Judge makes minor tweaks to sex ban IT man's order A York judge has made some trifling tweaks to an order he imposed on a former IT contractor banning him from having sex unless he asked police 24 hours in advance. District Judge Adrian Lower, sitting at York Magistrates' Court yesterday, heard John O'Neill's application to vary a Sexual Risk Order (SRO) that the same judge …
The restrictions on this man are beyond unreasonable.
One of the most ridiculous, is the ban on him talking about his fantasies to medical professionals. Yet who better to discuss them with and seek help dealing with them than a medical professional?
Despite never having been convicted of a crime, his treatment by the judiciary is worse than many who have actually been convicted of crimes such as rape.
This is an appaling miscariage of justice. I know the claim is that these actions are to protect society from his "sick" fantasies, but in this country we are innocent until proven guilty.
And he has not been found guilty of any sex crime.
Doesn't matter if he was presumed either innocent or guilty until proven otherwise. The court found him innocent, and so he should be let go and allowed to enjoy the freedoms and liberties everyone other law-abiding citizen is afforded.
With laws like this, I wouldn't be surprised to see the number of people fleeing the country, especially if they are innocent. Punishing both the innocent and the guilty shows that there is no hope for the accused and no incentive for them to cooperate with the law.
If I were to be accused of a sex-crime, I'd be dashing to the airport to grab the next plane out, even if during the time of the crime I was sitting down for tea with the queen while the whole thing was broadcast to everyone on the planet.
And with child protection too. There used to be a principle that it was better to let the guilty go free than convict the innocent. But we now have a culture with sex crimes and child abuse that is rather the reverse. But its next to impossible to sort out the truth, especially when it comes to crimes that *might* be committed. So if you want to prevent all future Baby Ps, future rapes, and all the rest of it then you must accept that a lot of kids will be taken away from competent parents and a lot of innocent people will be jailed or treated like this guy.
Strangely, though, this isn't a calculation we're prepared to make as a society. Instead we, and especially our press, kid ourselves police and social workers can wave a magic wand and instantly distinguish the eccentric and inarticulate from the monsters, and we demand a public enquiry every time they get it wrong. Logically its ridiculous, but logic doesn't come into it I fear.
Quite agree - but you forget the role of the meeja (short hand for the Daily Fail) in this. Social services damned if they do and damned if they do not. And in one frequent case, famed because they tried to do, bowed to media pressure not to do it, and following the tragic consequences damned for doing it.
"There is no requirement for an alleged perpetrator to be found guilty of anything before the SRO punishment can be imposed."
SOPOs
ASBOs
Football banning orders
TPIMS
Criminal asset confiscation
Serious Crime Prevention Orders
Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Orders
Public Spaces Protection Orders
Need I go on? The number of ways in which governments have extended the 'order' state in the last ~20 years is beyond comprehension. The number of circumstances in which the proving of guilt is entirely optional and the lack of a guilty verdict is no obstacle to punishment is beyond frightening.
You're not sleepwalking into '1984'; you've been there for some time. The frogs are well and truly boiling.
tell the police 24 hours in advance? ludicrous and unworkable!
what he needs is an order to get a (preferably video) signature from his proposed suitor , in advance , of her declaring "I am fully aware that this sick fuck cant get it up unless his partner is suffering, and I am still going to sleep with him of my own volition"
It's not that their partner is suffering, it's that their partner needs to *appear* to be scared so he can be turned on. That could easily be an activity between two consenting adults. It's only a douche move when it isn't discussed with your partner, or when you exceed previously agreed or implied boundaries.
If there's informed consent, it's not up to anyone to police behaviour. Far more effective to provide guidance on how to properly negotiate with a partner.
Adults who engage in extreme play or BDSM activities are not deviants or "sick fucks", they are often very deeply comitted to each and often very much in love. Contrary to what people think BDSM is, it's not about beating the shit out of each and not giving a toss afterwards, it's about ceceeding control in a way whereby the other takes and controls the situation but only when both parties agree in advance to the tightly controlled boundareis of the "play". At the end of the "play" then both parties take a cooling down period where they reassure each other, if you like a way to pass back to "normality" so that no long term emotioanl "damage" is done to either party.
Both to your Doctor and to Mental Health professionals. They are bound by confidentiality but, IANAL, in the event that you reveal any information to them that might be indicative that you are a threat to someone else's well-being they are required to act on that information and confidentiality no longer applies. That's a 'judgement call' from them but they are likely to err on the side of caution. In respect of some other authority being overzealous or otherwise acting in an unexpected manner according to the information they are supplied....
