UK IT consultant subject to insane sex ban order mounts legal challenge A homeless IT consultant will learn today whether his challenge to a draconian order, which forces him to tell police in advance if he is going to have sex, will succeed. John O'Neill, 45, must tell the cops 24 hours in advance even if he only plans on “kissing” or engaging in “sexually explicit conversation” – but has never …
I don't think you understand the law too well. There is a high level of proof required - 99% doesn't do the job - so "not guilty" means that there was insufficient proof for the jury. It does not mean that he was innocent.
From the BBC website report:
"community psychiatric nurse notes said he had been sexually violent to past girlfriends and he was "not sure" if they had consented. He told her he needed women "to be scared" during sex or "I don't respond", the court heard."
So I certainly agree that this is a disgraceful way for a civilised society to behave, very Orwellian, and I hope that this measure is repealed when some sense of decency re-emerges, but I'm not holding my breath on that.
We, as outsiders, don't have all the facts, so we can give only personal opinions. Without the facts, we're just Sun & Daily Mail readers.
but it doesn't mean that he didn't commit the offence - it means only that the jury were not sure that he did.
Innocent in fact, or otherwise, he was not found guilty by the jury and he therefore has the right not to be punished for it. It sounds like he should be bringing suit against the police for theft (of his phone, etc.). Hopefully someone will take on his case pro-bono.
"Innocent in fact, or otherwise, he was not found guilty by the jury and he therefore has the right not to be punished for it. It sounds like he should be bringing suit against the police for theft (of his phone, etc.). Hopefully someone will take on his case pro-bono."
Although I agree with you, the actions of the Police, especially the implications for anyone who might one day upset a police officer are very worrying. What we need to remember here is that this SRO order was granted in a civil case, which has a much lower burden of proof. (leaving aside the legal argument over whether the conditions applied are allowed by the Order or even legal in themselves)
There are shades of the O.J. Simpson case here except it's the Police bringing the civil case. Which is strange in and of itself because if you go to them and they decide it's a civil case, they won't touch it.
"Not guilty...That does not mean, nor can it mean, the person is blameless in everything they have done in life".
You are quite correct. So maybe we should hang you, just in case? It won't disturb our sleep. After all, you've as good as admitted that you're "guilty of something".
No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. They could be innocent, or they're actually guilty but there's not sufficient proof.
That's not to say someone found "not guilty" shouldn't be treated as innocent.
"No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty."
If it "means what it says" then "not guilty" means EXACTLY what it says "NOT FUCKING GUILTY"
What it doesn't mean is what you're imagining it means in your fascist little world which is apparently,
"OF COURSE THEY'RE FUCKING GUILTY, WE JUST HAVEN'T TURNED THE THUMBSCREWS ENOUGH SO THEY CONFESS"
There was plenty of twats like you during the Spanish Inquisition, I have nothing but contempt for wankers like you. I can so picture you shouting Burn the witch because some poor old lady was found with unholy herbs in her pocket.
There was plenty of twats like you during the Spanish Inquisition
The Spanish Inquisition's jurisdiction was Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories (the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America). From 1480 to 1834 the inquisition executed ~3,000 people following trials of ~150,000. It was indeed the blood thirstiest of the three Inquisitions.
For comparison, the 20th Century secular German National Socialist Party had planned to kill 80 million people in the Soviet Union alone. In the event, they managed to kill only ~10 million before the 2nd World War allies defeated the Axis.
Historians are bemused by people who are so ready to condemn the Christian church for its excessive bloodlust, yet give the secular governments of the 20th Century a free pass.
Utter nonsense. While I'm not disputing the figures in your post, there are two points I want to address:
In what way did the Nazi party get a free pass? They've had plenty of condemnation and deservedly so. Is that just because the post you are replying to didn't mention them?
Secondly: in what way was the Nazi party secular? Hitler made plenty of religious speeches and writings and the Nazi party made use of religious imagery and slogans.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_Speeches_Against_Atheism
Downvoted for perpetuating that myth.
Utter nonsense. While I'm not disputing the figures in your post, there are two points I want to address:
If you are not disputing the figures in my post, then my remarks cannot be "utter nonsense".
Your first point is valid; I should not have made that comment; me culpa, maxima culpa. Sometimes I'm a very bad Git.
Your second point misses the mark in many important ways.
First, the National Socialists were not a religious movement; it was a political party. Most Germans were Roman Catholics (40%) and Protestants (54%)*. It seems very unlikely that the remainder of 6% were all adherents to the religion that AH wrote of in Mein Kampf.
