over stepped the mark. They need to fix his problems not ruin his life.

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          From his various statements today it looks like he has a mental health problem not a criminal one.

          If he didn't have one it probably would not be a suprise he has one now.

          I suspect they tried to jail him, then tried to section him , failed and then deployed the SRO. The Police are now desperately trying to save face and keep him from possibly offending.

          Generally speaking if you can't jail him for lack of evidence, and you can't section him for lack of evidence than maybe there was not enough evidence. Also I'm not sure any mental health proffessionals would say persecue them to an inch of their life is the sort of thing to get someone back on track.

          Like you said if their were issues maybe helping him would have been a better idea. This comes across as the plod being rather vindictive.

          1. Steven 1
            Alert

            Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

            "This comes across as the plod being rather vindictive."

            Be under no illusion, if the Police charge you and you go to court and are found not guilty, in their eyes you're just one who got away, if they get the chance to punish you in the future you'll be the first person in their cross-hairs.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

              The police can be very vindictive. I found a very expensive new iPhone 6 (large) with no charge and handed in to a passing policeman.

              I called the station later that day to make sure it was put to my name in case it wasn't claimed so that it would be mine after 3 months.

              It never got to the station (I checked a few times) and I put in a complaint.

              I got stopped in my car several times over the following weeks though no action was ever taken the coppers (different ones) always said "You do know why we are stopping you, don't you!"

        2. Dr Dan Holdsworth Silver badge

          Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

          There is also the very real possibility that he will at some point realise that he can simply walk away from all of this, and build a new life under a new identity. Granted he can still be identified via fingerprints, but having had one brush with the Thought Police, I reckon he'll live out an entirely blameless life just to stay out of reach of Plod.

          This is what happens when you go outside Common Law, which is what this effectively does.

      9. Steven Jones

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        There is, or at least was, in this country the principle of being considered innocent unless proven guilty. In England and Wales at least, there was no "grey area" such as Scotland's "not proven" verdict.

        This drives a coach and horses through that principle.

      10. Scorchio!!

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        "community psychiatric nurse notes said he had been sexually violent to past girlfriends and he was "not sure" if they had consented. He told her he needed women "to be scared" during sex or "I don't respond", the court heard." "

        Oh, so a psychiatric nurse said it! It must be correct if the tool boy/girl of psychiatry says it! To section someone on a hospital order it takes two psychiatrists an approved social worker (in psychiatry), but for this a nurse will do.

        Riiiiiiight.

      11. DriveByReason

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        I don't think you understand the law VERY well. One of its very foundations is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. They pronounce them "not guilty" because the burden of proof is on establishing that they are not actually innocent aka "guilty." Was he pronounced guilty? No. Which means he remains as he was, innocent.

        We as outsiders don't need any other facts. Innocence is the default position. It's ironic you bring up Orwell because deciding that being found "not guilty" is not the same as being innocent is newspeak at it's ugliest. We have not always been at war with Eastasia, and neither has Oceania.

      12. Wayland Bronze badge

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        "I don't think you understand the law too well."

        Everyone is innocent unless they are found guilty. Was he found guilty? No, so he is still innocent.

        However if he volunteers for police oversight in his sex life then that's his own fault. If it was me I would have said no. I would tell the police they are not getting 24 hours notice, not getting the PIN to my gear and what I do online will be protected from their prying eyes. If that puts me in prison then I can sue them for unlawful imprisonment.

      13. John Pavey

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        Guilt has to be established beyond reasonable doubt otherwise the presumption of INNOCENCE applies.

        This is fundamental to our justice system and is clearly not being applied. The situation stinks.

      14. Jake Maverick

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        bullshit

        people are routinely found 'guilty' solely on the basis of contradictory hearsay, i.e. defence proved she was lying...as well as the word of an anonymous suspected 'pigyob'.... Rolf Harris being a very famous and recent example that has sprung to mind...

        another being the man serving life for the murder of his wife, when said corpse has been proven to be walking about in Germany....still waiting on his appeal last i heard, and that was a few years ago

        makes a mockery of innocent until proven guilty...you would have thought that minimum requirements for a murder trial would be a) a body b) evidence said body was murdered and actually existed in first place, c) some actual evidence that the accused was somehow guilty of said crime, wouldn't you.....?

        and CPNs routinely make up whatever they like in order to provoke victim and 'justify' further abuse that they do to people whilst getting paid for it....

      15. Adrian Midgley 1

        Re: "He was found not guilty, therefore he is innocent"

        You may be on sticky ground if you were to state that someone who has been found not guilty of a crime is not innocent of it.

        IANAL.

    2. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Giving the police

      The article appears to claim that he actually is not guilty, that he had not in fact committed the acts of which he was accused. In that case, this is correct.

      Sometimes, people who commit serious crimes are still set free, because of inadmissibility of evidence or trial delays. In such cases, such an order is entirely appropriate to protect the public. But care must be taken that they are not doing this to someone who is actually innocent.

      1. Justicesays

        Re: Giving the police

        "Sometimes, people who commit serious crimes are still set free, because of inadmissibility of evidence or trial delays. In such cases, such an order is entirely appropriate to protect the public."

        No, still not appropriate.

        You do realize that things like "inadmissibility of evidence" are there to stop the police fitting people up, right (which they have shown themselves in even the recent past totally willing to do so)? We don't just have those adjustments to the law because we like setting serious criminals free...They are there to protect the innocent, like the whole criminal justice system in general.

      2. Wayland Bronze badge

        Re: Giving the police

        "Sometimes, people who commit serious crimes are still set free, because of inadmissibility of evidence or trial delays. In such cases, such an order is entirely appropriate to protect the public."

        We the public are free to suspect that the person really did do it but got away with it. However the law is not free to treat them as guilty when the law has found them innocent.

        Personally I think Harvey Procter requires a good kicking. However the law has not found him to be a paedo.

        These orders are not lawful and should be scrapped.

        If someone thinks this man needs a good kicking then they should take personal responsibility and go and do it. Not try and punish him under the name of the law which has found him innocent. They can then serve their time in prison for GBH and rightly so. I don't think the issue is important enough to you to serve time.

    3. Suricou Raven

      Re: Giving the police

      This is one reason police departments go bad so easily. Sooner or later, police are going to come across someone who they are personally quite sure is guilty (they may even be right) but can't convict for one reason or another. This leads to police offers who got into the profession for the cause of justice, and now see justice going unfulfilled. The temptation to correct this is immediate, which leads to them either going on a fishing expedition (Everyone is guilty of something if you look hard enough!) or abusing the legal process to ensure the perceived-guilty is punished.

      1. Archtech Silver badge

        Re: Giving the police

        You can see this syndrome in full force in the TV or movie police dramas of your choice. In such programmes as CSI, the investigators are forever doing things that are obviously illegal and even more immoral. But it always works out for the best, because they are never ever mistaken in their choice of suspect. In reality, most of the time they have little idea who really dunnit. But that doesn't go down well in the official figures or the headlines, so if the perpetrator isn't obvious, one must be nominated.

        People don't suddenly become angels just because they join the police - or the CPS, or the judiciary, or the armed forces. As for government, don't get me started.

