back to article Sex ban IT man loses appeal – but judge labels order 'unpoliceable'

Former IT contractor John O'Neill has lost his appeal against the Sexual Risk Order imposed on him last year – but the judge said the 24 hours' notice he had to give police in advance of having sex was “unpoliceable”. District Judge Adrian Lower, sitting at York Magistrates' Court on Friday, refused to discharge the order …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thin

    end of a wedge this little fiasco.

    Get ready for more of this as EVERYONE must be GUILTY of something and in order to get you on that fucking database they all want, they will go to just about any lengths to include everyone they can with or without solid, incontrovertible evidence.

    1. Triggerfish

      Re: Thin

      Y'know I was going to reply to this with there will be plenty of people who think it's fine not really getting the ramifictions.

      Watch this comment thread.

    2. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Thin

      Bad news, you are already on that database. What they really want is to put you on double secret probation.

  2. hplasm Silver badge
    Terminator

    I'm the law in this here town, boy.

    *spit* ding.

    1. Kane Silver badge

      Re: I'm the law in this here town, boy.

      In town you're the law, out here it's me.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: I'm the law in this here town, boy.

        There is no Justice, There's Just Us.

  3. Naughtyhorse

    downvote here

    So we wait until he kills someone?

    ok

    I know im in the minority here... but fuckit!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: downvote here

      Most sexual abuse is carried by someone known to the victim.

      Therefore impose this to everyone that has contact with another person....just in case.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        Too lax. You should be born on the list and only struck off and pardoned if you die a virgin or lop your own cock off.

        Anyone convicted of an offense should be highlighted in bold.

        Anyone with a beard and glasses should be in italic.

        Anyone that works for the BBC should go on their own list which will be left alone for 30 years.

        Anyone that wears a tracksuit, smokes cigars and drives a gold bentley should go on a pre-order list for a cardboard headstone to save on destruction costs when they're outed.

    2. Justicesays

      Re: downvote here

      "so do we wait until he kills someone?"

      No, we have this process where we arrest the guy, have this thing called a "trial" where the people who think he should be in jail try to convince a jury of that, and if they cant then they let him go.

      Maybe you have heard of this system, it's called "justice"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        Maybe you have heard of this system, it's called a trial. FTFY

        There was no justice here.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        "so do we wait until he kills someone?"

        We do with people driving cars so what's different?

        everyone's a potential killer

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        "Maybe you have heard of this system, it's called 'justice'" It may be called the justice system but it is fallible. The level of proof required for a conviction is quite high. Which means that some guilty people are found not guilty. The victims in those cases will probably tell you they have not received justice.

        There is always going to be trade off between finding people who have committed a crime 'not guilty' and stopping innocent people from being convicted. It seems that currently the balance is set so that few innocents are convicted which means quite a few guilty are found not guilty. I think many/most people agree that this is an appropriate balance.

        Unfortunately some crimes are committed and there is little if any evidence.

        This case certainly seems a worrying precedence. I wonder if we were in court at the original trial or on the jury what we'd think of the court Order.

        n.b. In Scotland you can have verdicts of Not Guilty, Guilty and Not Proven!

    3. Richard 81

      Re: downvote here

      "I know im in the minority"

      Thank god for that.

    4. foo_bar_baz
      Holmes

      Re: downvote here

      Precrime doesn't exist yet.

      1. Raumkraut

        Re: downvote here

        Precrime doesn't exist yet.

        Actualy, yes, it does. However, it doesn't appear to be working too well as of yet: Chicago’s predictive policing tool just failed a major test

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: downvote here

          Precrime kind of exists.

          Various police departments have found that by predicting where trouble is most likely to happen and putting patrols in that area at that time, it generally doesn't. Just the presence of police is enough to disrupt criminal behaviour in most cases

          Unfortunately this doesn't get recorded as arrests so isn't called a success by politicians who "must get tough on crime"

          1. Alan W. Rateliff, II
            Trollface

            Re: downvote here

            This approach of community policing is generally considered to be racist.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        Precrime doesn't exist yet.

        As far as the police farce force service are concerned it does.

      3. RealityisntReal

        Re: downvote here

        Actually it does, at least to a certain extent. There are multiple versions of "conspiracy" crimes. By definition it criminalizes the act of you thinking about and preparing to commit a crime before you actually do it. The problem as far as the cops are concerned (not anyone interested in individual rights and justice) is that it is very hard to get a conviction from a jury when trying someone for conspiracy. Seems to me this SRO stuff you have in Britain is an end run around your individual rights protections.

        1. Simon Harris Silver badge

          Re: downvote here

          Don't conspiracy crimes generally have more than one defendant?

          1. P. Lee

            Re: downvote here

            >Don't conspiracy crimes generally have more than one defendant?

            Or at least some, er, conspiracy. i.e. some active planning & preparation. I'm not sure just having thoughts about things which are illegal is illegal.

            Who hasn't had a violent fantasy about the person in front of them doing 20 below the limit in the outside lane?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: downvote here

          "The problem as far as the cops are concerned (not anyone interested in individual rights and justice) is that it is very hard to get a conviction from a jury when trying someone for conspiracy."

          However the police do find it useful to do a "fishing expedition" by arresting someone "on suspicion of conspiracy to...". They hope the search that the arrest enables will find some evidence of real crime. This can happen if you have a social connection to a suspect in an investigation that is going nowhere. If they find nothing then they don't proceed to a charge for the purported conspiracy.

          Any proven conspiracy offence used to be regarded extremely seriously by the courts - irrespective of what the conspiracy was supposed to be about. IIRC before the Blair government made everything an "arrestable" offence - the "suspicion of conspiracy to..." was a safe way to make an arrest of apparently innocent people.

    5. David Webb

      Re: downvote here

      So we wait until he kills someone?

      Yes, we do have to wait. We have this wonderful thing called "the law" which is designed to punish people for doing stuff wrong, like installing windows Vista on their aunts laptop. We have police officers who are a deterrent to people who want to break the law, we also have punishment as a deterrent for people (and if they break the law, as a punishment).

