Having sex with a woman in England is fucking DANGEROUS.

[LJ_Reloaded]

False accusation of rape leads to this in England.... and this is why people hate feminists over there even more than here in America.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

A man cleared of raping a woman has been ordered to give police 24 hours' notice before he has sex.

The man, in his 40s, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was acquitted in 2015 at a retrial after claiming the alleged victim had consented.

An interim sexual risk order, initially imposed in December, has been extended for four months by magistrates in York.

It requires the man disclose any planned sexual activity to the police or face up to five years in prison.

If you have sex with any woman in that country while this law is in effect you are a fucking fool.

I would have taken my tax dollars and emigrated the very day this ruling was made public. Men should bleed England dry of tax dollars and then let the women keep the petrol flowing and keep their own lights on. Each man mail a woman a vibrator after you are safely gone.

 

[richard_daily]

No woman would ever consent to having sex with LT.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

And illegal.

 

[suckonsimon]

Be assured of two things:

Sex of all kinds in England is doing just fine pal.

The English in general reckon we've got the law in relation to sexual predation and abuse about right just now.

 

[removed9556]

 

[duranman]

It depends if you're a good lookin' bastard or not. If you're ugly it's always gonna be an uphill struggle. I'm obviously presuming the OP's one ugly cunt

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Be assured of two things:

Sex of all kinds in England is doing just fine pal.

The English in general reckon we've got the law in relation to sexual predation and abuse about right just now.

Until you're falsely accused of rape like this dude was. Then you gotta register with the cops before you get laid.

But as I said, it's no wonder feminism is so unpopular there.

 

[Rachel_X]

It's a one-off incident. Hasn't happened to anyone else, ever in the history of the country.

You also won't find many tax dollars in Britain.

 

[nerfhearder]

It's a one-off incident. Hasn't happened to anyone else, ever in the history of the country.

You sure about that?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

It's a one-off incident. Hasn't happened to anyone else, ever in the history of the country.

You also won't find many tax dollars in Britain.

It always starts with one. That law is there, and that's bad enough.

What if they did that to a woman instead of a man. Y'all would be absolutely apeshit over the sheer oppreshun.

 

[Rachel_X]

You sure about that?

It wouldn't make the news if it was a common thing.

 

[nerfhearder]

It wouldn't make the news if it was a common thing.

The Home Office does not collate central figures on the number of Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and Sexual Risk Orders issued in England. Figures collated by the police for management purposes, and provided to the Home Office, on the overall number of orders show that in the period between 8 March and 29 September, 2,425 full and 40 interim Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and 32 full and 13 interim Sexual Risk Orders were issued in England and Wales. This data is not broken down by age.

 

[Rachel_X]

It always starts with one. That law is there, and that's bad enough.

What if they did that to a woman instead of a man. Y'all would be absolutely apeshit over the sheer oppreshun.

Well they will do it to women if the law is there and the situation is the same.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Well they will do it to women if the law is there and the situation is the same.

Actually, not really. Women tend to get off a lot in the West.

Contrast to the Middle East, where women get shot for practically anything.

I for one would love to get away from Earth to escape both cultures.

 

[Rachel_X]

Actually, not really. Women tend to get off a lot in the West.

Contrast to the Middle East, where women get shot for practically anything.

I for one would love to get away from Earth to escape both cultures.

That's Karma for you.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

That's Karma for you.

Nah, contrary to popular belief (or lies), I don't believe in punishing injustice with more injustice.

 

[oggbashan]

It always starts with one. That law is there, and that's bad enough.

What if they did that to a woman instead of a man. Y'all would be absolutely apeshit over the sheer oppreshun.

Well they will do it to women if the law is there and the situation is the same.

They do it to women in the UK too. A woman can be, and several have been, put on the sex offenders register.

In the original case he was convicted of rape. An appeal led to a retrial at which he was acquitted.

But although technically acquitted of rape, he could still have been prosecuted for sexual assault. He wasn't, because he had already served some of the sentence for rape.

Whatever else he was, he was (and probably is) an asshole towards women.

 

[suckonsimon]

Until you're falsely accused of rape like this dude was. Then you gotta register with the cops before you get laid.

But as I said, it's no wonder feminism is so unpopular there.

We let feminists have their say. Brits are ok with that. What may seem strange to you is we don't do fury over here.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

They do it to women in the UK too. A woman can be, and several have been, put on the sex offenders register.

To call the police if she ever plans to have sex? When?
Even if you could show this ever happened to women, it's still a horrible thing and England sucks for doing this. If you're found not guilty, that should be the end of it. (Though here in America you can turn around and be found liable in civil court.)