The National Socialists had great antipathy to Jews, Moslems, Gypsies, Slavs and other "mental defectives" and what they did about them is a matter of history. It should also be fairly obvious these groups are not religions. Nor was there any chance of redemption. My father was an Austrian Jew raised in the Roman Catholic faith. He was not given the chance of converting to National Socialism to save him from slave labour.
The Inquisition was set up in Spain to ensure that Muslims and Jews who converted to Roman Catholicism rather than leave the country were true to the faith. As I originally wrote, of some 150,000 brought to trial over a period of 350 years some 2% were killed -- hardly a Holocaust.
* May 1939 census.
I doubt arguing with someone who takes their history from Monty Python is a winning strategy.
Dumb Yanks not withstanding, the Church's general view is that witches don't exist - its basically a pagan fantasy which won't die and generally tried to ban media which talked detecting them.
I wouldn't suggest that the Spanish Inquisition was staffed by good people but the main distaste for it in northern Europe/the USA comes via Protestantism's assertion that that Catholicism is a corruption of Christianity which misrepresents God. The issues are theological. As an icon of All That Is Wrong With Over-Reaching, Intrusive, Torturing and Executing Government it pales into insignificance alongside our current "liberal" governments. There is no need to go as far as looking at the Internet's Favourite Bad Guys.
As to the case at hand, there are a few things I would mention:
1. This kind of system makes a mockery of the legal process. Why bother with a trial if the police can do this? Is this any different from the Inquisition, if you can just go to a judge who can effectively overrule a jury verdict?
2. If this kind of restriction can be placed on those who have committed no demonstrable crime, how long will it take for these powers to be extended? Who is safe if the authorities no longer have to follow the rule of law?
3. I'm sure the police and the judge have a very reasons for this order. I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this, but all that old-fashioned morality which told women not to be alone with men? That was not about spoiling your fun, that was about protecting you. Sure, "No means no" but guess what? There are lots of bad people who don't play by the rules. Do you really want to have to be the one who has to sue for Assault and Battery? Even if you won, that would not be justice - justice would be never having been beaten. Find a partner you can trust who is capable and willing to love you for life - you deserve no less.
I doubt arguing with someone who takes their history from Monty Python is a winning strategy.
True, but even people who believe the most utter tosh may be led to learn how wrong they were. Even Pompous Gits!
I have been taken to task by a fellow historian for claiming that the Spanish Inquisition executed ~3,000 when in fact they do not appear to have executed anyone. The 3,000 were executed by the secular authorities. My colleague also pointed out that it wasn't unknown for the accused in a secular court to commit a heresy so that the case could be heard by the Inquisition instead since they were far less likely to sentence the accused to death.
He recommended The Spanish Inquisition: An Historical Revision by Henry Kamen, a book I have yet to read since my special area of interest is medieval science.
The communists soviets were not secular in any real sense of the word. They had plenty religion. Their religion was called socialism. A secular mindset can not be used to motivate atrocities since it is the absence of something, and the absence of something can not be a motivator.
If you want a modern day equivalent...
Who is the person whose single handed action has lead to the death of the most people?
Someone who banned the use of Condoms as a lowly Vatican official, continued the ban whilst in office and ensured that all Priests in Africa told their flock that using a Condom would lead quickly to hell. And the Catholic Church went and fast tracked him to Saint, when at least 30M people have died of Aids due to unprotected intercourse.
No that's not what "not guilty" means. It means what it says - there isn't sufficient evidence to find someone guilty. They could be innocent, or they're actually guilty but there's not sufficient proof.
Our legal system presumes innocence. Unless a person is found guilty of a crime then, legally, they are innocent and should be treated as such. If a person is found not guilty, they are legally innocent of that crime full stop*.
I find it incredibly disturbing the amount that a person can be punished for a crime he has not been convicted of now in this country. This case is yet another example, and it is a completely draconian punishment, with few restrictions. I really hope it gets quashed: Whether this guy did anything wrong is irrelevant, unless he is found guilty of a crime by a jury of his peers, he should not be punished for that crime. His life has been destroyed by this. He can not work in his field with this order in place, or in any office environment. At best, he may be able to work as a labourer, some unskilled job. He has no right to privacy, would be unable to have a relationship, has none of the basic freedoms we have a right to. In short, he is practically an unperson just for having "abnormal" sexual fantasies.