He told his GP that he needed women “to be scared, or I don't respond” in bed and also told the doctor he may have raped a former partner. In court he claimed this was part of a sado-masochistic fantasy and that the doctor had misunderstood what he was saying.
"This is a predictive allegation of a sex crime and the new law allows it to be offloaded to a civil court," he told the BBC. The new order bans him from discussing his sado-masochistic fantasies with medical personnel, and all his medical appointments must now have a chaperone.
It is not an 'predictive allegation'. It is likely to be about perceived probabilities and might better be seen as a pre-emptive course of action out of concern for the safety of others. I am not suggesting that some of the restrictions placed on the person concerned may have been over the top but I would not want my daughter to unwittingly end up on the wrong side of someone else's sado-masochistic fantasies.. should they choose to turn them into reality.
One part of the 1689 Bill of Rights states that promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void; another part that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
What the SROs are doing is imposing a punishment before or without a conviction. This is basically going against the constitution that we don't have (but arguably ought to have). The 1998 Human Rights Act states similar rights also.
So, how long before unconstitutional punishment before conviction is struck down?
"This is basically going against the constitution that we don't have"
"This is basically going against our unwritten constitution."
FTFY
"Unlike most modern states, Britain does not have a codified constitution but an unwritten one formed of Acts of Parliament, court judgments and conventions."
From https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/britains-unwritten-constitution
But google it: There are a fair number of sites explaining it.
The Sky news report linked in the article misses out an important point.
It notes that the SROs can be issued without a conviction, and it goes on to report how many have been issued by those forces that responded to a FOI request, but what it misses (did they not think to ask?) is how many of those have been issued without a conviction, like the O'Neill case that prompted the question.
On the one hand there is the abstract matter of SRO’s and their potential impact on civil liberties. On the other, there is protection of the unwary and the practical application of keeping a check on sick warped twats who think they are clever.
I don’t see this situation as ‘a miscarriage of justice’ as it is the existing justice system which has imposed and repeatedly ratified the order. A reasonable and law abiding person would focus their efforts into getting the existing laws changed. A vain, selfish deviant would publicize the situation to feed their vanity and expectation that they can do and have what they want,how they want and when they want.
If he doesn’t like the situation and is feeling oppressed he should f*ck off to a country which accepts his deviance. I think he will be hard pressed to find one.
Nope. Just someone not so dumb as to be taken in by this clown and fully aware that liberalism and 'understanding' just plays into the hands the selfish and manipulative.
This is a guy who admitted to two separate health professionals that he gets a sexual kick out of extreme violence and then tries to convince the court that he was misunderstood.
Where are the 'boundaries'? Having heard his admission, what if he acted out his fantasies and killed someone,? No amount of pre-agreed boundaries or safewords would help the submissive then would it?
The health professionals had no choice in the matter, it would be neglect to act in any other way.
Newsflash - there are manipulative and evil bastards out there who despite all the namby-pamby talk of pre-agreed boundaries and adult agreement would use those very same 'agreements' as a defence in the event of things ending tragically.
These orders are required precisely to protect those with the over liberal and flawed view that everything will end well if we talk it out and agree as 'adults' as opposed to viewing it as a contract between an aggressor and submissive. It is in the nature of an aggressor to take advantage therefore it is never a rational agreement.
@Still No Pity
>guy who admitted to two separate health professionals that he gets a sexual kick out of extreme violence and then tries to convince the court that he was misunderstood.
Back then, he was trying to get help, not self-incriminate.
>Where are the 'boundaries'? Having heard his admission, what if he acted out his fantasies and killed someone,? No amount of pre-agreed boundaries or safewords would help the submissive then would it?
There are *no* boundaries. If your contingency happens, we eat it. Concrete infringement of rights cannot be legitimized based on a vague assessment of risk, undertaken by a person or agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.
