Man who must notify police before sex: 'Unpoliceable' order will be amended but not lifted - Polidicks

[t]http://i.imgur.com/UPPJBgE.jpg[/t] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37134899[/url] [quote]A man who must notify police 24 hours before he has sex has lost his legal battle to have the restriction lifted. John O'Neill, from York, was cleared of rape last year but given a Sexual Risk Order (SRO) due to comments he made to a GP and a nurse in 2014. Mr O'Neill said he had been misunderstood, but police argued he posed a risk to the public. District Judge Adrian Lower said the terms of the "frankly unpoliceable" order would be amended. He was particularly critical of the "disproportionate" requirement for Mr O'Neill, 45, to give a day's notice before starting sexual contact with a new partner.[/quote] The hearing has also given us the full details of why the order was put in place: [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37131460[/url] [quote]A man who must notify police 24 hours before he has sex told a nurse he had been violent to every woman he had slept with, a court has heard.[/quote] [quote]Oliver Thorne, for the police, read extracts from a report written by a community psychiatric nurse who spoke to Mr O'Neill in 2014. Her 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. The nurse noted he had suicidal thoughts and had been "preoccupied with killing himself and others" - an idea he found "soothing". She also wrote Mr O'Neill thought "it would be safer for everyone if he was dead". Magistrates were also told about a conversation between the father-of-two and his GP in which he discussed "biting and choking" sexual partners. Dr Miriam Hodgson wrote her patient had "homicidal and suicidal thoughts" and had said his sex life had become violent. Her notes added: "Thinks he may have raped someone, it went further than she expected" and "Patient thinks he is dangerous and needs to be stopped." Mr O'Neill also told her he thought about killing a partner "a lot" and had "choked her unconscious several times," the court heard.[/quote] But: [url]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/19/man-who-has-to-inform-police-before-having-sex-loses-bid-to-lift-order[/url] [quote]O’Neill said he was being penalised because of his interest in sado-masochism (S&M) and visits to fetish clubs. He said he had discussed S&M with his GP and Holmes in relation to his mental state, and that they had misunderstood what he was telling them. He also said the SRO had had a devastating effect on his personal life.[/quote]

So because "they heard from nurse" he has this restriction?

It's hard to tell whether the shrink really misunderstood his fetish as a threat or the guy legitimately has problems keeping his kink consensual. It sounds like he's lucky he got acquited in the first place considering he pretty much admitted to his psychiatrist that he might have raped a partner in the past. edit: this still sounds like a horrible restriction to have, and one that they should aim to remove if the guy no longer shows signs of being violent (outside the scope of his kink, that is in a consensual manner)

[QUOTE=Fourier;50914765]So because "they heard from nurse" he has this restriction?[/QUOTE] the dude didn't deny quotations, but only the negative interpretations what positive interpretation is there for some of this? [quote]She also wrote Mr O'Neill thought "it would be safer for everyone if he was dead". Her notes added: "Thinks he may have raped someone, it went further than she expected" and "Patient thinks he is dangerous and needs to be stopped."[/quote] the rest I can see being very contextually rooted in safe/consensual fetish practices, but not in light of the above it seems to me he's upset at getting preventative (though unpoliceable) restrictions over his sex life, without heed for the reasoning it's akin to being upset about jail for murder more than being remorseful for murder, though in this instance it feels like thought-crime still, I'm not a fan of unpoliceable practices like this; what possible benefit to society could such a ruling have?

[QUOTE=meek;50915421]It's hard to tell whether the shrink really misunderstood his fetish as a threat or the guy legitimately has problems keeping his kink consensual. It sounds like he's lucky he got acquited in the first place considering he pretty much admitted to his psychiatrist that he might have raped a partner in the past. edit: this still sounds like a horrible restriction to have, and one that they should aim to remove if the guy no longer shows signs of being violent (outside the scope of his kink, that is in a consensual manner)[/QUOTE] As long as he isnt charged with anything i dont see the use to treat him as anything but completely innocent... This is clearly a distasteful treatment of peoples sexual liberties...

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50916317]When does Britain have that Ah ha! moment and realize their government has gone too far in abridging their citizenry's human rights for stupid reasons and pull back and compensate this man for their wrong doing? Any moment now...[/QUOTE] Um... this isn't exactly the biggest deal, is it.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50916317]When does Britain have that Ah ha! moment and realize their government has gone too far in abridging their citizenry's human rights for stupid reasons and pull back and compensate this man for their wrong doing? Any moment now...[/QUOTE] As a fellow American, we got some fucking issues ourselves pal

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50916323]Um... this isn't exactly the biggest deal, is it.[/QUOTE] Would you wanna call the cops every time you fuck over possible heresay?