    4. N13L5

      Some lawyer should jump on helping this chap with this...

      I saw an interesting little snipped a while ago, it went something like this:

      First they came for the homosexuals, but I didn't stand up, cause I was not one.

      Then they came for the deviants and I didn't speak up, cause I didn't know what exactly that meant.

      Then they came after the <insert random race> but I wasn't one of them either.

      ...I forget some lines here, but you get the point

      When they came for me and there was nobody left to stand up.

      I guess the UK doesn't have an EFF or anything? The intellectuals are all busy arguing theism vs atheism with hideous abuses of logic on both sides?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I find it impressive that the man isn't significantly more vindictive about the entire affair.

    I mean if the law has decided to end your civil life then why bother abiding by the law?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I find it impressive that the man isn't significantly more vindictive about the entire affair.

      I mean if the law has decided to end your civil life then why bother abiding by the law?

      That in itself seems to suggest the person is not as much a risk as the police appears to have declared to the judge issuing the SRO.

      The problem I have with this case is that being found innocent in court was somehow followed up by being declared "half-guilty" by means of this SRO - there is a whiff of intentional reputational damage and retaliation hanging around this but I haven't read up on the details to see if that impression is justified. Maybe I should, it's an interesting but very disturbing case.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Maybe I should, it's an interesting but very disturbing case.

        I've managed to grab a bit more data in between things, and my initial impression may be wrong.

        If the reports are correct, this man may represent a risk, in which case the SRO would be the only mechanism to reduce that risk a bit. That still leaves me wondering if there wasn't another way to do this, another, less dehumanising set of conditions but if the data is correct there appears to be a real issue with leaving this man walking free.

        I'm probably as shocked as anyone that the police may actually be doing its job..

  3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    Victimless noncrime

    Local paper the News and Star reported that O'Neill, a former English literature mature student and a father of two, has an interest in sado-masochistic sex. This was brought up at his November retrial, including a witness statement by a doctor with whom O'Neill had discussed his fantasies.

    So, basically thoughtcrime and the antisex league is on his case? Orwell's warning about organized socialists went unheeded...

    sado-masochistic sex

    He's english, for face-sitting's sake.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Victimless noncrime

      Obviously ferrets are more acceptable than S&M in North Yorkshire.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Victimless noncrime

      I thought that doctors were not allowed to grass you up to the boys in blue

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. AndrueC Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: Victimless noncrime

        I thought that doctors were not allowed to grass you up to the boys in blue

        They are allowed to if they think it's appropriate and can be forced to give out information by a court order. English law isn't as concerned with privileged communication as some judicial systems. I think about the only PC that is sacrosanct is client/lawyer but even that has exemptions. Spousal privilege isn't complete either. Certain categories of crime allow the prosecution to compel a spouse to give witness against their other half.

        And i don't think you can ever stop your spouse giving evidence against you if they choose.

  4. TJ1

    Exercise the SRO

    Seems like one man can now tie up the entire resources of the Yorkshire constabulary by simply continually informing them daily or even hourly of his intentions to have "sexually explicit conversation", then talk to Siri or whatever other AI is out there, or even the speaking clock (if it still exists!).

    1. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: Exercise the SRO

      Then he gets hit by an ASBO too.

      They should drag him away and euthanize him in a resort. I hear the Soviets invented special vans for just such a purpose.

      1. Bloodbeastterror

        Re: Exercise the SRO

        "They should drag him away and euthanize him in a resort. I hear the Soviets invented special vans for just such a purpose."

        Words fail me...

        1. Triggerfish

          Re: Exercise the SRO

          I'm assuming thats POE's law, Destroy All Monsters is usually a reasonably sane poster. :)

          1. Graham Dawson

            Re: Exercise the SRO

            Unfortunately, and with increasing frequency these days, dark humour tends not to translate well on the internet.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Exercise the SRO

              Dunno, I think people are quick to jump to the most convenient answer so they can vent their outrage.

              I'd have thought the statement quite clearly showed exacerbation at the situation and in typical British style suggested the best solution would be to carry out the most extreme action to prove how ridiculous the entire situation was.

              The entire "well you're going to make me do that, well you may as well kill me" standard teenage reaction to hoovering the front room.

              1. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

                Re: Exercise the SRO

                I think you meant "exasperation". For the other, see Shaun of the Dead.

            2. Bloodbeastterror

              Re: Exercise the SRO

              "dark humour tends not to translate well"

              I'm guessing this is in response to the "vans" comment?

              I have a pretty good sense of humour, so I can sort of see on rereading the post with your comment in mind that you may be right. However, given the general tenor of this thread, it might have been better to flag it up a little more clearly as an ironic comment, otherwise the poster risks people taking him seriously. As I did. And I admit I may have been wrong, but I went on the evidence presented to me.

              As do the courts, I hope, though I agree with the many posters who say that this is just a back door to "justice", legalised vigilantism. The bloke may well be a wrong 'un, but this isn't the way to deal with him. This isn't Saudi Arabia.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Exercise the SRO

        @Destroy All Monsters

        Don't give them ideas. Never forget, the state doesn't have any problem with extraordinary rendition...

  5. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

    This is quite possibly the wrongest thing I have ever heard of in this country.

    It's just plain vindictive.

  6. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    So if some girl (or wimminz) doesn't like you, or you pissed her off (or whatever) and she decide to cry rape in order to inconvenience you this way...

    ...sound good, right and proper.

    NOT.

    1. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Or maybe...

      You (i.e. this bloke) rape a woman and the police arrest you and take you to court, but the charge can't be made to stick.

      The woman involved in the rape case where you (this bloke) was not found guilty has since not been involved, and would not have known this was going to happen.

      But of course it's just a female screaming rape because she had her feelings hurt. So everything is her fault.

      That happens all the time. (NB it actually doesn't.)

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        Re: Or maybe...

        @ Hollerithevo

        "That happens all the time. (NB it actually doesn't.)"

        That is a very hard one to establish. The recent case of a girl accusing her father/step father using 50 shades of grey as a reference being a disturbing one to 'teach him a lesson' for being strict. The uni guy accused and socially ruined for 2 years until the police admitted to the court they had no evidence of anything at all. The school girl accusing a teacher acquitted in mere minutes as it wasnt possible.

        These are off the top of my head and made the news because they were found out and not even the celebrity witch hunts. Personally I believe it is because the accused has zero anonymity and false accusation isnt punished hard enough. All of that causing serious damage to people who are actually assaulted who then must make more effort to be believed. This is not helped by adverts claiming both are drunk so he is a rapist to have sex with her, etc. It leads to a situation where apps are made to try and verify consent even though they have no legal standing, and amusing but not far off true suggestions of giving consent in writing, in front of a camera and with witnesses.

        There is even the amusing idea of getting verbal consent every time for every action which people in relationships will find amusing and in BDSM potentially self defeating. Can you imagine spontaneous sex starting with both parties clearly expressing a yes with some kind of verification just to ensure the law is satisfied (would the participants be?).

        I dont know the answer but assuming guilt is certainly not it.

        1. Graham Dawson

          Re: Or maybe...