Even if we must permit such things in some form, we need to stop allowing it as a "power" (where the act of issuing the order starts off being right except in cases of abuse as assessed by a uselessly tight standard) and start treating it as a "justification" (where the act is prima facie criminal because it does infringe on people's rights without full due process of law, but may be justified). For example:
The order will be issued by a police officer (P) with no intervention by court (b/c they just rubber stamp). There should be no Act empowering it, thus it is by default Abuse/Excess of Authority (crime). But it will be considered justified (thus allowed to stand) if:
a) It does not exceed proportionality (risk & severity).
b) Recognizing its infringement, the State recompenses V (order recipient) with a percentage of his income proportionate to the restriction (risk is not taken into account, only the severity of restriction). Even a narrow restraining order concerning non-approach of 1 individual should be worth 10% of his income, and general restrictive regimes like the one here should be worth 100%.
c) Because it is a *justification*, not a *power*, the individual issuing orders must acknowledge his own personal responsibility as an infringer and contribute to the State compensation with a portion of his own income, up to 50%. Thus, a single officer can order 1 very restrictive regime or 10 minimal regimes in his name, or anything in between.
d) If unforeseen circumstances increasing the actual severity, the State must provide extra compensation.
Failure to achieve all four conditions, even marginally, will mean collapse of justification defense and incarceration for P.
If there are still Sexual Risk Orders under this kind of scheme, I might consider them justified.
'Back then, he was trying to get help, not self-incriminate.'
I have seen no published suggestion that he was trying to get 'help' in his consultations with his GP and the Mental Health Nurse, he also gave a detailed TV interview which I watched in full, there was no suggestion of an appeal for help. He appeared comfortable with his needs, his issue was with the restriction to his rights. Source please.
'Concrete infringement of rights cannot be legitimized based on a vague assessment of risk, undertaken by a person or agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.'
Sorry, are you suggesting the General Practitioner, Mental Health nurse ( who in the UK has the authority to 'section' (incarcerate) someone in an emergency if required) and the Law Courts are unable to assess risk or are persons or 'agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.'?
Do you live in the UK? if not, perhaps you may like to put him up for a while, and give him a job while you are at it.
>I have seen no published suggestion that he was trying to get 'help' in his consultations with his GP and the Mental Health Nurse, he also gave a detailed TV interview which I watched in full, there was no suggestion of an appeal for help. He appeared comfortable with his needs, his issue was with the restriction to his rights. Source please.
I'll say the fact he bothered to consult medical help is a sign he wanted help. However, now that he's being slapped with this ridiculous order, of course his emphasis is on his legitimate rights. I don't blame him.
BTW, please don't give me excuses regarding his demeanor. Rule of law and due process means that we can't impose restrictions of liberty because we don't like their attitude, only for solid things they have done which we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything, the fact his demeanor is bad means he's a vulnerable segment which requires protection.
>General Practitioner, Mental Health nurse ( who in the UK has the authority to 'section' (incarcerate) someone in an emergency if required)
Thankfully, they didn't. But the cops slapping the order on him apparently do.
>Law Courts are unable to assess risk or are persons or 'agency that undertakes no risk and pays no price for his infringement.'?
The vital part here is the aft section. I indeed don't live in the UK, so I could be wrong, but you might want to fill everyone in on what concrete risks or price either the police officer initially issuing the order, the solicitor that drafted it, or the judge that affirms and slightly trims it suffers.
Because as far as I can tell, the police officer's worst fate here is that his order gets reversed in its entirety. He will not, for example, be forced to eat a pay cut, much less suffer criminal liability. And even if we accept there is some legitimacy to this order, it is undeniable O' Neill here hasn't actually been convicted of any crime yet they gave him the substantive equivalent of a fairly tough probation, which is a significant infringement of his rights, and it can be done for free. A similar story runs for the judge.
Under these circumstances, what is really there to keep these responsible offers from excess? Nothing.
‘I'll say the fact he bothered to consult medical help is a sign he wanted help‘
Ah, you have no source so you have based your argument is on conjecture. Therefore so will I. The fact that he discussed the issue with the GP does not mean that he was seeking help on the issue, he could equally have got a sexual kick from drawing a female GP into a discussion of his fantasies as part of his deviance. If this were the case then the GP acted professionally and escalated it.
This scenario would go some way to explaining the latest restrictions where appointments with health professionals are chaperoned by a third party.
‘you might want to fill everyone in on what concrete risks or price either the police officer initially issuing the order, the solicitor that drafted it, or the judge that affirms and slightly trims it suffers.’
They are open to legal action being individually raised against them, how much more concrete risk do you require?
‘I indeed don't live in the UK’
I suspected so, however you seem keen to protect this particular individual’s rights,perhaps your homeland is more tolerant. I don’t suppose you want to take up the invite to host him in your country and defend his right to indulge in his lifestyle? You omitted to respond to that.