[QUOTE=solid_jake;50916493]As a fellow American, we got some fucking issues ourselves pal[/QUOTE] ya but an sro would be seen as double jeopardy here

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50916323]Um... this isn't exactly the biggest deal, is it.[/QUOTE] No but it certainly is a violation of his rights in a pretty flagrant way IMO.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50916323]Um... this isn't exactly the biggest deal, is it.[/QUOTE] You tell me how you feel when you have to call police when you want to get laid And if shit isn't under your control (drunk etc) then you get screwed big time? fuck no

[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50916690]You tell me how you feel when you have to call police when you want to get laid And if shit isn't under your control (drunk etc) then you get screwed big time? fuck no[/QUOTE] It wasn't put in place for no reason. I don't think the order was a good idea as it is unenforceable and probably disproportionate, but come now. This isn't just some random guy being picked on.

They really should have a psychiatrist reevaluate whether he still needs this restriction every few months though. Or else what's the point? [QUOTE] Mr O'Neill, an IT consultant, told the BBC the order had prevented him from applying for jobs requiring a computer or a telephone and he was currently living in a tent in woodland. [/QUOTE] This guy has no chance at a normal life.

[QUOTE=meek;50916855]They really should have a psychiatrist reevaluate whether he still needs this restriction every few months though. Or else what's the point? This guy has no chance at a normal life.[/QUOTE] What's that like, 95% of all jobs?

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50916323]Um... this isn't exactly the biggest deal, is it.[/QUOTE] Not being found guilty of anything but having massive restrictions on your human rights placed on you isn't a big deal?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50916590]No but it certainly is a violation of his rights in a pretty flagrant way IMO.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Mattk50;50916940]Not being found guilty of anything but having massive restrictions on your human rights placed on you isn't a big deal?[/QUOTE] From my look into the rights we have here, none of them seem to of been breached. But that's form a quick look into it, and I'm not a lawyer.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50916705]It wasn't put in place for no reason.[/QUOTE] It was put in place without due process. That is the definition of no reason.

[QUOTE=Tob2010;50917042]From my look into the rights we have here, none of them seem to of been breached. But that's form a quick look into it, and I'm not a lawyer.[/QUOTE] You don't really have rights in the UK. We hold residual rights (ie. you are allowed to do what you are not expressly disallowed to do) and we have the rights outlined in the ECHR (and HRA, which copies that into British law).

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50916241]As long as he isnt charged with anything i dont see the use to treat him as anything but completely innocent... This is clearly a distasteful treatment of peoples sexual liberties...[/QUOTE] If he isn't charged with anything and convicted then there shouldnt be any restrictions. It's called due process, why can't the UK get its legal system straight.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50917057]You don't really have rights in the UK. We hold residual rights (ie. you are allowed to do what you are not expressly disallowed to do) and we have the rights outlined in the ECHR (and HRA, which copies that into British law).[/QUOTE] That's not great to hear

[QUOTE=solid_jake;50916493]As a fellow American, we got some fucking issues ourselves pal[/QUOTE] yeah but at least we're not sentencing people after being acquitted [editline]20th August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Tob2010;50917042]From my look into the rights we have here, none of them seem to of been breached. But that's form a quick look into it, and I'm not a lawyer.[/QUOTE] congrats you've found the problem. britain is not a free country.

[QUOTE=bitches;50915696]the dude didn't deny quotations, but only the negative interpretations what positive interpretation is there for some of this? the rest I can see being very contextually rooted in safe/consensual fetish practices, but not in light of the above it seems to me he's upset at getting preventative (though unpoliceable) restrictions over his sex life, without heed for the reasoning it's akin to being upset about jail for murder more than being remorseful for murder, though in this instance it feels like thought-crime still, I'm not a fan of unpoliceable practices like this; what possible benefit to society could such a ruling have?[/QUOTE] I feel like he's just distraught over the allegations. Even if you believe the accusations are unfounded, to know you really drove someone to make that claim about you and the system sides with them sucks. It Makes you feel like you wrong

I don't see how this would hinder anything. Its probably incredibly annoying, stupid and a waste of time - but as long as he finds help to handle himself and not go overboard, how does this stop him from having a sex life? If his fetish is extreme S&M, imagine going to one of >those< places and being able to truthfully say "wanna come back to my place? I'm asking because I gotta notify the cops in advance - yes, I'm that kind of bad. [Further variations of the "I'm a bad boy" liners]". Or just literally calling the cops from time to time and saying "Hiya guv. I'm heading to the strip club tomorrow as usual and I might get laid. Just letting you know per my legal contract that I might shag someone tomorrow. Yup. Ok cheers, bye." Unless the cops have to come and supervise him during intercourse ("yeah, it's the fetish club down the road from that 7/11 on baker's street. However I gotta warn you, the bouncer in front won't let anyone in without some leather - and cops are a no go. Hey, I didn't decide for this to happen, and I don't care if this isn't part of your job! Take it up with the court if you've got complains, otherwise you guys can meet me near the back of the bar incase I fuck someone. Alright, take care, see you tomorrow.") since then it might be crossing a line, but I didn't see that in the article. In fact, it's not even every time he [I]might[/I] have sex, it's only with a new partner. Am I wrong here for not seeing how this is such a big of a deal? I'd would actually love to be able to call the cops at any moment and tell them "I'm gonna have sex tomorrow mate, just letting you know." Imagine doing that at a party as a show off thing. Or maybe he wants to fancy himself more sophisticated and to have more self respect than treat it nonseriously, but I'm not sure he has that going for him at the moment with the whole "I might have raped someone/strangled someone too hard" deal. Either way, this restriction is full of bad ideas and terrible execution of a punishment. If he really was a threat to society, just throw him in jail and get him some counseling instead of this juggling mess of bullshit?

