Our thanks to Ian for this. Key extracts:
A man who must give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex after he was cleared of rape has said the ruling “puts an end to your life”.
The man, in his 40s, was acquitted last year at a retrial.
He has been charged with breaching the terms of the order by refusing to give police the pin to his phone.
He accused North Yorkshire Police, which declined to comment, of “sour grapes” in applying for a sexual risk order after the case.
The order requires him to disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison…
Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm – even if they have never been convicted of a crime. [my emphasis]
They are civil orders imposed by magistrates at the request of police.
The man, who said the complainant had consented to sex, was cleared of rape after being held on remand for 14 months…
Speaking after an adjourned hearing at York Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, he said the order had devastated his personal life and “contravened his human rights”.
“I had more freedom in prison,” he said. “I’m in a state of shock, I cannot believe this is how the justice system works.”
He said there was “no prospect” of a relationship at the moment.
He said: “Can you imagine, 24 hours before sex? Come on.
He gave the example of chatting to a woman and saying: “There’s a nice French restaurant I’d like to take you to, but first the police are just going to come around for a little chat.”
“Knock, knock, knock, this is the police, (Mr X) is subject to a sexual risk order and is considered to be potentially dangerous… then they leave.”
The order was extended in January for four months by York magistrates after it was initially imposed in December in Northallerton, North Yorkshire.
It declares the man “must disclose the details of any female including her name, address and date of birth… at least 24 hours prior to any sexual activity taking place”.
It also contains restrictions on his use of the internet and mobile phones and requires him to inform officers of any change of address.
It’s not a law. Neither Parliament nor magistrates can make laws: only orders, acts or statutes, none of which have effect in law without freely-given consent. The police, in this instance, are acting outside their order of duty and should be arrested.
It would seem to me that any woman making a false accusation ought to get the same treatment, such as it is.
If I were him (I’m not and maybe this isn’t fair, but here goes) I would disclose this nonsense in as sarcastic terms as possible on a personal ad profile and/or blog and carry calling cards with the address of the blog, containing his version of the story (ideally along with testimonials from women who have survived the experience the gentleman offers).
Key point in the linked article that was omitted herein: “His trial heard he had an interest in sado-masochistic sex.” In my world, every once in a while there is a hoopla about this sort of thing, and people take sides, there’s a witch hunt, etc. However, it does not necessarily mean the end of life for the man, particularly if he’s any good at what he does. Yes, references and reputation matter, but, histrionic female masochists are also legendary and most women do not want to be tarred by association with them. This does not mean that mistakes don’t happen. Privacy is violated. This is one of the risks of BDSM or any sexual activity out of the norms. The risk is part of the magic. If nothing ever went wrong ever then it wouldn’t be as fun.
It is entirely possible that this notoriety will make this man even more in demand with the females of his desired demographic, unless of course he has a particular interest in women who are too shy to even talk about this sort of thing, or too incapable of managing their own risk. If that’s the case, then I regret that I don’t have a lot of sympathy for him. BDSM requires some level of discussion. The element of surprise is highly overrated and very risky.
Consent is key. The fact that this poor man has to have the police validate that there is consent is annoying and ridiculous, but, please, make it fun. I’d have a field day with this one. Lots of other ladies of my acquaintance (and bent) would too. Too bad the poor fellow is too young for me.
The first were the “ASBO” s under New Labour. The “success” of these has led to a proliferation of civil court orders that are applied under the civil law but a breach becomes a criminal act. Their popularity is that the burden of proof required to get the order applied is on probability rather than “reasonable doubt”. There are now a wide range of such orders including “Go” orders (excluding a man or woman from their home if there may be DV) Non contact orders, and of course the most recent rash to do with sexual behaviour. A particular attraction is that the breach of the order becomes a criminal offence, not the behaviour itself , that may be difficult to prove in a criminal court. Thus if a “go” order is breeched (say the man returns for some clothes or see his children) he can be arrested and convicted of breeching the order quite without any consideration of whether there was any evidence of DV at all. Similarly a breech of the order will land this man in court irrespective of any actual sexual behaviour. They are ideal tools for revenge etc. because the negative consequences occur without the need to prove anything very much.
Their proliferation is a challenge to basic rights but they have gone largely unchallenged by rights organisations because the targets are society’s least cared for.
There have been cases where a man subject to a “Go” order is enticed by offer of talk or reconciliation by his partner, who then “shops” him for the breech.
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
I’ve been saying for a long time it is going to get worse, much worse. A woman needs zero evidence to drag a man into the Court, Inc. legal sausage grinder. Now the man doesn’t even get the snowball’s chance in Hell that he at least had in court. Hurt her feelings, she runs to the police, and your life is destroyed. If this isn’t the wake up call for MGTOW then nothing will awaken the sheep. Guys, wake up! It now officially too dangerous to interact with a female outside a public business transaction. Women = economic slavery and prison. MGTOW = freedom. Make your choice.
This is an outrage – such as one could scarcely make up or find in Private Eye or the Daily Mash.
Yet it is so, and it is what Alison Saunders et al have in mind for all of us unless WE can stop IT.
Feminism has no brakes, it cannot stop itself even if it wanted to, which it doesn’t. It must BE acted ON by an outside force.
Most people probably will not hear of this piece of foul excrescence, and those who do will not worry as they think it will not apply to them.
When, one day it does they will wonder how it ever happened – then they’ll care alright.
Wouldn’t it be nice to hear this gentleman speak at imci16 ?
W…O…W. just WTF!!! Who invented that law?