>If this were the case then the GP acted professionally and escalated it.
OK, I shall pretend that is the case. The fact he mouthed off to the GP is a reason for the GP to refuse to see him, NOT for the police and court to impose the equivalent of a restrictive probation regime.
>They are open to legal action being individually raised against them, how much more concrete risk do you require?
They might be sued, but since they are doing it as part of their "powers", it is a State action. If somehow O' Neill wins a civil suit, they will not pay, the State will out of tax money.
As for judges, thanks to the judicial immunity doctrine, it's extremely unlikely it'll even go as far as that.
>You omitted to respond to that.
I wouldn't mind him coming to where I am. But really, are we supposed to deal with human rights abuses by suggesting people leave the country, rather than the country fixing its human rights abuses?
Though I don't live in the UK, I'm still concerned because such crap is contagious, especially if it comes from countries having a "good" reputation. For example, a few weeks ago, a Luzgin had his conviction affirmed by his Supreme Court. People complained about the Russian Supreme Court, but IMO they are wrong. The Courts acted correctly within the definitions of their law and the facts provided, and to criticize the Judiciary diverts attention away from the true problem, the presence of that Article. The reason that article exists is because people in "good" countries like Germany thought it is a good idea to restrict speech under certain circumstances, which gave Russia an excuse to create something similar!
(I'll also point out though Luzgin was fairly convicted, the Court only fined him. It's a heavy fine, especially for a Russian, but still a fine. His liberty wasn't so much as restricted. Remembering that both of their "crimes" can be characterized as mouthing off at the wrong place at the wrong people ... don't you think it is a problem when Britain sinks below Russia on a question of human rights?)
'don't you think it is a problem when Britain sinks below Russia on a question of human rights?'
I am afraid issues such as the Ukraine and Syria spring to mind now. If human rights are your principle concern your time may be better spent thinking over those far larger issues rather than a british individual who is the master of his own destiny.
'How exactly do you envision him being required to notify police before he has sex will stop him from killing someone?'
It doesn't take a lot of thought to figure that it gives the police time to establish that his prospective partner knows what they are getting into, to establish that they are entering into an S+M agreement willingly and have established their so called 'boundaries'. If they do, then its down to the submissive and the chips will fall as they may.
This would negate a defence of a retrospectively claimed pre-agreement if it ended in tragedy.
He has said he can't get it up unless the partner appears scared, the easiest way of ensuring that is not to make a pre-agreement so that they are genuinely scared and retrospectively claim there was an agreement in place.
It's not rocket science!
This guy sounds like a really nasty piece of work. However, this type of order has no place in British law as it's a flagrant violation of the human rights act. With this on the statute books all you need to destroy anyone's life is to buy off a couple of GPs and a magistrate. I hope he takes this all the way to the echr and the entire SRO system gets taken down.
Of course, May and co will probably just repeal the human rights act - "oh, we're just going to replace it with something more sensible" - and then won't find time to ratify the replacement. Those arseholes think due process is an inconvenience to be dispensed with.
soldiers who have died over the decades in order to protect citizen's freedoms.
Then bLIAR, Blunkett and May are born and make the Gestapo or KGB look like pussy cats.
The British system of using magistrates or Plod, even, to impose such penalties is completely wrong. In civilised countries magistrates usually handle only traffic tickets. Even worse is the practice of judges verbally abusing miscreants who have no means of defending themselves, without the penalty of contempt.
The way this person has been treated is worryingly similar to Mckinnon and others and suggests something else is going on that we aren't being told (cough TLA /cough)
I've had parcels delayed intercepted and tampered with, my phones wrecked, WiFi and routers hacked by a third party and when asking why was simply stonewalled.
So I may have downloaded the "Anarchist Cookbook" in 1997 but so did literally hundreds of thousands of bored hackers and random drunk people.
If every random click on an unsavory website was treated like this, the country would literally grind to a halt.
Given the current state of the world, if I ever do make a significant physics discovery it will be used to build a 'Gate and get the hell out of Dodge taking as much as possible with me and rebuild somewhere else.
Do: damned.
Don't: damned.
He has not been convicted of carrying out an offence but a group of suitably qualified people are sufficiently worried about his personality that they judge him a risk to other members of society.
If he never commits an offence - the judge gets it for imposing this order.
If he does, the judge gets it for not locking him up (previous offence or no).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