          This is the very reason why our legal system presumes innocence unless sufficient proof can be brought to convict.

          Sadly, on this issue in particular, our legal system is inexorably being inverted to presume guilt.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So if some girl (or wimminz) doesn't like you

      True, It happened to me. Destroyed my life. Had to go to court to fight it. Was found not guilty but instead of the girl getting prostituted for wrecking my life with malice and lies, she gets off scott-free with the blessing of the police.

      It is the perfect tool females can use against men as there is no comeback on them. I'm really surprised that I don't hear about more of it.

      1. Ian Emery Silver badge

        Re: So if some girl (or wimminz) doesn't like you

        I think you mean "prosecuted", but I will put it down to auto-complete.

        I have been in this situation, a woman made accusations against me on three occasions - horrific accusations of sustained rape of a pre school child.

        There was no physical evidence, the woman made the same accusation, but kept changing the date and venue, and I wasnt there anyway - they still threw me in a cell and gutted my house; thank god it was before this new "Guilty even if proven innocent" rule was introduced.

        Not one thing has been done to her, she is still fostering children for the local County Council, who seemingly have no official knowledge of her accusations, despite the fact that the child was in her foster care and it should have been reported to them.

        And she still smirks at me when she sees me, knowing the hell she put me through; it takes all my self control not to punch her in the face.

  7. Paul Anderson

    So,

    at what point do we officially recognise that 'guilty until proven innocent' is a thing of the past?

    1. hplasm Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: So,

      "at what point do we officially recognise that 'guilty until proven innocent' is a thing of the past?"

      You mean- 'a thing of the present'?

    2. djack

      Re: So,

      What you've said is what is happening to him now.

      I think you were meaning to say 'innocent unless proven guilty'

      It also scares me the number of people who say 'until' - that imples it is an inevitability.

    3. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: So,

      It all depends on such things as the Snooper's Charter, etc. If we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear... which is basically... you're guilty... of everything. These are scary times indeed.

  8. Justicesays
    Unhappy

    Double negatives

    "It appears that the insane requirements on O'Neill to report sexual activity in advance and to hand over phones etc to police on demand do not comply in any way with this section of the guidance."

    Sure they comply.

    He can't perform any actions of a sexual nature without telling the police 24 hours in advance

    He can't use any communications device that doesn't record activity ,or one that is not available for the police to take on demand.

    Both seem to be phrased in a way that meets the ridiculous, unethical and totally authoritarian laws' wording.

    Just be glad they didn't ban him from taking a dump, eating or breathing.

    You would hope that some legal groups would be jumping up and down to represent him in order to get the law struck down.

    The whole part of the criminal justice system where trial by jury, proof of guilt and presumption of innocence come into play in undermined by these kinds of ridiculous punitive "orders".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Double negatives

      "Just be glad they didn't ban him from taking a dump, eating or breathing."

      That's next on the cards.

      1. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: Double negatives

        "Just be glad they didn't ban him from taking a dump, eating or breathing."

        Hardsports, breathplay and sploshing are all potentially covered by the order.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Double negatives

      He can't perform any actions of a sexual nature without telling the police 24 hours in advance

      "North Yorkshire Police, good evening."

      "Hello? Oh hi, it's O'Neill, can I talk to the Sarge, please?"

      "O'Malley."

      "Hello Sir, it's O'Neill, reporting a planned action of a sexual nature 24h early."

      "Go on."

      "For your information, I was planning to have a w*nk tomorrow."

      "I see, and where will this be?"

      "Oh, at home, in front of the telly."

      "Which program will you be watching, Sir?"

      "I think the Antiques Roadshow or something"

      "We'll be OK with that if you make it the 8 o'clock news, Sir"

      "Oh, OK. Alright then. Do you need any evidence?"

      "No, no, that's quite alright Sir, thank you, have a good evening".

      I don't think they can quite sling an ASBO for complying to the letter.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Double negatives

        "I see, and where will this be?"

        "Oh, at home, in front of the telly."

        Funny as it is, the chap doesn't even HAVE a home right now - he's homeless. Incredible.

    3. fajensen Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Double negatives

      Just be glad they didn't ban him from taking a dump, eating or breathing.

      Rule 42 -> *any* of these are absolutely sexual activities, just Google It.

      1. Kiwi

        Re: Double negatives

        Rule 42 -> *any* of these are absolutely sexual activities, just Google It.

        No thanks. Mental imagery is far more than enough tyvm!

        (and be careful not to mistype "Mr Fletcher" when searching Google images!)

    4. Anonymous C0ward

      Re: Double negatives

      He just needs to tell them he's developed watersports and scat fetishes.

    5. Kiwi
      Gimp

      Re: Double negatives

      You would hope that some legal groups would be jumping up and down to represent him in order to get the law struck down.

      "Hello, injustice hotline. How can we help?"

      "You've been the victim of gross misrepresentation, malicious reporting, and false evidence by police? Sure we can help. We have a team of top lawyers on standby who love taking the cops to task for such things. Completely free of charge as well, they hate injustice in any form. Do you have any evidence of this?"

      "Written documentation, recordings of conversations, video evidence, sworn statements. All good, we love that sort of thing. And, just what sort of charges are you up on?"

      "Sex offence charges? Oh. Sorry. No, we don't do that sort of thing."

      "Doesn't matter the evidence sorry, we don't touch that sort of case. Yes, I understand even the alleged victim provided a sworn statement saying it wasn't you"

      "Yes, and I hear you saying the DNA evidence proves it was someone else as well"

      "Yes, and I acknowledge that the whole incident is on video and you can clearly be seen coming to the rescue. But sir, you need to understand that you are a male involved in a sex-crime. Your role in the incident doesn't matter, you are a male accused of a sex crime. Your guilt is automatic."

      At least, that's roughly how it goes. You can't get someone to listen past the words "sex offence", at which point guilt is automatic despite evidence to the contrary.

      (put cups/breakables down etc before reading further)

      As to DNA "evidence", work as a cleaner in a brothel and you'll get all sorts of easily-plantable DNA evidence in nice little latex packages... Best handle them with gloves though.

  9. Efros

    Beyond words

    This is the sort of thing you expect from a repressive, authoritarian, police state, not from a western democracy. I fail to understand how this is legal purely from the point of making this person unable to seek or indeed gain any sort of employment, let alone the other civil rights implications. I suspect that if his appeal fails it will be going to the court of human rights. The UN has said that internet access is a basic human right, and given that this individual has been found not guilty, has no criminal record, and then this sort of restriction is imposed this must be a contravention of that.

    1. Wommit

      Re: Beyond words

      "This is the sort of thing you expect from a repressive, authoritarian, police state, not from a western democracy."

      Err ... This is the UK. It is a repressive, authoritarian, police state. Hadn't you noticed the cameras?

    2. fajensen Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Beyond words

      ... from a western democracy.

      I'd say that's exactly what we can expect from western Democracy. See, "Democracy" goes boldly forth and takes a huge crap over the rights of people in far-away countries housing brown people nobody cares about. Then, having learned and perfected the skills used to "govern"/suppress unruly populations and serve "our" business interests abroad, "Democracy" applies the same skillz here at home also - because they do work so well and are good for "the economy (of the few)".