      What we have here is a case of a man who has not broken any laws, sure, he may be a bit of a weirdo, but being weird is not against the law. We cannot punish him for not breaking the law. Sure, if there was a major chance he was going to break the law, we could arrest him and charge him, but we're not, we're just punishing him for a crime he has not done, and that is wrong.

      If they think he is dangerous enough to warrant some kind of supervision, then he needs to be tried under the law so that he could have the ability in court to present his case with the law presenting their case and a verdict reached, not this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        "If they think he is dangerous enough to warrant some kind of supervision, then he needs to be tried under the law so that he could have the ability in court to present his case with the law presenting their case and a verdict reached, not this."

        While this action started from the position of him being under the order - Is that not what has just happened?

      2. Stork Silver badge

        Re: downvote here

        In addition to David Webb's comment, I assume it is also possible under EnglishAndWelsh law to have someone declared insane and put in detention as a danger to himself and others. Again, for good reasons, this is not something the police just does.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: downvote here

          So, we have to wait until Naughtyhorse actually seizes power and imposes a dictatorship before we lynch him in the street for his pro-fascist post?

          Oh well, I guess it's the price of justice...

    6. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

      Re: downvote here

      Precrime is now a thing.

      A commentard called Naughtyhorse demands it!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: downvote here

        > Precrime is now a thing.

        And this is new? What about IRA internment? Guantanamo bay? Control orders?

        Mind you, as Sideshow Bob said:

        > I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder" - now honestly, did they ever give anyone a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: downvote here

      > So we wait until he kills someone?

      No. You fucking jail everyone just in case.

      More helpfully to you, I hope: in the event that a person may be considered a risk to himself or the community at large, that's were social services get involved. Police is supposed to be a last resort, not the very first stop.

      1. JohnMurray

        Re: downvote here

        They downsized social services some years ago.

        The police are always moaning that they are now social workers as well as law enforcers.

        The discharge provisions are what you should look at: The court cannot discharge the order. It can only be discharged by agreement between the person AND the police,or by the police. Not the court who imposed it, without police consent.

        And while he has committed no offence, breach of the order is an offence and carries a custodial sentence.

    8. Preston Munchensonton
      Coat

      Re: downvote here

      downvote here

      Thanks for the target. Certainly made it easier having a big, friendly label on your post.

    9. Anonymous Coward
      Coffee/keyboard

      @Naughty

      "So we wait until he kills someone?"

      Have you actually read the article and the linked articles?

      What has happened here is that this guy confessed to his GP (General Practitioner, so his doctor (as a non-English speaker I actually had to look this up)) about his wild sexual fantasies and that he wasn't too sure that he didn't rape someone. Basically: during the past 12 months he never really asked his girlfriend(s?) if they agreed. So his doctor reported him.

      Then it got out that he does show some odd behaviour. Even getting into fights himself (it is unspecified if this is with males or females) and taking some things to extremes. So you won't hear me say that everything is totally normal here.

      However...

      He was tried and I'm pretty sure that his girlfriends were also part of that trial. Surely that would be the best evidence they had against him? But even despite all that a jury cleared him of all charges. Now, take note: they cleared him while he himself was the one who brought it all up: he wasn't sure the sex was consensual.

      And after that it was the Judge who suddenly started the hate campaign; stating how this guy was a very dangerous man in his eyes.

      Here is my problem with the whole thing: for all I know that judge could be someone who totally despises SM or any forms of kinky sex. Either because he's just disgusted with it, or because of other personal issues he has with it (religion?). Leading up to this guy getting convicted merely because 1 individual considers him dangerous, even though all the evidence in the trial itself has been taken into account by a jury and they still acquitted him.

      Do you honestly call that justice?

      Let's also not forget that it was he himself who sought help in the first place! Instead of trying to help him his doctor apparently called the cops on him. So here's my real problem: what if all this drives him over the edge and things go downhill from here? Do you honestly believe that he'll ever try to seek medical help again?

      And who's fault would that be, hmm? Once again: he fessed up himself! So he has a clear understanding of right and wrong in my opinion and better yet: also acted on it! As a result he gets condemned without proper evidence because of one man.

      This is a witch hunt in my opinion.

    10. fishbone

      Re: downvote here

      I've considered myself a responsible anarchist who was capable and ready to perform acts so desperately needed for society to prune the gene pool, that said this set of circumstances will demand I abandon that concept. This is not the gentleman who I want as a neighbor but if he hasn't been convicted leave'm alone till you have. More like it's time to weed put the "you wouldn't be here if you hadn't done something" mentality.

  4. Jedit
    Mushroom

    "Judge Dredd was a comic strip"

    Minor pedant: Judge Dredd IS a comic strip.

    (Apocalypse War, because I'm getting my retaliation against East Reg One in first.)

    1. BebopWeBop Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: "Judge Dredd was a comic strip"

      Re-Pedanting: and at least two films. They might be painful to remember they exist, but if you wish to be pedantic....

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

        Only the Stallone one is a painful memory. The recent one is much more Dreddlike, he doesn't snog Anderson for a start!

        1. Brian Morrison

          Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

          "The recent one is much more Dreddlike, he doesn't snog Anderson for a start!"

          Or remove his helmet...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

            OFF TOPIC: But DREDD was brilliant.

          2. Dave 126 Silver badge

            Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

            The recent Karl Urban one was very good, but we only saw a bit of MegaCity One - and other than him passing Anderson's probation, it was presented as being just another day for Dredd. A great shame that no sequels are planned, though Karl Urban is keen - even suggesting that he could do one in a decade or two, portraying different parts of Dredd's career.

            The Stallone film, whilst blaspheming, is worth watching for the production design and more ambitious scope - we go to Cursed Earth, even if its poorly realised. Stallone has since apologised for not making the film as it should have been.

