northernphil Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 What happens if he wants to knock one out? He has to send the outcum in a plain brown envelope to the one in charge. Eeyoo ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick01827 Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 What happens if he wants to knock one out? Brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonmarleesco Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 I don't know about him, but I can't imagine any potential female partner - apparently male ones aren't an issue - being happy with having her personal details declared to the police, never mind the issue of privacy laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Men who have no scruples about infecting their (unknowing) sexual partners with serious (maybe fatal) diseases do not deserve the same 'rights' as the rest of us. Same goes for men who use drugs to help them commit rape - then claim consensual sex. Or, men who abuse women, sexually or otherwise. (IMHO). We do not have the details of this particular case but it appears that the police, the Crown Prosecutor and the Courts have all agreed that there is a need to monitor this man's sexual activity - that is 3 levels of scrutiny before restriction of his rights. Also, I believe he has the right to take the matter to a Judge in Chambers to overturn the order - if he has the evidence to justify it. A fair number of women excel at the above too; far more than the tabloids would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuchulainn Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 What happens if he wants to knock one out? He has to send the outcum in a plain brown envelope to the one in charge. Eeyoo ! Ooooooooohhh!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 (edited) What happens if he wants to knock one out? "if"? He'll be 'strangling more turkeys' than Bernard Matthews! Edited January 26, 2016 by evadgib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fakename Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 At first, I thought it was about laws in Iran or somewhere. Then I thought it was a joke, but the UK? wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbalEd Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Men who have no scruples about infecting their (unknowing) sexual partners with serious (maybe fatal) diseases do not deserve the same 'rights' as the rest of us. Same goes for men who use drugs to help them commit rape - then claim consensual sex. Or, men who abuse women, sexually or otherwise. (IMHO). We do not have the details of this particular case but it appears that the police, the Crown Prosecutor and the Courts have all agreed that there is a need to monitor this man's sexual activity - that is 3 levels of scrutiny before restriction of his rights. Also, I believe he has the right to take the matter to a Judge in Chambers to overturn the order - if he has the evidence to justify it. A fair number of women excel at the above too; far more than the tabloids would have us believe. What data do you base that upon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckmandon Posted January 26, 2016 Share Posted January 26, 2016 Maybe this guy has AIDS & is known to have unprotected sex with people. The court order if this is the case would then help unsuspecting sexual partners from contracting HIV or AIDS. Good idea if this is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard W Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 (edited) Maybe this guy has AIDS & is known to have unprotected sex with people. The court order if this is the case would then help unsuspecting sexual partners from contracting HIV or AIDS. Good idea if this is the case. My understanding is that the guy beat a rape charge. As far as I can see, the thinking is that it was more 'not proven' than 'not guilty', and the powers that be think he was actually guilty. The idea is that if he commits a rape in future, he will not have supplied the name, address and date of birth of the victim to the police in advance, and so he can be jailed for the mere act of fornication, even if he wriggles out of a rape charge. If I understand it correctly, I think the police won't want to know about any otherwise legal unplanned, unarguably consensual fornication. It's fiendishly clever, but I'm not sure it's just. There is a precedent in Anglo-Saxon law. It's similar to the loss of defence by compurgation that was suffered by 'frequently-accused' persons. Oaths were valued by the swearers' wergilds, the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of sakdina. Edited January 27, 2016 by Richard W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andaman Al Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 Maybe this guy has AIDS & is known to have unprotected sex with people. The court order if this is the case would then help unsuspecting sexual partners from contracting HIV or AIDS. Good idea if this is the case. So now he just needs to give 24 hrs notice that he is infecting people? Or are we supposed to believe the police will phone the woman up and say "Hello Mrs Smith we understand you are having sex tonight with Mr Jones, are you aware he is HIV positive? " .........."oh you are aware!, then may we recommend that hand jobs are safest or oral sex without swallowing, providing you have no cuts on your hands or ulcers in your mouth. Can you confirm this? An officer will be around shortly asking you sign an indemnity form in the event you have unprotected vaginal or anal sex. Thank you Mrs Smith enjoy the rest of your day fnaaaarg fnarrrg!" ......................I don't think so. It wont be long before the Brit Government is in court in the Hague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard W Posted January 27, 2016 Share Posted January 27, 2016 I appreciate that Thaivisa normally works on mere speculation, but try reading this opinion piece for what appear to be some facts about the case. There's no mention there of infectious disease. What's happening is verging on the principle of guilty even if found not guilty, though I suppose it's not so far from the original concept of being bound over to keep the peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now