  10. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Mushroom

    I think he should go to the police station and name Theresa May... every day

    I mean, plans could change at any time, but the police must inform her anyway.

    If they decide that he can't name her every day, then why not go round everyone in the establishment, starting with the head of North Yorks Police and the judge.

  11. kain preacher Silver badge

    So if he gets married he has still tell the cops he is having a sex ? This is fucking insane. We could not legally convict you so we are just going to use a civil remedy to fuck with you. Oh and you break the civil order you are going to jail.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      "So if he gets married he has still tell the cops he is having a sex ?"

      Not sure if he's married now or not (or if he ever was), but he is referred to as "a father of two" in the news stories.

      1. kain preacher Silver badge

        If he is married that would be even more insane. I know in the US this would not fly as you have a right to procreate. And would that inter with the rights of the people that want to have sex with him? Do you want the sate to say who can and can not have sex?

  12. Robert Morgan

    Isn't a fair chunk of this against human rights and what not? I'd have thought that this is totally against the ECHR - which is still enforced today.

    If he's been to trial and been proven innocent, I'd think someone within North Yorks Police might have a personal link to this case, this almost seems to be going beyond the call of duty? Typically getting a officer to spend lots of time looking into a case, especially one that doesn't involve financial loss, seems quite tricky. The question must surely be why are they investing so much time and effort into making this mans life a misery?

    1. Bloodbeastterror

      "totally against the ECHR"

      Will this apply after we leave the EU? The main reason that I voted "remain" was to continue to have some governance against precisely this sort of foul behaviour by the UK government.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        ECHR is not an EU thing, that's the ECJ. Leaving the EU might make it easier to leave the ECHR afterwards though as the EU set a condition that new member states must recognise the ECHR.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          As I understand, all we need to do to leave the EHCR is revoke the appropriate treaty. Parliment can do that in a few hours if it wants (even with the load of incompetents that currently fill it on both sides of the house).

          1. Teiwaz Silver badge

            ECHR

            The current PM has already expressed a preference for leaving the ECHR.

            1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

              Re: ECHR

              The current PM has already expressed a preference for leaving the ECHR.

              Rather predictable, given her activities at the Home Office..

            2. Roj Blake Silver badge

              Re: ECHR

              But May has also said that she's not going to as it won't get through Parliament.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        ECHR is independent of the EU - in fact the UK was a member decades before we joined the EU.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "[...] in fact the UK was a member decades before we joined the EU."

          Winston Churchill was a strong supporter of the creation of the ECHR as a way to prevent such future abuses of people.

        2. Dan 55 Silver badge

          In fact he doesn't need to appeal all the way up to the ECHR as the European Convention on Human Rights (Blair, 1988) means that British courts must recognise them in the UK. Why this court hasn't is the question.

          (Edited to remove redundant redundancy.)

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Sorry, that should have been 1998.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Dan 55

            Re: "means that British courts must recognise them in the UK."

            Really? So, if Theresa May decides she's going to take as much notice of the ECHR as Russia does, who is going to overrule her exactly?

            She's already ignored the right to privacy enshrined by the ECHR. What's next?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Will this apply after we leave the EU?

        Yes because the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU monolith.

      4. Useless User

        "Will this apply after we leave the EU? The main reason that I voted "remain" was to continue to have some governance against precisely this sort of foul behaviour by the UK government."

        Looks like you will rather sooner than later enjoy a fair dose of Putinism or Jinpingism after the UK has jettisoned itself from the EU and the reach of the court of human rights.

        Embrace thought crime jurisdiction - it's in the making.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Police might have a personal link to this case, this almost seems to be going beyond the call of duty?"

      A few years ago people who used a long-standing naturist beach were suddenly being arrested for indecent exposure. As respectable middle class people they often accepted a police caution rather than have their names splashed across the front pages.

      What the police didn't tell them was that the CPS had already said they would not prosecute in those cases. Apparently the sudden drive for the persecution of naturists came from the Chief Constable.

      Possibly from the same Christian principles as exhibited by the Chief Constable of Manchester in an apparent persecution of gay men in the 1990s. "God works in mysterious ways. Given my love of God and belief in Him and Jesus Christ, I have to accept that I may well be used by God in this way."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Anderton

      1. Triggerfish

        Well if they can get a caution it's a conviction isn't it, looks good on the books and all that. I have known a fair few people get pushed for a caution when they should not really have been.

      2. Kiwi

        Possibly from the same Christian principles as exhibited by the Chief Constable of Manchester in an apparent persecution of gay men in the 1990s. "God works in mysterious ways. Given my love of God and belief in Him and Jesus Christ, I have to accept that I may well be used by God in this way."

        Sad how so many claim to work on "Christian principles" yet fail to miss so many fundamental ones.. Like not judging, staying out of other people's business/squabbles (Proverbs), letting God's servants serve Him (Romans 14:4) and so on.

        God might use me to to shoot people named James Anderton (and Given my love of God and belief in Him and Jesus Christ, I have to accept that I may well be used by God in this way), but that doesn't mean I should go and buy a gun just yet. Wait for the call to do so, then act rather than acting on the possibility (hrm, seems somehow reminiscent of this case...).

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yet another example of the use of civil law to circumvent the higher threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt" of criminal law trials. By breaking the civil restriction the person is automatically deemed to have broken a criminal law. Reasoning worthy of the Queen of Hearts in "Alice in Wonderland".

    That route is now used in ASBOs, SROs, and the confiscation of people's alleged "criminal" assets. All in cases where a criminal trial has failed to find someone guilty of an alleged offence.

    There is something very un-English about such machinations - although the ECHR is probably the body that would protect us against such draconian excesses.

    Many Home Scretaries in recent years have shown a troubling inclination to go down that path. A colleague of David Blunkett once said of him as Home Secretary - "David believes anyone who isn't David Blunkett should be in prison". The current situation in Turkey shows how easily an apparently democratic government can seize an opportunity to incarcerate those who may legitimately oppose their hold on power.

  14. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

    I don't even know where to start...

    ...with this huge pile of injustice. There's just so much wrong with all of this...

    "[Police are] asking for it to be made permanent if his challenge fails."

    So, if you challenge the police "ruling" it might just get worse for you. Shut up and put up.

    "[He] must also reveal the PIN for his phone to police so they can trawl through it at will"

    That's a clear breach of the right to privacy enshrined in European law. Still counts until we sign article 50 at the very least. It also appears to be against the guidance for the SRO itself.

    "He claims the doctor misunderstood what he was saying and it appears she contacted police to inform them of a “confession”."

    What on earth happened to Patient/Doctor confidentiality?!

    " his case does qualify for legal aid, but whether or not he fulfils the financial hardship criterion is not known."

    He's HOMELESS! How much more hardship does it require?!

    "Sexual Risk Orders are a civil order which became available to police and the National Crime Agency in early 2015"

    Ahh. there we go. Theresa Mays personal secret police force. Unaccountable to the Law, the Courts, the public or anyone else other than the Home Secretary. Given sweeping extra-judicial powers to arrest, detain and punish undesirables of all kinds. Keeping us safe from the TerrorPedos at every turn.