            Still, we'll always have RoboCop (emotionless lawman in a satirised world), and Dirty Harry (Clint being an influence on Dredd)

            1. Suricou Raven

              Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

              Have you seen the new RoboCop remake though?

              It's not *bad*, but... it's just not RoboCop.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

                You're quite right, its not bad, its an utter fucking travesty...

        2. Nolveys Silver badge

          Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

          Only the Stallone one is a painful memory.

          I AM DA WRAW!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: They might be painful to remember they exist

            The only thing I didn't like about DREDD was when they stuck in the scenes made for 3rd.

    2. captain veg

      Re: "Judge Dredd was a comic strip"

      And a reggae singer from Snodland.

      -A.

    3. Oengus

      Re: "Judge Dredd was a comic strip"

      "Judge Dredd was a comic strip, not a utopian dream for all mankind."

      Judge Dredd was a comic strip, not a textbook or implementation manual.

  5. horsham_sparky
    Big Brother

    Medical treatment?

    what's not mentioned here is that the guy went to his GP.. was he looking for treatment? why else would he tell these things to his GP?

    It sounds like this guy needs treatment more than court orders, that's far more likely to end up with the right result of preventing him from raping/abusing women. Frankly how would a court order achieve that? if he were so inclined he could ignore the court order completely and go where his fantasies take him.

    The law in this country seems to be skewed to devastating an accused persons life before any evidence is produced or proven in a court of law. Punish first, ask questions later mentality seems to prevail..

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: Medical treatment?

      "The law in this country seems to be skewed to devastating an accused persons life before any evidence is produced or proven in a court of law. Punish first, ask questions later mentality seems to prevail.."

      It does now. Quite some time ago it was the case that newspapers etc did not dare to publish information about a court case prior to it being heard in court for fear of the courts dragging the newspaper in for contempt of court, as the courts seemed to be of the opinion that they decided who was innocent or guilty, not a court of public opinion which has been given a story by one half of a case, without perhaps having the facts.

      If courts started dragging editors in for contempt of court again then it'd change pretty switftly.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why did the medical staff snitch?

    No patient confidentiality? I know he was having violent 'fantasies' but all this does is turn people away from even admitting that to someone.

    What if he wanted help? He gets stitched up for doing the right thing?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

      I agree, but I think the fact he thought he "may" of raped someone means the GP has a duty to report.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

        @Lost all faith

        He may HAVE raped someone.

        "Of" and "have" are not transposable.

      2. not.known@this.address Bronze badge

        Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

        *He* didn't think he may have raped someone, *his GP* did. He was describing his FANTASY but she took it as an accurate report of something he had actually done. Or may have done, possibly - she wasn't sure but decided to err on the side of caution.

        "Better to be safe than certain" is a valid reason to report him but when they found no evidence that he had committed a crime in the real world then they had no reason to treat him in this way. And, as other commenters have noted, all this does is stop other people seeking help in case they get the same sort of reaction.

        Would O'Neill really have killed or seriously injured someone other than in his own mind? We will never know, but how many people are killed or seriously injured by idiots who drive under the influence of drink or drugs and how many of us think we can get away with that? But I bet those of you who do won't be handing in your car keys any time soon...

        1. Bloakey1

          Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

          "*He* didn't think he may have raped someone, *his GP* did. He was describing his FANTASY "

          <snip>

          Ahhh, I see, so if I admit that I want to die like Arthur Jarret does it mean that they would get jolly batey with me and not allow me to bonk anymore or at least not without declaring the intention to the world at large.

          See below, Arthur was a creative man.

          https://vimeo.com/10798467

      3. hplasm Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

        "..."may" of..."

        Off topic but...

        FFS!

    2. Efros

      Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

      Confidentiality does not trump the GPs legal obligation to report information if they suspect a crime has been committed. Given this chap's fondness for relating fantasies as possible memories of events then it's hardly surprising the GP thought that they should report it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

        > legal obligation to report information if they suspect a crime has been committed

        There is no such thing.

        You do have a duty (not absolute) to report if you *know* that a crime has been or is being committed, and (in principle) you cannot be prosecuted if in good faith you report that a crime *may* have been committed but it turns out it wasn't.

        But obligation to report that I *suspect* a crime has been committed? Based on publicly available statistics, I strongly suspect that multiple crimes are committed every single day. I think I'll go tell the plod just to be on the right side of the law. Be back in a few.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

          @ A/C

          "> legal obligation to report information if they suspect a crime has been committed

          There is no such thing.

          "

          "Confidential medical care is recognised in law as being in the public interest. However, there can also be a public interest in disclosing information: to protect individuals or society from risks of serious harm, such as serious communicable diseases or serious crime; "

          54. Such a situation might arise, for example, when a disclosure would be likely to assist in the prevention, detection or prosecution of serious crime, especially crimes against the person. When victims of violence refuse police assistance, disclosure may still be justified if others remain at risk, for example, from someone who is prepared to use weapons, or from domestic violence when children or others may be at risk.

          56. You should participate in procedures set up to protect the public from violent and sex offenders. You should co-operate with requests for relevant information about patients who may pose a risk of serious harm to others

          Source: GMC

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

      If a patient tells a GP something they write it down in their notes. If there is a credible safeguarding risk, either to the patient or to others then they are responsible for telling a designated competent authority - this includes social services, the police, the DVLA etc depending on the issue.

      If they did not do this and an incident happened they could be found to be guilty of failure in their duty of care. The notes would be presented as evidence and the GP would risk being struck off, sued or even have a manslaughter conviction.

      The GP will try to help an individual in the best way they can however there are issues with resources and often the patient's desire for help.

      In another scenario, if a patient presented themselves to a GP explaining they had a strong sexual desire for young children. That they had watched them in the park and thought about kidnapping one and taking her home and just being near young children made them uncontrollably sexualised, would you consider this innocent patient to be a safeguarding risk and expect the GP to make a judgement in their 10 minute slot about whether it was important enough to inform an appropriate authority?