*Yes, I know that he could be retried, given the seriousness of these charges. However, this is only if sufficient new evidence comes up AND an appeals court overturns the original verdict. Until then, he is legally innocent of the crimes he was charged with.
So effectively, the SRO eradicates any presumption of innocence? If he had been convicted, many measures could have been applied, i.e., incarceration, restraining orders, etc.
But if this person was found innocent, why is he still being punished for crimes he has not yet committed (or may have committed in the past, but for which he has not been arrested)? Apparently, that is OK now in the UK. And if he is indeed into S&M, leather and edgy sexual behavior, there are undoubtedly peers within the elite who are too. Shouldn't they all be wearing ankle bracelets 24/7?
You can slice this anyway you like, it still looks very fucked up.
What is next?
Bans on transgens entering certain areas (think toilets), global surveillance of "suspect" categories of people (think muslims, shouty Reg commentards, parking violators, sexual deviants, porn watchers....).
Don't say it can't happen. The authorities have the technology and will soon use it however they see fit. TM looks like she is well off on a mission to fully purify UK society. Good luck to you if you don't meet all the purity criteria.
If this still isn't clear to you, re-watch Brazil and Demolition Man for some mental re-adjustment.
"Not guilty does mean that the defendant was found innocent for the specific charge brought. That does not mean, nor can it mean, the person is blameless in everything they have done in life."
Nor does the fact that you and I can walk down the street, free of control orders, no restrictions at all, nor does this mean that we are innocent of anything at all.
>>I don't think you understand the law too well. There is a high level of proof required - 99% doesn't do the job - so "not guilty" means that there was insufficient proof for the jury. It does not mean that he was innocent.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
i.e. Presumption of innocence, it means legally, he is innocent until proven guilty, as he wasn't proven guilty, he is legally innocent - whether he is actually innocent is a different matter (which of course is your point), the problem here is two fold, firstly is it even legal to impose a legal constraint on someone not found legally guilty of something, secondly this legal constraint appears to exceed the boundaries of the guidelines.
In this "safe not sorry" environment it disturbs me slightly to feel comfortable that his life is messed up on the possibility that this protects innocent people (even if he is practically and legally innocent of anything), it seems as if he has been dealt with in a very draconian way and the SJW in me doesn't like it, I guess, as a test case if his appeal is successful, this might protect innocent people, the risk is (of course) if he is a "wrongun" and he then attacks someone where the restrictions would have protected them.
I can't help feeling that there's some bad stuff going on, just can't put my finger on it, perhaps there's just better ways of dealing with aberrant desires than presumption of guilt.
There seems to be a trend to apply some sanctions on civil levels of proof, i.e., balance of probabilities. You then make the ASBO, SRO etc. subject to criminal sanctions if broken.
This is an extreme example if what I've read (in this and other August organs) is true and completely OTT. If he has a problem surely the answer is to section him and get suitable treatment.
"i.e. Presumption of innocence, it means legally, he is innocent until proven guilty,"
No, No, No! It means innocent _UNLESS_ proven guilty; the police are assuming guilt, and expecting evidence to turn up which will prove him so.
"I don't think you understand the law too well."
You say this and then demonstrate that you don't understand how our legal system works.
Within our justice system there is no grey area; you are either innocent or guilty. If you are proved not guilty, then you are innocent. If there is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, then you are also innocent. The question of actual, moral innocence is irrelevant.
The fact that this sort of power has been given to the police is frankly horrifying.
In Scotland, you have "Proven" and "Not Proven", which are the equivalent of "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" in England. There is an additional verdict of "Not Guilty" which is given in circumstances where the jury are absolutely sure the defendant didn't do it, or where the alleged act isn't illegal.
On this side of the Pond there is a Constitutional provision of "Double Jeopardy" which means the state only gets one chance to try someone and if found not guilty the defendant walks. Not sure of UK or EU law on that point. This sounds like a form of double jeopardy.
We have double jeopardy as well but a few years ago it was modified to allow for retrial if the evidence has significantly changed.
"We have double jeopardy as well but a few years ago it was modified to allow for retrial if the evidence has significantly changed".
Just another of the myriad ways in which our old-fashioned and inefficient justice system is being continually revised, reformed and improved.
"Oh look - a gun that has been fired with the accused's fingerprints on it! How could we have overlooked that? And see - we have just discovered that his DNA was plastered all over the crime scene. Definitely grounds for a retrial".