[QUOTE=LaughingOrange;50918258]I don't see how this would hinder anything. Its probably incredibly annoying, stupid and a waste of time - but as long as he finds help to handle himself and not go overboard, how does this stop him from having a sex life? If his fetish is extreme S&M, imagine going to one of >those< places and being able to truthfully say "wanna come back to my place? I'm asking because I gotta notify the cops in advance - yes, I'm that kind of bad. [Further variations of the "I'm a bad boy" liners]". Or just literally calling the cops from time to time and saying "Hiya guv. I'm heading to the strip club tomorrow as usual and I might get laid. Just letting you know per my legal contract that I might shag someone tomorrow. Yup. Ok cheers, bye." Unless the cops have to come and supervise him during intercourse ("yeah, it's the fetish club down the road from that 7/11 on baker's street. However I gotta warn you, the bouncer in front won't let anyone in without some leather - and cops are a no go. Hey, I didn't decide for this to happen, and I don't care if this isn't part of your job! Take it up with the court if you've got complains, otherwise you guys can meet me near the back of the bar incase I fuck someone. Alright, take care, see you tomorrow.") since then it might be crossing a line, but I didn't see that in the article. In fact, it's not even every time he [I]might[/I] have sex, it's only with a new partner. Am I wrong here for not seeing how this is such a big of a deal? I'd would actually love to be able to call the cops at any moment and tell them "I'm gonna have sex tomorrow mate, just letting you know." Imagine doing that at a party as a show off thing. Or maybe he wants to fancy himself more sophisticated and to have more self respect than treat it nonseriously, but I'm not sure he has that going for him at the moment with the whole "I might have raped someone/strangled someone too hard" deal. Either way, this restriction is full of bad ideas and terrible execution of a punishment. If he really was a threat to society, just throw him in jail and get him some counseling instead of this juggling mess of bullshit?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=meek;50916855]Mr O'Neill, an IT consultant, told the BBC the order had prevented him from applying for jobs requiring a computer or a telephone and he was currently living in a tent in woodland.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a dangerous individual but I don't get it Is he going to notify the police before raping someone? This is just a dumb idea

[QUOTE=LaughingOrange;50918258]I don't see how this would hinder anything. Its probably incredibly annoying, stupid and a waste of time - but as long as he finds help to handle himself and not go overboard, how does this stop him from having a sex life? If his fetish is extreme S&M, imagine going to one of >those< places and being able to truthfully say "wanna come back to my place? I'm asking because I gotta notify the cops in advance - yes, I'm that kind of bad. [Further variations of the "I'm a bad boy" liners]". Or just literally calling the cops from time to time and saying "Hiya guv. I'm heading to the strip club tomorrow as usual and I might get laid. Just letting you know per my legal contract that I might shag someone tomorrow. Yup. Ok cheers, bye." Unless the cops have to come and supervise him during intercourse ("yeah, it's the fetish club down the road from that 7/11 on baker's street. However I gotta warn you, the bouncer in front won't let anyone in without some leather - and cops are a no go. Hey, I didn't decide for this to happen, and I don't care if this isn't part of your job! Take it up with the court if you've got complains, otherwise you guys can meet me near the back of the bar incase I fuck someone. Alright, take care, see you tomorrow.") since then it might be crossing a line, but I didn't see that in the article. In fact, it's not even every time he [I]might[/I] have sex, it's only with a new partner. Am I wrong here for not seeing how this is such a big of a deal? I'd would actually love to be able to call the cops at any moment and tell them "I'm gonna have sex tomorrow mate, just letting you know." Imagine doing that at a party as a show off thing. Or maybe he wants to fancy himself more sophisticated and to have more self respect than treat it nonseriously, but I'm not sure he has that going for him at the moment with the whole "I might have raped someone/strangled someone too hard" deal. Either way, this restriction is full of bad ideas and terrible execution of a punishment. If he really was a threat to society, just throw him in jail and get him some counseling instead of this juggling mess of bullshit?[/QUOTE] He has to provide the identity of the person he will have sex with with 24 hour notice.

I'd just call the cops every single morning, maybe multiple times a day and tell them that I'm about to have sex.