      Would you change your mind if the GP knew that this patient was in the process of trying to adopt a child or become a foster parent? They're still innocent and they're seeking help from the GP for his fantasies after all.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

        "If a patient tells a GP something they write it down in their notes."

        ... which are shared with the NHS, GCHQ, the Police, Experian, Google etc.

        Which is why I no longer tell me GP anything. And is probably why we now have a massive spike in untreated sexual disease and mental health problems.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

        > would you consider this innocent patient to be a safeguarding risk and expect the GP to make a judgement in their 10 minute slot

        Thank you for your straw man.

        Just to say, public health is not a career for everyone. Yes, you do get to treat people you strongly dislike, sometimes in situations that you find emotionally repulsive¹, but that's what you sign up for. It's not easy at all--I've got that t-shirt--but if you can't do it you should get out. The profession does not need you.

        ¹ As an example, I did have to treat a complete idiot who caused a drunk driving accident once, in preference to his victims. Given the extent of their respective injuries and available resources, and given that our goal was to preserve life, regardless of whosever it was, we made the choice that our protocol dictated. I'd certainly smash his face if I come across him on the street, but I am proud of my team's ethical fortitude and adherence to professional conduct.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

          "Just to say, public health is not a career for everyone"

          Yes, I can see why you felt it was not a suitable career for you.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Why did the medical staff snitch?

            > Yes, I can see why you felt it was not a suitable career for you.

            Ad hominem? How quaint. :-)

            But you're right however, sooner or latter I would have let my colleagues down, so I think I did well to leave when I did, at the end of my studies, even if the incentive was primarily financial.

  7. Eguro

    Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop...

    But why exactly is his access to technology being place under scrutiny?

    Did he meet the person, whom the police couldn't convince a jury that he had raped, online?

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      Re: Forgive me for being a bit out of the loop...

      It's just part and parcel of the entire Kafka situation.

  8. Killing Time

    ‘it is morally indefensible’

    The author's morals maybe, but life has taught me that there is huge variability in personal morals, generally relative and on a sliding scale to the applicability to the individual.

    The input and professional assessment from multiple expert personnel has fed into this ruling, it clearly hasn’t been an arbitrary decision. The judged “dangerous individual” has taken it upon himself to publicise the issue thereby ensuring difficulty in obtaining employment and maybe housing. Possibly a further attempt to be ‘manipulative’?

    Is he an IT consultant or an IT contractor? Or, is he just a bloke who knows his way around a computer? The description has changed between El Reg articles.

    Personally, my morals can accept the assement and judgement of the listed professionals involved, that’s what their role in society is, to make judgements and attempt to protect society.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    vain, manipulative, grandstanding

    So the judge says - “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.”

    Last time I checked, it wasn't illegal (just annoying) to be grandstanding, vain, narcissistic and to argue that black was white. If it were, half the people I've worked with would be locked up. None of these seem particularly relevant to the judgement, beyond telling me the judge didn't like him. As for wasting the valuable time of professionals... this will be professionals which he had expressed concern about his own behaviour to, or had asked him when evaluating his mental state? Doesn't this seem to indicate a need for treatment? Either because he was concerned his actions may go/went too far or because of being detached from reality and living in a fantasy (if they deemed what he said wasn't true)?

    Oh wait no, that is expensive, much easier to just throw him in an asylum. Oh no, we don't have those anymore so we'll put a civil order in which does pretty much the same but not have to pay for the pesky need to house our "undesirables".

    He maybe a dangerous and deranged individual indeed, but if he is and lacks impulse control, is it really going to stop him, or make him bottle it all up til something really bad happens?

    The outcome of whats happened so far feels to me like a dangerous erosion of civil liberties but without actually protecting anyone... it just makes him easier to lock up after anything happens.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

      Last time I checked that was the text book definition of a politician or corporate exec.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

        Last time I checked that was the text book definition of a politician or corporate exec.

        Exactly, maybe the police should be giving orders like this to, at least, all politicians.

      2. ecofeco Silver badge

        Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

        Last time I checked that was the text book definition of a politician or corporate exec.

        HA! I posted almost exactly the same thing. Have an upvote.

    2. Hollerithevo Silver badge

      Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

      I think what we are talking about here is a sociopath. All thee adjectives are exactly how you would describe such a mentality. Given that sociopaths don't see any laws as pertaining to themselves, they are always a danger if their predilections head in the direction of harming other people. To want someone 'scared' in bed before you can get it up (not 'pretending to be scared' but actually frightened) and to have the sociopathic charm to get them in that bed, is someone I'd like the police to keep an eye on. However, in the Good Old Days that's just what they would do: 'keeping an eye on you, sunshine', which seems much more acceptable to the general population than orders.

      1. Bloakey1

        Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

        "I think what we are talking about here is a sociopath."

        <snip>

        And? Sociopaths are everywhere and you are probably in amongst a higher percentage of them here in El Reg than you might find down your local pub. Having sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies / characteristics does not in its own right constitute a crime.

        It seems as if the burden of truth is being shifted steadily from the accuser to the accused. By that I mean the accused has to prove his innocence. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.

        As far as I know this guy is innocent of any crime so why is he being punished and treated as if he has committed a crime? Being a wanker is not an enditable offense and if it was a lot of us would be in trouble.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

        "I think what we are talking about here is a sociopath."

        No, he's a sadist. Whilst many sociopaths are sadists and some sadists are sociopaths it's quite possible to be one but not the other.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: vain, manipulative, grandstanding

          Is there an entry in the DSM for people who diagnose strangers based on news reports?

  10. flearider

    so hes trapped in a brutal fantasy world.. can't get it up without someone fearing him ..

    sounds like if he could just smile for the camera he'd be an MP

    ..

    the world we live in ..blair gets away with genocide ..and a screwed up bloke gets life restictions ..

