[quote] The police will have greater powers to restrict the freedom of any individual they suspect of being a potential sex offender, under government proposals.
The restrictions - which could be used against a person never convicted - include limiting internet use and preventing travel abroad.
Breaching a sexual risk order could lead to a five-year jail sentence.
The government said the police will have greater powers to restrict "any person they judge to be a risk".
A second type of order, for those convicted of or cautioned about sexual offences, is also proposed.
The sexual harm prevention order - which would replace sexual offences prevention orders and foreign travel orders - would last a minimum of five years and have no maximum duration. It would apply to those convicted of sexual or violent offences either in the UK or overseas.
A sexual risk order would last a minimum of two years and also have no maximum duration. It would replace the risk of sexual harm order.
Both proposed orders have wider remits and lower risk requirements than the current measures in place. [/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24461921[/url]
So the police will be able to place restrictions, such as travelling abroad and internet use, on people suspected of being sex offenders, even if they haven't been charged with any crime. Obviously this new law will not be abused in any way.
[quote]"any person they judge to be a risk"[/quote]
This shit is so vague it's not even funny.
[quote]The police will have greater powers to restrict the freedom of any individual they suspect of being a potential sex offender, under government proposals.[/quote]
So basically restrict everyone since every person in the country could be a possible sex offender.
I can't believe this is real, anyone could be classed as a "potential" sex offender.
Facepunch is doomed.
Basically the government considers us suspects, before citizens.
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;42475818]Facepunch is doomed.[/QUOTE]
"Hey Police this guy is possibly a sex offender!! Take his internet away, quick!"
Reminds me on the Pedohunter General.
Seriously. That's fucked up.
[QUOTE=kaukassus;42475830]"Hey Police this guy is possibly a sex offender!! Take his internet away, quick!"[/QUOTE]
It's not just that, it's the social stigma that comes attached with it. Imagine waking up one day and finding you can't go abroad, can't use the internet, and can't go within a certain distance of a school or park. Imagine what everyone around you would think. This is basically like being put on the sex offenders register without being charged with anything.
So you.. MIGHT.. be.. a sex.. okay.
So, this is the greatest idea ever.
Like the other day when that stupid cunt and two assholes broke into this guys house and beat the shit out of him for being a sex offender.
Spoilers: He wasn't a fucking sex offender.
I see two glaring (amongst other) problems with this, there's way too little information about how it would work which is [B]always[/B] a bad sign with regards to laws and powers and secondly what criteria do they plan on using to judge someone as being a threat? Surely if they haven't been convicted of anything then whatever they have done probably isn't that much of a threat (or the law needs changing).
[editline]10th October 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=st_nick5;42475857]It's not just that, it's the social stigma that comes attached with it. Imagine waking up one day and finding you can't go abroad, can't use the internet, and can't go within a certain distance of a school or park. Imagine what everyone around you would think. This is basically like being put on the sex offenders register without being charged with anything.[/QUOTE]
I can see the ECHR destroying this entire concept if it ever comes into force and gets used to be honest.
[QUOTE=KILLTHIS;42475849]Reminds me on the Pedohunter General.
Seriously. That's fucked up.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw[/media]
huh and here I thought the u.s. had draconian laws about sex offenders,
I mean murderers don't have to go door to door informing people that they've killed someone, but sex offenders do, and the amount of stuff that counts as a sexual offense is staggering
Everyone who's not a vegetable is a potential sex offender.
Wow, it's like HADOPI only it's 0 strikes, not 3, and instead of being disconnected from the net, you're disconnected from freedom.
The Daily Heil offices must just be waves of spontaneous orgasms in response to the news that they're finally cracking down on this terrible thoughtcrime. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY"]And then they'll go back to this. [/URL] (First few minutes have a total pedo vibe for a reason, stick with it)
Sounds like the communist hunts by McCarthy
But isn't it always the ones you never expect?
Sometimes i love the pedantic large walls of text describing laws exactly in my country.
police won't do anything
they're already shit as fuck at keeping their eyes on peadophiles anyway.
one of my best friends got abused when she was younger ( and suffered violent threats and abuse from him since) - the police know about it, he's on bail in some town down in england. He phoned up her neighbour to ask to "spy on her", as well as breaking the windscreen of her familys friend's car who lives in said town and threatened her if she said anything against him in court.
The police know about this
And he's still on bail.
And she'll be apparently "lucky" if he gets more than 3 years.
fuck the system man
Not enough to treat everyone as potential terrorists, but also as potential sex offenders.
I'd really rather hear the full story on this, anyone have more info?
I mean, are they going to use it smart? Is the article sensationalizing it or is it really that vague?
V they make it seem as if this could happen V
[QUOTE=Aidan_088;42475816]I can't believe this is real, anyone could be classed as a "potential" sex offender.[/QUOTE]
So, you like fucking little boys? huh?