    If I were in his shoes, I'd head for Ireland, claim asylum and then sue under the ECHR.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: I don't even know where to start...

      But...

      " his case does qualify for legal aid, but whether or not he fulfils the financial hardship criterion is not known."

      If it can be 'proved' that he made himself homeless then he can be denied everything.

      Sad but I do think that the Plod are really out to get him by fair means or foul.

      I cn only hope that the publicity of the case will make some lawyer who is a human rights expert to take his case pro-bono. No matter if he is guilty as sin, he does deserve a proper defence and proper representation in court.

      1. Mycho Silver badge

        What on earth happened to Patient/Doctor confidentiality?!

        It has become more acceptable in recent years to piss all over the rules because you thought you were doing a good thing.

        Google "Noble Cause Corruption"

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Surely he is innocent or guilty (of something)?

    As the man was found "not guilty" then he is innocent, but at the same time *if* he poses such a risk to society surely there is something wrong with him and he needs help ...perhaps she should be 'sectioned'?

    We seem to have a new grey area where you have nothing "proven against you" yet you are allegedly a threat to society and can have your rights taken away from you?

    If this 'order' is a civil order/matter then what is it doing at a Magistrate's Court anyway ... thought they were for criminal stuff?

    Strange old world we live in.

    G.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Surely he is innocent or guilty (of something)?

      "We seem to have a new grey area where you have nothing "proven against you" yet you are allegedly a threat to society and can have your rights taken away from you?"

      The police already keep information on innocent people in their databases. They say that helps them to find possible suspects when a crime is committed. Given that such "soft intelligence" is probably often no more than hearsay, unfounded malicious allegations, or just degrees of separation from someone being investigated - then probably most of the country's population has an entry.

      The police often seem to arrest people these days on some vague "suspicion" hoping that the enabled search will turn up some evidence. So called "fishing expeditions" re often part of an ever-widening wild goose chase. The innocent person then has their DNA etc retained. Local newspaper online files might report the arrest without the fact that no charge was subsequently made. A perpetual official black mark against the person's character for possibly no reason at all.

      The Snooper's Charter will amplify that store of information to include inferences on everyone's political, sexual, and social interests.

      1. Triggerfish

        Re: Surely he is innocent or guilty (of something)?

        There used to be a site, something along the lines of the name FITwatch, FIT being Forward Intelligence Team who go to protests and store up databases of people who attend them. It came about because it turned out some of this intel was being used to harrass people who had no reason to be harrassed apart from the fact they were legally protesting.

        I believe at one point someone protesting a arms trade fair was arrested using dubious reasons, for protesting outside the trade fair, and some of the arms dealers came to his defence saying he was acting perfectly legal.

        Next year London is apparently trailing using the same tracking technology as they use in shops to track your phones MAC address (for your own good of course), you can thank Boris for that one.

        Edit: Aaah FITwatch.org I kept googling fitwatch, and finding sites for bloody fitbits and the like.

        Also Gaurdian link here looks like the police shut it down for a while.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/nov/16/fitwatch-website-closed-police

  16. Valerion

    Ironic

    He has to tell the plod of any planned sexual activity, but they are able to fuck him over continuously.

  17. Hollerithevo Silver badge

    And if this chap had been accused of terrorist activities, but...?

    If he had been accused and arrested but the case fell apart, but the Police felt he was a wrong-un and the best way to stop him was to be in his face and restrict him every possible way, many of the 'tards here would have felt, for the greater safety of society, that this was beyond the law but, you know, pretty acceptable in this instance.

    Could it be that the Police feel that he is a wrong-un and this is how they are getting in his face?

    Do I think it is right? I'm not sure. We've heard his side of it and I'd like to hear the Police's side, although we never will. But from what I hear from him, everyone's mean to him and he is innocent, so so innocent. Hmmmm.

    1. Triggerfish

      Re: And if this chap had been accused of terrorist activities, but...?

      I think we need a peasant with pitchfork and flaming torch icon.

  18. Danny 2 Silver badge

    Legal ordeal

    I've just experienced 20 months of being charged with Breach of the Peace Section 38 ("a domestic"), only for the charges to be dropped earlier this week during the trial without me being allowed to say anything in court except "Not guilty". I've had to attend court at least 12 times, I eventually lost count. I've spent three days in jail on two occassions, my family suffered three police 'visits', I've chosen not to work or claim benefits during that period, and it's been hellish.

    I will write it up and may post it here or at least link to it here because there are a few tech angles. First though I've got complaints to the police, the laywers and the prosecutors to write, in the hope of improving their awful performance rather than wanting vengeful disciplinary action.

    I would've preferred a trial rather than a dismissal even though I had been told there was a good chance of being found guilty. I would far preferred if the prosecutors had accepted my initial offer to discuss the matter on record.

    One of the things that came out of this is I asked and got to read my medical records, and they are appalling inaccurate and worringly demeaning. It's inhibited me from seeking medical help again, and I urge everyone here to ask to read through their own medical notes. Unrelated to my case I found suggestions that I was a heroin user when I attended hospital with cat bites - wtf?

    As IT guys we recognise and laugh at our own professions incompetence, but in my experience we are far better at our jobs and more open about our failings than doctors or the judiciary who form 'closed ranks'.

    By nature I don't have much sympathy for this guy the way he has conducted himself and has been portrayed in the media. Through bitter experience I'll hold my judgement on anyone I haven't shared a cell with.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the style of a daily mail reader

    This countries going to shit and it's going to get worse post brexit.

  20. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    Well, where did people think the draconian sexual offenders register laws were going to end?

    Gordon Bennet.

  21. Contrex

    This bloke sounds like a right nasty piece of work if he "needs women to be scared". I'm not in such a hurry to condemn the court & police action. I see some agendas being aired here.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      It's not difficult to see that justice and personal liberty are pretty unpopular agendas these days.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      This bloke sounds like a right nasty piece of work if he "needs women to be scared".

      And maybe he is. Problem is that Police couldn't prove any of that in court and if it was really a problem for society that there is a nasty piece of work roaming the streets a proper offence could be created for this instead of some administrative that the local plod can interpret however they feel like.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Actually have known some girls who have quite liked things along that line. It's a bit weird at first when a girl broaches it as a subject, what? you mean you want me to do what?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        " It's a bit weird at first when a girl broaches it as a subject,"

        A young friend recounted the sad tale of one of his mates. Apparently a new girlfriend started to want some rough play. The guy wasn't sure and took some persuading by the woman - but still didn't use the amount of force she wanted. Apparently she eventually used his fist as a weapon for self-inflicted pain.

        Next thing he was arrested because the woman's mother saw the bruise. It took a while for the young woman to convince the police of the truth of the matter. That will look good on the guy's data file won't it?

        Thinking back over my many years. It has been "respectable" women who wanted me to spank them (once - not my cup of tea, thank you) - or offered to loan me "The Story of O" or "50 Shades of Grey". One friend was only turned on by men with an apparent physical menace. On one occasion she ended up nearly dying from a ruptured spleen. The next boyfriend/husband was still from the same mould.