    1. ecofeco Silver badge

      As always, it's all about belonging to the right club.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sir Tim Hunt

    Sir Tim Hunt lost his job, no appeal ( no crime ), and The Reg labelled it perfectly acceptable.

  12. Pen-y-gors Silver badge

    24 hours notice?

    What is the purpose of the 24hrs notice to the plods of sexual activity? Is it so they can getting the streaming webcam set up? Or sort out the shifts to decide who goes along to watch? What exactly will the police DO in that 24 hrs? Arrest him? Contact his alleged sexual partner? Seems bloody daft to me.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 24 hours notice?

      Most married men need give their wives that much notice anyway

      /sarc/

      For prior art look up Colin Stagg, judged guilty by the police and media well prior to the trial

      1. Bloakey1

        Re: 24 hours notice?

        "For prior art look up Colin Stagg, judged guilty by the police and media well prior to the trial"

        That was very nasty and did no justice to Rachel Nickell and did not help young women waking the common after it.

        Even to this day I know one or two Wimbledon plod who still think he did it.

    2. Bloakey1

      Re: 24 hours notice?

      "What is the purpose of the 24hrs notice to the plods of sexual activity? Is it so they can getting the streaming webcam set up? Or sort out the shifts to decide who goes along to watch? What exactly will the police DO in that 24 hrs? Arrest him? Contact his alleged sexual partner? Seems bloody daft to me."

      The partner will be duly arrested and charged with receiving swollen goods.

      The whole bloody thing is silly.

    3. Suricou Raven

      Re: 24 hours notice?

      Probably so they can contact the partner and scare them away with stories of how the man will rape and murder them.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The issue is that two separate matters were combined - wrongly.

    The chap was let go on an accusation of rape. That's case 1. In the process, some labelled him as a POTENTIAL danger, which is where the SRO came in - case 2.

    However, the process for the SRO is where the unfairness hides. If he is deemed to be at risk, he should be entitled to a proper review. At best, this order should have been temporary to manage the perceived risk so that a formal review by qualified people could be eventually obtained - police nor judge should be in a position to claim such expertise. If that review still comes to an "at risk" conclusion, the next question is what you're going to do with this guy. If that review does NOT come to the same conclusion, we're not just talking about an "OK, carry on" reversal, we're also talking about potential repercussions, and I suspect this is what keeps this game awry: it could get costly in terms of compensation.

    Further, if there IS an "at risk" condition, you can't just boot him onto the street and assume that will somehow sort the problem - IMHO, the reverse is true, and I can't help getting the impression that the aim is to push this guy over the edge. Personally I find it proof of his sanity that that has not yet happened.

    It's all very, very dodgy, and should worry anyone who is thinking about seeking psychiatric help.

    It should also worry anyone who is NOT seeking such, as those who would normally seek help and thus manage a possible risk have now received a signal that such could actually be seriously detrimental to their life. Not good, not good at all.

  14. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
    Big Brother

    The thought(crime)s just occured to me...

    If he put this sort of thing on twitter would anyone have paid attention or would they have just ignored him as a fantasist and given him a slap on the wrist (though he might have enjoyed that)?

    As to doing something illegal.... pretty much everyone does something illegal at some point. There are that many laws, by-laws, rules and regulations that you're pretty much guaranteed to have come acropper of them at some point (for example being Scottish and inside of the walls of York used to be a capital offence until it was appealed, but just because it hadn't been upheld for a few hundred years didn't make it any less legal).

    Besides, the good doctor truly wanted him locked up as judge, jury and executioner, surely she could have just sectioned him and be done with it?

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Welcome in the realm of mental illness...

    ... you risk be deemed "dangerous" and thereby treated as such. And it's a very difficult assessment to make.

    There was that guy who crashed the plane into a mountain because nobody reported his mental state could have been very dangerous.

    Meanwhile, in another European country, I had issues renewing my driving license because I was treated briefly with "psychiatric drugs" due to a depression caused by a very bad moment in my life, three years before (yet nobody suspended the license back then because there was really no reason).

    It's a matter so complex, and without a proper science to assess and treat it, that legislation goes from pilots in charge of hundreds of lives who cannot be grounded on privacy grounds, to people who get restrictions just because there's a record they've been treated...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Welcome in the realm of mental illness...

      Part of that is because mental illness remains a taboo subject for many, even in the 21st century.

      My wife suffers from a bipolar disorder (for which she receives treatment) and also looks after children.

      I once made the mistake of mentioning her condition to a close friend. His immediate reaction was: how can she be trusted to look after children? It really hurt to hear that, given that she is probably the best child care-taker on the planet, bar none. She receives nothing but praise from the parents.

      Unfortunately, many people still operate with attitudes worthy of the dark ages. They fail to understand that conditions such as depression are often very effectively treated with medication and regular therapy. Sufferers can still lead productive, happy lives. Mental illness is often more successfully treated than many chronic physical ailments and with less side effects.

      Sadly, you can't always treat people's ignorance about these issues and so the stigma remains very intense.

  16. W4YBO

    “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.”

    Just chuckling over the fact that this statement applies so readily to U.S. national political candidates, past and present.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes, I was just reading the same quote in disbelief.

      If having a narcissistic streak is a crime, Trump will never be able to visit his Scottish golf course again. WTF?

      I can get that some people think they have identified a risk and act on it, but so far I have yet to see evidence that confirms this. The (pretty much ad hoc) criteria dragged in so far would make any winner of bad sex awards a candidate, and practically all of the current cabinet hit the "narcissist streak" aspect as that is the very core of being a politician these days. As for grandstanding, he who is without sin and so on.

      This is the key problem: the very statements made in court as argument make it more look like a judge turning a personal dislike into a judgement - I think some independence is needed here to sort the wheat from the chaff. So far, it stinks and it appears the real risk is active collusion to pervert the course of justice. This requires external, entirely independent experts offering a psychiatric evaluation, not the wanton whims of a pissed off judge. That's not dispensing justice, that's dispensing WITH justice (to paraphrase Mark Twain).