On this side of the Pond there is a Constitutional provision of "Double Jeopardy" which means the state only gets one chance to try someone and if found not guilty the defendant walks. Not sure of UK or EU law on that point. This sounds like a form of double jeopardy.
Maybe, but Double Jeopardy simply means, as you say, that you can't be tried twice.
This is more like being found not guilty for a DWI/DUI charge and then having the state cancel your driver's licence anyway. That also doesn't stop the police from paying a closer eye to you, excessively patrolling your neighborhood (just in front of your house), etc.
The concept is there, but it's not simple. Sometimes a pattern of lesser offences is significant, but it isn't easy to present them to a jury as evidence. It will be argued about in each case where it comes up. And sometimes it gets argued several times, in different courts. In this case, this is the first step of such a chain of arguments.
Anyway, I knew a few magistrates. Apart from anything else, the police were known to have a list of favourite magistrates. I could see why. Some could have been more sceptical.
"The concept is there, but it's not simple. Sometimes a pattern of lesser offences is significant, but it isn't easy to present them to a jury as evidence."
No the concept is very simple. The court decides if the person is guilty otherwise they are innocent of the charge. Yes in the real world they may have done it but the court is drawing a line, making a judgement. What the court says is what the law must go on.
You can't keep hounding the person because you know they did it. You can't just keep at it until you get them. If you failed in court then tough luck, you have to wait until they do it again.
Double jeopardy used to be the law here too until the present Tories got their hands on it.
Now, They can accuse and try you: and if found Not guilty - then they can accuse you again - and again - and again - until they do get a guilty verdict or you die accused. And soon the ECHR won't be there for us any more.
One possible scenario is: Indicted but found Not guilty, can be followed up with a second accusation but without going to court. Leading to the dodgy Innocent in the eyes of the law but guilty in the eyes of the police or CPS situation that seems to have manifested itself here.
Double jeopardy was there initially for a reason along with a binding sentence from the court which tried the case - because they possessed all the facts. No it's never over. Beware.
@ Bloodbeastterror
I 100% agree with you*, and I would support some sort of extra monitoring order for people like this. But that doesn't change the fact that the terms of this particular order seem to be unworkable and draconian. I'm surprised he hasn't made a Human Rights Act challenge to it, but I suspect that'll be on the cards if he doesn't get it overturned by other means.
*except for the Daily Mail reader bit, The Sun FTW though ;).
People like who? This "no smoke without fire" nonsense makes a mockery of our legal system.
Sorry, but I disagree. A judge looked at details of the case, and based on what he saw, elected to grant the order against this guy, and he did that for a reason. Do you also think that people who've been linked with terrorist or extremist organisations and radicalised, but haven't yet been convicted of any crime, shouldn't be subject to extra monitoring?
People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place. Denying that is what I would say makes a mockery of justice.
People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place.
Thought police then?
"People can show clear signs that they are on the path towards committing certain crimes prior to actually committing them, and it is entirely right of our legal system to identify such people and take steps to prevent them from committing said crimes in the first place. Denying that is what I would say makes a mockery of justice."
I believe you are showing clear signs of being on a path to removing the legal basis of "innocent until found guilty". It is entirely right that the legal system you wish to over-throw identifies you and takes steps to prevent you committing any crimes against human rights.
Please hand yourself into the nearest police station, where you can be tagged, photographed and interrogated.
""innocent until found guilty"
FFS people! That's the fourth or fifth time I've seen that misquoted. That is exactly the problem here.
It's UNLESS, not UNTIL.
"innocent until found guilty" implies that you ARE guilty of something and they'll keep trying 'till they get you for something, anything. That's the whole basis of this story.
"innocent until found guilty [...] It's UNLESS, not UNTIL."
[Caveat: This is a repost of an earlier post I made a while back tackling this misunderstanding]
I used to belabour this same argument about "unless" vs "until", but eventually someone who was actually a lawyer showed me that the case is "until" and always has been, dating right back to Roman law in essence and back to the 17th century in practice.
The bottom line is that in law neither Unless or Until are used, but instead it is called "presumption of innocence" and fundamentally means that the state (or prosecuting power) must begin with the assumed innocence of an accused party.
Even the universal charter of human rights says "until". So, whilst I might agree that "unless" would be more grammatically and linguistically accurate, it is not the case that using "until" is newspeak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
But yes, nice to see someone who also knows the original (though seemingly no longer correct) version :)
Replying to myself.. Must be time for the police to seek some sort of mental health order against me!
Anyway.. Seems from other comments that I was wrong after all..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