Y'all system sucks. I thought it was bad here.

We let feminists have their say. Brits are ok with that.

It appears the facts say otherwise.

 

[suckonsimon]

It appears the facts say otherwise.

I wonder if you actually read the article you've linked to. At it's heart is this statement:

"The overwhelming majority of the public share our feminist values but don’t identify with the label." For you to surmise from this that the British hate feminists and have no time for feminism is a major skewing of the facts to suit your own prejudices in a manner which, from a British perspective, appears plain ludicrous, as does the very notion of your thread title.

 

[oggbashan]

The OP is wrong from the start - "false accusation of rape".

Yes, he was acquitted on a retrial. That does not mean the accusation was false. It would not have gone to court, let alone twice, unless there was sufficient evidence to justify the expense of a trial. Many rape accusations do not meet that requirement.

The sexual restraint order is a new legal provision in England. It is like a court injunction to stay away from an ex-partner. This particular case has attracted legal discussion among those watching for our civil liberties but they are saying that in the circumstances of this particular individual the temporary order is probably justified. They are more concerned about the case being used as a precedent for less obvious cases.

In my local paper a middleaged man has been banned from our town by injunction after five sexual assaults on female teenagers over two years - and those are only the proven assaults. He is thought to have committed dozens more in that time that weren't reported. The injunction is only part of his sentence. If he breaks the injunction he will go straight into jail.

The unnamed man referred to in the linked report had been a matter for concern before the rape trial. A temporary order gives the Police and prosecution time to monitor his activities and see whether any more offences have been or will be committed by him.

We in the UK are aware of the potential of the new order to be misused. In practice, as with similar new legislation, the fears are usually groundless. The law is there to be used as a tool by the prosecution service and the people likely to be affected by this order are already a danger to women (or men).

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

The OP is wrong from the start - "false accusation of rape".

Yes, he was acquitted on a retrial. That does not mean the accusation was false. It would not have gone to court, let alone twice, unless there was sufficient evidence to justify the expense of a trial. Many rape accusations do not meet that requirement.

Plenty of men get sentenced to long prison terms over false accusations, only to be exonerated later. The recent case of Brian Banks comes to mind.

The sexual restraint order is a new legal provision in England. It is like a court injunction to stay away from an ex-partner. This particular case has attracted legal discussion among those watching for our civil liberties but they are saying that in the circumstances of this particular individual the temporary order is probably justified. They are more concerned about the case being used as a precedent for less obvious cases.

If it's justified then why was he acquitted?

In my local paper a middleaged man has been banned from our town by injunction after five sexual assaults on female teenagers over two years - and those are only the proven assaults. He is thought to have committed dozens more in that time that weren't reported. The injunction is only part of his sentence. If he breaks the injunction he will go straight into jail.

But these were proven assaults. There's no such proof with the guy in the case I'm talking about. He was acquitted. Yet he's being punished for a crime he was acquitted of. There's nothing that says he has any prior record of assaults on women.

The unnamed man referred to in the linked report had been a matter for concern before the rape trial. A temporary order gives the Police and prosecution time to monitor his activities and see whether any more offences have been or will be committed by him.

Future crime. Is there at least a Minority Report in his favor?

We in the UK are aware of the potential of the new order to be misused. In practice, as with similar new legislation, the fears are usually groundless.

That's what they all say, until suddenly one day the media breaks out the news that abuse is widespread.

I for one would take my money and leave England if I lived there. I'm glad that in America an acquittal actually means an acquittal...

 

[doowdniw]

So he has to report any planned sex. Most sex is pretty much spur of the moment. Seems they may want to revisit the wording.

 

[eyerami]

We let feminists have their say. Brits are ok with that. What may seem strange to you is we don't do fury over here.

I've been chuckling at a number of your posts over the last few days, since you seem to be totally ignorant to the fact that that generalization sledgehammer you can't seem to stop slinging proves what a poser you are.

And now, "we don't do fury over here"?

Right.

So is that why one of you socialist limey pieces of shit came all the way over here to take out your "we don't do fury" on an American presidential candidate?

Please inform us furious Americans, armed to the teeth and cold-blooded killers all, the last time one of us came over to limeyland and spent a year to 18 months plotting to assassinate your queen or PM.

Thanx, poser.

 

[renard_ruse]

Be assured of two things:

Sex of all kinds in England is doing just fine pal.

The English in general reckon we've got the law in relation to sexual predation and abuse about right just now.

Maybe in your circle, but I guarantee there's a large percentage who don't agree with you.

Also, there's no such thing "sexual predation" its another made up term. Predation is when an animal kills another animal for food. Stupid use in a sexual context.