      1. Killing Time

        RE 'Yes, I was just reading the same quote in disbelief.'

        Yes, I was just reading your post in disbelief and worryingly someone upvoted it.

        'I can get that some people think they have identified a risk and act on it, but so far I have yet to see evidence that confirms this.'

        Errr, I think they were a little more than 'some' people, from the article they were health, mental health and law professionals. Precisely the people you would want to identify and assess the risk and what qualifies you as a Judge?

        'the very statements made in court as argument make it more look like a judge turning a personal dislike into a judgement'

        Errr, I don't believe any of us will be privy to the statements actually made in court, only a version supplied to the media, I suspect the source being the guy under the SRO who is more than keen to publicise the issue in a clear attempt to sway public opinion.

        Do you truly believe that this is a case of a Judge ( a Queens Council, the cream of the barrister community), taking a personal dislike to someone and not remaining impartial? I believe the statement regarding his character was part of the judgement, precisely what is required of a judge. The clue is in the description.

        The narcissism and grandstanding on this thread beggars belief, sorry, I don't have a handy quotation to paraphrase in closing out, just enough confidence in the UK justice system to believe there are smarter and more impartial people than me making these decisions.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: RE 'Yes, I was just reading the same quote in disbelief.'

          Do you truly believe that this is a case of a Judge ( a Queens Council, the cream of the barrister community), taking a personal dislike to someone and not remaining impartial?

          I don't think that was the sole motivation for the decision but I do think that the very remark was unprofessional. If being narcissistic was a crime in combination with imagined sex acts, I'd say there's another candidate waiting in an Ecuadorian embassy in London - who has done an actual deed which still requires a judgement. But het got to take it all the way through the system.

          However, let's leave the judgement then, and look at the "review" process itself. You cannot possibly claim independence from a review of a decision by the very same people who were involved in the first judgement. If there are questions, address them by an independent review. He should be entitled to that.

          If that review comes to the same conclusion, end of story (we can then look at what is actually EFFECTIVE in reducing risk - letting him camp outside? Really?). But it gets WAY more interesting if that judgement is found to be flawed. If they truly have nothing to hide, there should be no problem with an independent assessment. Otherwise there's something not right.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: RE 'Yes, I was just reading the same quote in disbelief.'

            'If there are questions, address them by an independent review. He should be entitled to that.'

            Why? An appeal court with a different judge looked over the original case, heard his appeal and upheld the order. The judge made a statement on his character to support the judgement along with questioning the effectiveness of the existing order. Why would making a statement on character be unprofessional? Both the original judge and the appeals judge felt compelled to make similar statements regarding character, presumably as this is significant in the requirement for the order. Its a thankless job being a judge. The appeal judge is due to make a further review of the order next month.

            Do we just keep lining up independent reviews with all the associated costs until he gets a result he wants? It's not as if he is incarcerated? If he is homeless then he has a direct hand in that.

            You are being played.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Blerrgh re-write

        In the new world order, coppers and co don't make judgement calls or use their initiative. It is all about taking a risk management approach to civil society.

        The psych-nurse felt obliged to report (would get in trouble, otherwise). An SRO was issued and now the cops still have to apply it even though it is "unpoliceable". The judge put in his opinionated two cent's worth.

        The individual in question (manipulative or not) now has their life pretty well buggered without actually being convicted of any crime. How can that be a good precedent for anything? To me, it looks like full-on shirking of individual responsibility, by handing over this bag of shite to the next recipient and hoping the problem doesn't come back to you. If there was a need to monitor the individual, there are ankle-bracelets and state ordered therapy available. How is policing an individual's sex urges supposed to work? You can't be punished for something you might do and you are either guilty of an act or not guilty. Letting civil servants run roughshod over our civil rights without due process is not going to be a popular societal control mechanism, but I suppose it is worth a go.

        Move along citizen, there is nothing to see here... and put your damned electro-shock collar back on again before we lose patience and give you the perma-weld model

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unpoliceable?

    Of course it is policeable, perhaps now even more policeable now than last week ...

    He might take it less seriously after the judge's latest comment, but the police will be watching him closer, with more determination.

    With the fact that the police couldn't find him guilty of something and the fact they want to find something they can stick on him, you can bet that the moment he breaches the order, they will be waiting in the shadows ready to nick 'im.

    They already do this with speed traps, what makes you think this would be any different?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Shame on the GP

    Looks like a clear breach of patient confidentiality to me.

    Based on my experience in the emergency services:

    * When a medical professional has concerns that a person may pose a risk to himself or to society, the person is referred to the social services, where professionals specifically trained to deal with these sort of situations follow up the case.

    * A medical professional is obliged not to disclose information about a patient's condition without the latter's approval. Mere suspicion that a crime *may* have been committed, regardless of what the police would have you believe, is not a valid reason to breach that confidentiality.

    This GP should have discussed the case with her team and a number of options could have been taken, without breaching professional and ethical standards, including as mentioned, referral to a psychologist or to the social services, patient counselling, etc.

    I understand that the bloke may be annoying, a complete twat, etc., and someone of weak character may easily feel intimidated or overwhelmed, but shopping a patient to the police is just not what you do. Especially in this case where, given social hysteria surrounding sexual crimes, nobody is going to risk his career for this guy.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Shame on the GP

      The law was changed in the UK, ohh, about ten years or more ago. It was in the news and everything.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Shame on the GP

        > The law was changed in the UK

        Yes, I am aware of that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shame on the GP

      I would say your experience is limited then. Your statements are factually incorrect.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shame on the GP

      1) Do you know social services usually can't force any adult to be followed but through a court order or the like? Sure, not long ago this guy instead of a SOP would have been sent for some time into a mental illness clinic...