    4. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Being a "right nasty piece of work" isn't a crime and, according to Mr. O'Neill, he had consent from his partner(s). A jury decided that he did and that's that as far as that specific offence is concerned.

      Back at his trial in 2015, Mr O'Neill was also living rough - "he had been homeless since he had had to leave the university when his money ran out, living for a time in a tent". And according to testimony given today Mr O'Neill had in the past chosen to make himself homeless and "as a young person he had apparently run away from his mother and lived in tents because he liked that there were no rules in the woods”, so the assertion that it is the SRO itself that has made him homeless is open to question; rather it would seem to be his predeliction to head for the forest when he's under pressure.

      All of which suggests that he may have some issues. But those are never going to be dealt with if every conversation he has with a doctor or a CPN may be used in evidence against him in court. And that's the other problem with "pre-crime": it incentivises people to conceal issues they may have concerns about rather than resolve them.

    5. Kiwi

      This bloke sounds like a right nasty piece of work if he "needs women to be scared". I'm not in such a hurry to condemn the court & police action. I see some agendas being aired here.

      Cop takes a dislike to you. Maybe you're closer to a chick he'd like to get to and he hates the competition, or you dumped her best friend (or are closer to a chick she wants to get to...), or you accidentally cut him off or.. Cop can find a way to use this order against you, which I think you'll find is surprisingly easy. After all, if there was a need for evidence against you then you'd have been charged with a crime; these orders only exist to lock people up without evidence.

      Think you'll say much the same about not condemning such things?

      Such orders need to be ended, as should the freedoms of those who thought them up. Or maybe those people should be subject to them for a few years before they get passed, love to see a politician having to phone the police for permission to see their own family and having to give advanced notice of who they want to screw (pun 50% intended)

      For that matter, maybe those who like them should be made subject to them for a while under similar conditions... One of the worst things you can experience in life is being innocent and going through the court process, even if your actions/thoughts aren't entirely clean.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I don't care what he's been accused of

    If he hasn't been found guilty of anything he shouldn't be punished. These special orders just amount to special police powers to harass and victimise the innocent. Pre-crime measures have no place in a justice system which holds to the principle of innocent unless proven guilty. Unfortunately, the british justice system appears to be giving up on that principle.

    1. James 51 Silver badge

      Re: I don't care what he's been accused of

      When we lost the right to silence with the password law that should have been a red flag to everyone.

      1. Mike Pellatt

        Re: I don't care what he's been accused of

        When we lost the right to silence with the password law that should have been a red flag to everyone

        It was to everyone who understood, or thought about, it.

        But we're going down the same path again.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: I don't care what he's been accused of

        "When we lost the right to silence with the password law that should have been a red flag to everyone."

        The right to silence was already long gone when they introduced the new law which *requires* you to give up passwords and PINs

        "if you do not mention anything now which you later rely on in court, it *may* harm your defence" (my emphasis.) The password reveal thing is an automatic "go to jail" if you don't answer, not a "may harm your defence" thing, subtly different with far worse consequences.

  23. Frank N. Stein

    Free Country?

    Someone who has not been convicted of a crime can have a punishment like this imposed in them? No visits to England, ever...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Free Country?

      And what haven of justice do you hail from? You can even be imprisoned indefinitely without trial in many countries, including the USA. Although hopefully not for just having an asphyx fetish.

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Free Country?

      If you're in the States, we have assorted PD's that play roughshod with the law also. All it takes is to be pulled over, the cop says "we think you have (or have had) drugs in your car". It's all over at that point. They got your car, any cash, etc. Good luck on getting it back.

  24. This post has been deleted by its author

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Isn't this a case of a possible mental health case the police have to deal with?

    I'm not making a direct link between his "dark sexual interests" and poor mental health, but surely this injunction being made against the man is to hide the fact mental health services should be dealing with this case?

    If mental health in the UK wasn't always swept under the carpet, made a taboo to talk about and poorly funded; maybe this situation wouldn't of occurred. Another case where the police have to step in where they shouldn't.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a scoundrel!

    It's a well-used old quotation, but no less true for all that:

    "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

    H.L.Mencken (attrib.)

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Looking at the reporting of this my guess would be that they will remove the order then he will commit a crime. That way other orders will no longer be contested.

    Looking at what the order was based on (what he said to healthcare professionals) then I think professional mental help was what he needed and not this order.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Bully behaviour

    The police despise being proven wrong and this is the typical playground bully behaviour you can expect from them. This man has been acquitted and therefore is INNOCENT in the eyes of the law but that is not enough for the police.

    I was falsely accused of rape once myself and went through a year of what I can only describe as a sheer hell. There was zero evidence provided on the part of the accuser, it was up to me to prove my innocence which is the complete opposite of how I believed the law was supposed to operate in this country. Despite cooperating fully with the investigating officers and providing overwhelming evidence of my innocence the police repeatedly told me I was guilty and that they would find the evidence to put me away and I would be making it easier on myself if I just confessed. Even when I was finally de-arrested the behaviour of the officers was as if I had gotten away with something rather than having been acquitted of the accusations. They even refused my application to have my fingerprint and DNA records deleted which just shows they think I am guilty and they will need that data to catch me with in future.

    Later the same year I had been at the pub with a group of friends and had been on diet coke all night, as we left the pub there were at least 8 of us leaving in cars, half a mile away from the pub when I was away from any of the people I had been out with I was pulled over by an undercover unit. I was told that they had seen me leave the pub and suspected I was over the limit, I was breathalysed and when that came up all clear they proceeded to inspect my car from nose to tail inside and out looking for anything that they could make stick. Again they were very annoyed to find there was nothing that they could charge me with.

    I used to trust and respect the police, now I am very cautious whenever I have to interact with them and make sure I know my rights. Being innocent is not enough anymore.

  29. Maty

    At what point are the British going to be honest with themselves and admit - 'Yes, we live in a police state, (but it's for our own good).'

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Oh, about the same time the Americans do.

  30. InsertMyNameHere

    He's a liar

    I know for a fact that his 'I can't get legal aid because I'm not on a particular benefit' is a straight out lie. So I wonder what else he's not telling the truth about.

    1. Phil W

      Re: He's a liar

      It may not be true but that doesn't mean it's a lie. It just means that the legal system that doesn't want to help him has told him that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He's a liar

      Why do you think he is lying?

      Instead the Police, who is operating just like Stasi would? Their motivation to lie is much, much higher as their actions are totally illegal by any means. And they know it, of course.

      Because Police is the professional in lying, ordinary citizens rarely are. I can bet he's been told that you "can't have any aid (because we say so)" and then lied some totally made up excuse.

      That is exactly what legal system does, as their job, professional liars and thieves.

  31. JasonB

    The verdict must have been interesting

    Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict?

    Foreman of the jury: We find the defendant Not Guilty

    Judge: Thank you. I will now pass sentence.

    Foreman: Er ..but ...

    1. VinceH Silver badge

      Re: The verdict must have been interesting

      Surely, more a case of:

      Judge. Thank you. I will now leave it to the police to pass sentence.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The verdict must have been interesting

        "Thank you. I will now pass sentence."

