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 …
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.
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)
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.
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.
'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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'
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?
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.]
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