      2) There are cases when a doctor *must* act even if the patient doesn't approve - think, for example, a risky epidemic illness which requires quick treatment and containment. They can also usually act if the patient is an imminent risk for him/herself or others. It's pretty incredible, for example, how suicide is still not allowed and often denied in spite of evidence in our society (especially when you're famous, it's always just a mistake)

      We don't know how the interview with the doctor went, and what triggered his or her reaction. Maybe a true believe a crime has been committed, or was about to be committed, was created. It could be very difficult to deal with these kind of people - and understand how far they are really capable to go and materialize their fantasies. You can decided not to act, and if something happens, deal with the remorse you could have stopped it, or to act, and maybe it is still a mistake. I won't blame the doctor too much.

      Sure, the restraining order could be quite ridiculous, but put yourself in the shoes of people who have to deal with such kind of people...

  19. Cereberus

    A man goes to the doctor...

    and admits he may have a psycho-sexual problem. He admits an incident where he may 'have gone further than intended' to the extent it potentially could be rape.

    How to react:

    1) Check the details and if it was consensual - no case to answer and lets address how the guy feels to stop him getting any worse to the point where he may commit a crime - possibly arranging psychiatric help

    2) Check the details and find it was rape, already stated as possible by the 'defendant' - gather evidence, go to court and convict him. Assess if he should go to prison or a psychiatric hospital for treatment

    3) Persecute him and put in place an order which will impact every area of his life to the point he becomes homeless even though he hasn't officially committed an offense in law. He can't get help and support into work under a rehabilitation act be cause he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

    Would you employ someone who says I have no criminal record but the police need to be able to access my work computer anytime they want. Why? Well, I have this urge when having sex to make my partner afraid of me. I like S&M - and when I say like I mean LIKE. But I am not going to jump on a woman at work and strangle her whilst raping her, honest.

    If anything the order should state that he has to report any sexual contact as soon after the event as possible so that the police can covertly, then if necessary overtly, investigate if anything happened that shouldn't and build the necessary case for court action. From the reports this guy seems to really like S&M, and if the partner is willing (and there are men and women who like being subservient to the point of fear) then that is their choice.

    Forgot option 4) Assume everyone is guilty of breaking the law and arrest us all before throwing us all in jail for life - which won't be for long as we'll all starve / dehydrate and eat each other because there is no one outside to cook, bring food, etc. - they'll all be inside as well.

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Sexual Risk witchhunt

    Most of humanity, though out history have learned from mistakes, personal, national, international. We already have learned from history what happens when you try to crush a country and keep it from doing what it did before from the years between the two wars, the same is likely true for the individual.

    The problem with the current trend toward these sorts of judgements and orders is that even a minor mistake, even an imagined or possible risk destroys an individuals life so completely, that learning from a mistake and improvement is often impossible, all is left to the individual is their own mind, and any fantasies that led or might lead to the mistake, as they are barred from anything nobler or possibly distracting.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The only criminals here are the police and the rest of the corrupt legal system.

  22. Dan 55 Silver badge
    WTF?

    "I recognise the SRO is unpoliceable so it stays"

    See icon.

    I mean, we're getting to banana republic levels of justice* here.

    * for tiny values of justice.

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: "I recognise the SRO is unpoliceable so it stays"

      We're getting to banana republic levels of justice

      Hardly surprising, the country's run by red arsed baboons (has anyone seen Boris in that photo with his US opposite number)?

      To quote Arnold Rimmer in 'The End' "I thought it was a publicity shot from 'Planet of the Apes'."

      The whole Brexit/Remain campaign could have been no less a hash if conducted at a poo flinging chimps tea and shit party.

  23. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Way, way, Back in Time, British Justice Was the Benchmark ... then bLIAR Came Along

    bLIAR and Blunkett started this sort of 'justice' with their 4 Years Or Your Password legislation. And bLIAR demonstrated PMs can lie to the public and escape retribution ... even make millions of Pounds from it.

    What's next - THOUGHT CRIME?

    And the UN says privacy is a Human Right! (A sick joke)

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    While I agree

    I do agree with most of the comments on here that this, on the surface, doesn't look acceptable. There is a great deal of misunderstanding here though.

    He was placed on trial for a crime, of which he was found "not guilty". From what I read, the crime he was accused of was rape, and it was determined that he did not rape someone. The way our law works is that you can only be found guilty of the crime you're on trial for, and a separate trial would need to be created and justified for a different crime. This is why lawyers sometimes recommend a client is tried for manslaughter early on rather than murder - the judge isn't all that free to decide at a later date.

    Before, during, and after the trial he was under the scrutiny of various experts including doctors, police and judges. These people have determined that he does require some supervision. That doesn't mean they think he's guilty of the crime he was tried for. By the sound if it, it's not a specific crime either and so he can't be tried for it. Therefore there is no guilty/not guilty for what is going on right now - they just deemed him in need of supervision. Perhaps there's a discussion to be had there, although being guilty of being a deviant who will probably offend at a later date is a bit woolly even for our justice system.

    It's totally unacceptable that they have now placed him in a position where he has no work, no home, and no prospects - that much is clear. I don't and can't disagree with the order because I don't know why it was required (neither do you, young commentards...) but the manner in which it has been applied is appalling. Had they done this discretely in a way that he was able to live a normal life while under supervision, and assuming they have a justification we can't see, then it would be acceptable.

    1. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: While I agree?

      it's totally unacceptable that they have now placed him in a position where he has no work, no home, and no prospects.

      - I'd have thought that putting someone on that footing would be a guarantee of future offences, all you'd have left would be any fantasies, and not a lot left to loose. Prevention? it sounds more like putting someone in a situation where they are more likely to exacerbate any issues rather than minimise so you can lock him away quicker, dust your hands and say 'see, we knew he was a risk' and ask for more powers.

      Justice is depicted as blindfolded for impartiality, I get the feeling the new theory goes justice is blind because police, judges and other authorities poked her in the eyes so they could give the suspect a good kicking and she wouldn't see. Meanwhile the monkeys in Westminister are doing the three monkeys and flinging poo at eachother as usual.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: While I agree

      'Had they done this discretely'

      Did someone force him to do a TV interview? Or was he forced to allow action photos of him out camping?