        An acquaintance was let down by his lawyers who advised him he had committed an unwitting "technical" offence. They told him if he went to trial then the jury would find him guilty on both the technicality and by public prejudice - and that would mean a mandatory prison sentence. However if he pleaded guilty then he would get probation. He had already upped the sentencing ante by electing to go to a Crown Court rather than a Magistrates Court.

        So he pled guilty. The judge then criticised the prosecution for their slim evidence from a single home video. "If they had not culled those few frames from the video I would not have noticed them". He also apologised that the sentencing rules tied his hands in what minimum probation he could impose. The guy then spent most of his probationary period playing chess with his probation officer - who had quickly decided he was not an offender. The hyped local media coverage cost him his job - even though an Industrial Tribunal then awarded him compensation.

        The other "degrees of separation" defendant in the same case took the jury risk before a different judge. That judge frequently criticised the prosecution's evidence - and particularly their "expert" witness's very subjective statements. The jury said "not guilty".

        All starting from an anonymous phone call to the police - who apparently saw career advancement laurels if they could find a large conspiracy ring.

  32. DubyaG

    This Yank says

    I'm from across the pond, think this is quite nasty. Does the UK have the equivalent of the American Civil Liberties Union". Over here, they would salivate on a case like this.

    1. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: This Yank says

      No, but it is long past time we did.

    2. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: This Yank says

      We have an organisation called Liberty which is similar to the ACLU

  33. BarryUK

    I'm sure this can't be legal under the European Human Rights Act - but hey, once we #TakeBackControl the government can do whatever they like to us.

    1. Dave 15 Silver badge

      EU ECHR

      Not the same

      Although the problem is that the ECHR comes up with totally bizarre ideas like giving murders a vote even out of the EU it would form a potential route to stopping this sort of abuse. HOWEVER getting permission to appeal to the ECHR is hard and this is not a criminal punishment (well it is criminal in its way but is a 'civil order').

      What IS needed is for the British public to grow some back bone. We apparently vote the same people in year after year and get the same shit year after year... when will we learn? And I suspect it goes beyond lies about results... my mum can't bring herself to vote anything but conservative because her dad did... any excuse is rolled out from who has the best suit to no one else gets elected in her constituency so anything else is wasted...

      I mean even to look at another example... the CEO of my company takes his girlfriend off and racks up 4grand on hotels and God only knows how much on flights, booze and food when he is cutting the pay and jobs of his staff? Would I still be in the job or hassling for an all out strike until he is dismissed... in the UK we plod on, in France he would be out of work

  34. Mycho Silver badge

    The end result

    The judge is to amend the order. He was especially critical of the one day's notice clause.

    September 22nd is the estimated date for an idea of what this actually means.

    1. Anonymous C0ward

      Re: The end result

      Hope it's not the same judge, because that one ought to be on trial in The Hague.

  35. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Reading this story

    reminds me of an old not the nine o'clock news joke

    "In this country , you are presumed guilty until found dead"

    I always thought they were on about a 3rd world hell hole , not Britain

    BB icon.... of course

  36. ecofeco Silver badge

    Nobody expects...

    .. .The SPANISH INQUISITION!!

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Nobody expects...

      Actually, they generally gave people a months notice before carting them away for enhanced interrogation.

      1. Radio Wales
        Coat

        Re: Nobody expects...

        Aha! Another Monty Python fan eh?

  37. the Jim bloke Bronze badge
    Mushroom

    Judges doing the best they can

    From the news article I read, even though he was acquitted (query - different to 'found not guilty'?) the guy (not interested enough to track down his name) still convinced all of the judges he has faced that he was an asshole,

    "I have found Mr O’Neill to be a vain, manipulative and grandstanding individual who sought to persuade me that black is white and used the valuable time of professionals to describe sexual fantasies he may or may not have. There is a narcissistic streak to Mr O’Neill, who does trouble me in terms of further contact he may have with other people."

    -with a similar attitude to women as SatNad to Windows users, and although he couldnt be locked up the judge required measures to be in place to make it easier to apprehend him once he did get around to raping/murdering some woman.

    Obviously this isnt satisfactory to any of the parties involved,

    - the guy is inconvenienced in his sexual predations,

    -the police have to spend resources monitoring him,

    -the woman still gets murdered.

    Even the retrial judge agrees the SRO is "frankly unpoliceable", and something different will be worked out as the circus proceeds.

    1. Dave 15 Silver badge

      Re: Judges doing the best they can

      Woman still gets murdered? No, we let murders out of prison after a couple of years on probation. As I understand it he is what used to be referred to as kinky... odd but in itself not a murder level problem. If the particular carrying on described is not in some way agreed I would guess a charge of common assault would suffice.

      But just because he wants something I don't agree with shouldn't give me the option to make his life awkward... I don't want a touch screen iPhone, should that give you the right to want 24 hours notice that I might want to use my old nokia?

      1. lotus49

        Re: Judges doing the best they can

        Did you actually read anything about him? He isn't "kinky" he is dangerous. He has admitted enough that I'd be happy to see him incarcerated for what he has said.

        This man will do something terrible sooner or later. I don't care about his freedom. People here are sticking up for him like he's some sort of Edward Snowden character. He isn't.

        1. Kiwi
          Mushroom

          Re: Judges doing the best they can

          He has admitted enough that I'd be happy to see him incarcerated for what he has said.

          So what has he actually done that is worth incarceration? His life of building a family, a home, and a career? A few weird fantasies he had? What?

          Yes, I've read the articles.

          Nothing he has said or done to date warrants the abuse he is suffering at the hands of the so-called justice system. "No foul, no harm" should be how things are run, not "Might some day harm, so..."

          This man will do something terrible sooner or later. I don't care about his freedom.

          Every one of us is able to be pushed to "do something terrible". It's in all of us, we just need the right percieved threat and we will kill (or otherwise harm) an innocent person (I say "perceived" because of your post - you want him harmed because you perceive he is a threat - and yes imprisonment is harm!). So you should be locked up because, at some stage, there's a good chance you'll do something terrible sooner or later. You've stated your desire for such in this very thread.

          All scum like you do is discourage people who actually need help from seeking it. And yes, you are scum.

  38. David Roberts Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Slippery slope.

    In this specific case the SRO has been imposed after a failure to convict.

    However the recently reported civil recovery of "criminal assets" can take place prior to or even instead of a criminal trial.

    How soon before an SRO is imposed after an allegation of rape or other sex crime before (or instead of) a criminal trial?

    Thinking this through, in some cases an SRO might be suggested to keep tabs on someone who showed the potential to offend multiple times before trial. However surely this is what bail is all about?

    The slippery slope is the apparent increasing tendency to outsource what should be criminal law to the civil courts. Easy to impose, less burden on the police and CPS, and easy to encourage "mission creep" as seen with RIPA.

  39. Useless User

    Putinism in the UK?

    I am more than relieved the UK is exiting from the EU.

    The desire to pre-empt everything with surveillance cameras, spying on citizens and now apparently giving police the powers of judge, jury and executioner - throwing overboard "innocent until proven guilty" - shows where this nation is sadly headed.