[B]HUH?[/B]
[QUOTE=st_nick5;42475827]Basically the government considers us suspects, before citizens.[/QUOTE]
I bet you're a RAPIST waiting to happen
[QUOTE=Talishmar;42480572]Not enough to treat everyone as potential terrorists, but also as potential sex offenders.[/QUOTE]
this creep gave me a funny look
I think he wants to STIKC HIS PENIS INSIDE BY BUTT
internet cops get him before he's dangerous!
[QUOTE=J!NX;42480625]I'd really rather hear the full story on this, anyone have more info?
I mean, are they going to use it smart? Is the article sensationalizing it or is it really that vague?[/QUOTE]
[quote=TFA]The orders will be granted if a court agrees that an individual has engaged in an act of a sexual nature that could pose a sexual risk to the public.[/quote]
Not that that's any less vague and nebulous. Would [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY"]this guy (this is the same video I linked earlier in this same thread)[/URL] be "engaging in an act of a sexual nature that could pose a sexual risk to the public" with the first few minutes of his talk about the Daily Mail, where he shows a bunch of the DM's photos of then-six-year-old Suri Cruise and makes plenty of statements that have worrying pedophilic implications? All you'd need to do is snip off the first part, before he says "this talk is about the Daily Mail and their shitty creepiness", and he comes off as a barely-closeted perv, looking like he wants to say naughtier things about a little girl if the cameras weren't rolling.
I bet it's going to be handled like obscenity cases in the US: "I'll know it when I see it"
Fapped to adult porn while your little sister was home (but in a separate room and unaware)? Shit, son, you might be saying goodbye to that trip to the Mediterranean you had planned to join your family on this winter.
[QUOTE=st_nick5;42475857]It's not just that, it's the social stigma that comes attached with it. Imagine waking up one day and finding you can't go abroad, can't use the internet, and can't go within a certain distance of a school or park. Imagine what everyone around you would think. This is basically like being put on the sex offenders register without being charged with anything.[/QUOTE]
But you would be on the register if one of these is made on you - that's the first thing it does - even if you have not been convicted of any offence - all based on police intelligence
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("dumb bump" - Orkel))[/highlight]
this is three months old
[QUOTE=J!NX;42480625]I'd really rather hear the full story on this, anyone have more info?
I mean, are they going to use it smart? Is the article sensationalizing it or is it really that vague?
V they make it seem as if this could happen V
So, you like fucking little boys? huh?
[B]HUH?[/B]
I bet you're a RAPIST waiting to happen
this creep gave me a funny look
I think he wants to STIKC HIS PENIS INSIDE BY BUTT
internet cops get him before he's dangerous![/QUOTE]
[editline]26th January 2014[/editline]
The idea is that a court could place this new civil Order on anyone regardless of the form their anticipated child sexual offending might take; or whether they had been previously convicted or cautioned if police intelligence indicated a risk of future harm and a need for an Order.
There will be two new orders – the ‘Sexual Risk Order’ (SRO) and the ‘Sexual Harm Prevention Order’ (SHPO). The former is contingent upon a conviction or caution but the latter requires no such pre-requisite. Neither are confined to child sex offenders. Both require any behaviour described in the Order to stop or a criminal offence is committed which could lead to a custodial sentence.
The criticism of these orders is that the police are just being given an easy way of dealing with people in the civil courts that avoids the extra work of having to bring them to a criminal court. These people will go on the sex offender register without having committed a crime. If they breach the Order we will have people being punished for that rather than for committing any substantive crime.
The people concerned will have the stigma of being reported on in the open courts during the applications for orders and being stigmatised in the local press when they have committed no offence.
[editline]26th January 2014[/editline]
The idea is that a court could place this new civil Order on anyone regardless of the form their anticipated child sexual offending might take; or whether they had been previously convicted or cautioned if police intelligence indicated a risk of future harm and a need for an Order.
There will be two new orders – the ‘Sexual Risk Order’ (SRO) and the ‘Sexual Harm Prevention Order’ (SHPO). The former is contingent upon a conviction or caution but the latter requires no such pre-requisite. Neither are confined to child sex offenders. Both require any behaviour described in the Order to stop or a criminal offence is committed which could lead to a custodial sentence.
The criticism of these orders is that the police are just being given an easy way of dealing with people in the civil courts that avoids the extra work of having to bring them to a criminal court. These people will go on the sex offender register without having committed a crime. If they breach the Order we will have people being punished for that rather than for committing any substantive crime.
The people concerned will have the stigma of being reported on in the open courts during the applications for orders and being stigmatised in the local press when they have committed no offence.
The article doesnt list the proposals explicitly so its probably more journalism here than actual facts. Facepunch flips a tit over this without even reading the [I]exact[/I] wording that the proposal has.
I like short women and small breasts.
Expecting my arrest warrant any time now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.