      As best I can make out he has brought the public attention upon himself, despite reportedly having two children. What will be the effect on them in their local community / group of friends? Would he have considered that? or is his concern purely with himself?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: While I agree

        Perhaps he went public to explain the sudden loss of career, home, life etc. Caused by the monitoring? It's not discreet if you're left with no other option than explaining what's happened.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: While I agree

          I'm afraid I can't follow your logic.

          How would publicly announcing a legitimate legal judgement of this nature had been placed upon you enhance your chances of reestablishing a career, life or home?

          The fewer people who are aware means the less explaining needs to be done. The less explaining your immediate family needs to do also. If explaining yourself is required then surely doing it in private, and only where necessary is the best option?

          I really can't see how a television interview is going to help this situation, the only thing it will achieve is to draw attention to yourself and then you are open to 'vain, manipulative and grandstanding' judgements.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: While I agree

            Once your life has already been destroyed there is little left to lose. If he felt that going public was the only way to improve the situation then why not? A sudden loss of job, home and family is obvious to friends and family so needs to be explained. If you've lost friends and family and have no job or home you're pretty much going to be clutching at straws.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: While I agree

              But he doesn't come across as someone who's life has been destroyed with little left to lose. He seemed fully in control during his interview with the BBC, I saw no real emotion, almost as if he was revelling in the attention. There are also multiple very recent photos of him smiling, not what you would expect of someone acting through desperation and clutching at straws.

              I'm sure this could be rationalised as him putting a brave face on but it doesn't ring true to me. Perhaps I have encountered too many accomplished liars in my time but I just don't buy it, or that a rational person believes telling the world of your predicament would sit well with all your family who probably have a completely different outlook on life ( open admission to S+M fetish is not mainstream) and may be deeply embarrassed by your revelations.

          2. Suricou Raven

            Re: While I agree

            Political accountability. If he can convince the public in general that he is the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice then that creates the possibility for political intervention - perhaps even an investigation into the police department or the judge to determine if their actions were appropriate.

            It's risky though, because the accusations against him are of a sexual nature. The public really loves a good sex scandal - their first reaction is always to hate on the dirty pervert, even before they have assessed the full facts of the situation.

            1. Andrew Taylor 1

              Re: While I agree

              He didn't make it public until he asked for a review. The original judge & the police made it public throughout the Yorkshire area in order "to protect potential victims" The press then followed it up as he went for a review.

  25. FlamingDeath Bronze badge

    I know Idiocracy was made into a documentary

    But was it made into real life?

    The parallels are staggering

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I know Idiocracy was made into a documentary

      It was a blueprint. Hadn't you heard?

  26. Obitim
    Headmaster

    Not the Police

    the CPS, it's their job to build the case and present it

  27. scrubber
    WTF?

    East Germany called and want their playbook back

    Stick him on the 'Sex Offenders Register'* without the trouble of him being, ya know, an actual offender. What could possibly go wrong?

    * alongside drunk people pissing in the street.

  28. ecofeco Silver badge

    He's a hatter alright, but..

    Judge Lower said, “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,” according to the Guardian.

    Know the type well. They make up half the board of directors of the world as well as other minor and major petty fiefdom rulers.

    However, being recto-cranially-inverted is not against the law and you can almost count of those types to eventually hang from their own petards.

  29. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Makes me wonder

    why the GP concerned did'nt say "hey this guy is a danger to himself or others because of his mental state" and get him sectioned

    Oh I forgot... most of the places for sectioned people to be held have been shut down...

    well lets fall back on the old 1930's policy in a central european country where he'll be taken into 'protective custody', then 'shot while escaping'

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The fact that he hasn't snapped and raped some poor woman at knifepoint despite all the stress they've put him under makes me think he can't possibly be as dangerous as the claim.

  31. DXMage

    Mind Crime is real and as soon as they can read your thoughts (and they are working on it) just about everyone will be in prison except politicians as they always exclude themselves from the laws.

  32. JWG

    Never in America

    I do feel sorry for all citizens of the U.K. and Europe in general. For all your talk about human rights, you have no constitution to protect you. Oh, you have a constitution that protects the government, just not its citizens. Here, in America, unless you happen to be a famous person, once a jury of your peers (not the same thing as your Peers), finds you "not guilty", case closed. Even if they find evidence afterwards, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution precludes being tried a second time for the same crime. However, it seems in the UK, one doesn't have to convicted of anything. When civil penalties are assessed in America, it's only after a criminal conviction, other wise it's a violation of the 6th Amendment. You guys really need a new constitution, one that tells the government where to go, not the other way round as you seem to have. My front door mat is one our popular ones: "You better have a warrant". We do not take our freedoms and liberties for granted, we tell the authorities they better have a warrant signed by a judge affirmed by oath and properly delivered, and then only after we have our lawyers present. You guys just seem to bend over and take it up the backside and time a PC looks cross eyed at you. Do you guys have any questions why we wanted our own government now?

    1. Lusty

      Re: Never in America

      We don't have a constitution, but we're also not shot by our police without trial as often. If the answer to "you better have a warrant" is "you better have a bullet proof head" then your constitution gives you nothing...

  33. Potemkine Silver badge

    Playing the arsehole with a judge rarely pays up...

  34. Bernard M. Orwell
    Facepalm

    Lesson learned

    There's clearly a valuable lesson to be learnt here; if you're male and have a sexual/mental issue, don't go looking for help despite all the nice, social advice suggesting you do so. If you do seek help, you're going to end up on the offenders register, lose your job, income, family and all respect society might have for you.

    So, bottle it up until you explode and commit some awful crime, because society doesn't give a fuck about you, mate, it only cares that it's ticked its tick box for the week that says its met its targets in social engagement and poster campaigns.

    As usual, its bullshit.

    [Before you downvote, please be aware that my "advice" is intended as observational sarcasm.]

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