    What's next? Pre-emptively imprisoning or hanging citizens? Maybe first pre-emptively "tickling" citizens for a wee bit at the police station's cellar, right? And then "accidentally shooting them" or "forgetting where they were imprisoned", just like it was done behind the iron curtain?

    Is the UK, onece admired warrantor of democracy, attempting to overtake Orbán, Putin & Erdogan to win the pseudo-democracy gold medal at the next UN general assembly?

    These are frightening developments.

    1. TVU Silver badge

      Re: Putinism in the UK?

      "I am more than relieved the UK is exiting from the EU".

      However flawed they may be, the EU and ECHR have at least restricted state and corporate intrusions into people's personal lives and at least one of of those safeguards is now going which means that May & Co. will be less restrained by checks and balances.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Putinism in the UK?

      Your comment is okay, but the idea that the UK has democracy is laughable :D

  40. Conundrum1885

    This is insane

    A man who to all intents and purposes has never been found guilty of *any* crime is being treated worse than most terrorists.

    Society is clearly broken, if this travesty is allowed to continue.

    This looks *exactly* like what Mckinnon had to go through, the true extent of the restrictions are still subject to a secrecy order despite the case being unofficially dropped due to conflicting evidence and the very real possibility of a MoD//NaSA cover-up which vindicates the actions he took.

    The latest "sneaky" method is non-custodial custody, essentially imprisonment without declaration of such and is normally used against political prisoners and TV license avoiders.

  41. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Report in every day?

    So all he has to do is report in every day at the same time that he intends to have sex in the next 24 hours and then he can just get on with his life on the off chance he might cop off with someone?

    1. Phil W

      Re: Report in every day?

      Sounds good except that I suspect if he reported to police that he intended to have sex and then didn't actually do it, that the police would charge him with perverting the course of justice.

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Welcome to the post-feminist-era new normal

    Men under assault from all quarters. Misandry baked into the system.

    1. lotus49

      Re: Welcome to the post-feminist-era new normal

      Boo bloody hoo. Cry me a river.

      Baby.

  43. Potemkine Silver badge

    help the police, beat yourself up

    I do understand better now why UK didn't want to fully adhere to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  44. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    That all said

    The law is not a moral compass. Slavery was legal. Denying women the right to vote was legal. Gay marriage was illegal. Etc etc.

  45. Anonymous Noel Coward
    Big Brother

    He lost, by the way.

  46. FlamingDeath Bronze badge

    Some women fantasise about being raped

    Don't ask me why this is, I am not a woman, but it can't be denied.

    Could you imagine a woman who enjoys being raped in the bedroom having this SRO imposed on them, as they may encourage a man to carry out a rape on them, you know to satisfy their sexual desire.

    So on the one hand you have a guy who is into sadomasochism, which I imagine involves having total dominion over a partner. Sex is like that, even in the animal kingdom, sex is about who dominates.

    Then on the other hand, you hav a women who enjoy the fantasy of being raped, and being dominated.

    Should they both have SRO's imposed on them?

    Or just the bloke, cos you know blokes are all rapists right?

    1. Dave 15 Silver badge

      Re: Some women fantasise about being raped

      Perhaps they should but if they ever track you down it is 100% CERTAIN that you will...

    2. Schlimnitz

      Re: Some women fantasise about being raped

      Fantasising about something is not the same thing as wanting it to happen.

      And that applies to being raped, or doing the raping.

      That is what role-playing is all about.

    3. lotus49

      Re: Some women fantasise about being raped

      It sounds like you are.

      Sex is not about who dominates. Not in the mind of a reasonable man at least.

  47. Dave 15 Silver badge

    He won't win... but

    At least he is trying.

    The idea that the police can fail to find enough evidence to support a conviction but then punish you is blatantly against magna carta and probably the EU court on human rights. It is certainly without a shadow of a doubt against any semblance of morality. If this happened in North Korea, Russia or China the headlines in the UK would be screaming human rights abuses. Of course what do we expect from May... I reckon she will have the Brown shirts back before much longer. She is willfully ignoring the expressed desire of the public AND implementing ever more draconian legislation on everything. I thought the previous Labour bunch were insane but even their intrusive unpleasant stupidity pales. I mean how many youth clubs, sports clubs etc. have turned their back on children because of having to try and prove the innocence of everyone volunteering, leaving the kids to wander aimlessly on streets or sit in front of games consoles and computer screens as tempting bait for all sorts of shady predators and drug dealers. As someone in my rugby club said... I pity the person here who interferes with one of the kids... the kid is likely to be the son/daughter of another team member....

  48. Schlimnitz

    This is dangerous stuff

    Being a powerless victim of injustice breeds violence.

    If this guy turns up somewhere one day with a machine gun and starts gunning down innocent police officers, don't be surprised.

  49. Bigkahuna456

    It is for instances like these why we need the European court ofHuman rights. This case has not gone there yet becaus ethgis poor individual does not have the means of pursuing his case through that court. but if ever theser was a case of a person being denied his right to a private life and the right to pursue a carreer, this one if it.

    1. Dave 15 Silver badge

      ECHR

      Must admit not certain how you get a case up to them.

      More to the point, it has already been shown that the UK is perfectly willing to ignore the ECHR anyway (votes for prisoners)

      Unfortunately it is the great British public to blame. They have sat there for the last 20+ years while their freedoms and liberties have been removed, while the spying and oppression have increased. What happens in Britain today is very little removed from Stalins Russia, China or even Nazi Germany.

      Not only will they not fight it but they will not even take the simple approach of voting for someone else... they continue to beg for more of the same. They to a man and woman are insane, woeful, pathetic.

      The EU referendum... the exit is NOT happening people, do you care? No

      The taxation going ever up while money is siphoned off to the rich, do you care? No

      Your private correspondence, your web viewing, your phone calls monitored...

      Every car or public transport trip you make monitored

      Every purchase you make monitored

      Even what you put in your bin.

      When given the chance to stop the mockery of 30% of the population being given complete control by putting in place a better electoral system then no, we love to be beaten by minorities thank you very much....

      British... pathetic, obvious how we lost an empire we can't even stand up to a bunch of thugs.

      1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

        Re: ECHR

        The "Votes for Prisoners" thing is a clear case of tabloid distortion. What the EHCR actually decided was that the UK cannot impose a blanket ban on voting "because they are prisoners". Any restrictions on suffrage need to be based on specific acts of the individuals whose rights are being restricted, not just where they happen to be located. Otherwise it's a slipper slope towards saying things like "people living in state-owned accommodation don't get to vote" or "members of the armed forces get to vote twice" or something like that.

        There is no problem with having a law saying "murders don't get to vote", only "prisoners don't get to vote".

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too bad for him he's not a

    Pakistani Muslim from Rotherham,, he'd have an apology and be driven home by the police

  51. Jake Maverick

    so what was the verdict then? is he 'allowed' to get laid again or not...?

    1. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      He'll find out on Sep 22. The judge clearly didn't like the terms of the old SRO, but also clearly didn't feel very sympathetic to the victim. So the delay may be legal speak for "I'm going to go do some research and find out what I can do, because I don't want to toss the old SRO in its entirety but on its face it should be tossed"!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019