24 hours notice before having sex

Maybe the object is to make him think twice before planning any. It does seem odd, but the judge seems to think that although he was cleared of rape, he is a risk to women. I can't imagine him keeping to it though.

"Sexual risk orders were introduced in England and Wales in March last year and can be applied to any individual who the police believe poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted of a crime."

The law, and the judge, are making asses of themselves. 24 hours notice of going out with a woman, understandable, or notice of taking part in any activity which will bring him in close proximity to women; for example going to a concert, visiting the pub, but notice of having sexual intercourse. That is plain stupid.

What if you are absent minded?
You know that feeling "I'm sure there is something I ought to be doing... . ."

I thought this was odd when I heard it on the radio yesterday. It was a retrial of a rape allegation where consent was the issue, so maybe there was too much doubt to convict him and they wanted to be sure the next time that would not be the case. Weird or what?

So, he gives his 24 hours notice and what happens then? Do the police ring the woman (in hopes that she knows what is planned) and ask her if she consents to this? There is not much point in him giving notice unless this is what they do.

Yes, I can't imagine that many women would want the local police to know when they were going to have sex. Bit of a passion-killer really. Your suggestions are much more sensible, M0nica, if they really want him to be less of a threat to women, in which case couldn't they perhaps tag him?

I heard this and am now in despair - I think this country and all its aministration has truly lost the plot!!

Where might they attach the tag wheniwasyourage ??

There must be something we're not aware of if the magistrates imposed this condition at the request of the police. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I agree annodomini. This draconian order can only have been made by a Court if the evidence fully supported it. I've never heard of this kind of order being made. I wonder if it means it will allow the police to warn any woman the man is getting involved with that he may well pose a serious risk. A bit like Megan's law in the US.

It rings bells with the Poppi case. Her father is unlikely to be convicted but I do hope the Judgement in the civil case prevents him moving in with some unsuspecting woman and her children, for example.

At least it gives you time to have your hair done and change into sexy clean underwear.
Sorry, I should take it more seriously I know......but it's too ridiculous.

There clearly is a problem with this man or the court would not have had the right to impose this order. I suppose I am just exploring the practicalities and the purpose of the order - I am puzzled as to what they are trying to achieve and how it can be policed.

When I read the title of this thread I mistakenly thought it was all about giving your husband plenty of advance notice!

Exactly Luckygirl how could it be policed?

Is it me, or is the law truly an ass?

Alea, the mind boggles!

Churchill used to send Clemantine a note

I am not certain how an order like this can be enforced. Will he have someone following him around in case he meets a woman? And wasn't there something about not accessing the internet? How do you control that? He just buys a new smart phone and changes his name.

If it keeps one woman safe from a would be preditor it is sensible. This is not about upsetting the' mood' or removing romance. Quite shocked at some of the flippant responses.

I can be flippant!! Particularly under such ridiculous circumstances. Absolute nonsense.

If every woman wore a burqa and never left the house without a male relative that too would protect at least one woman, probably many more, from any would-be predators. Would you favour that grabba?

There is a line to be drawn everywhere with everything. This order, I suspect, would probably increase the chances of the man concerned attacking a woman and possibly doing greater harm than before on the basis that if he is going to prosecuted for something a simple as not giving notice of an intent to have sex, he might as well be prosecuted for making the most of it when he got the chance. The 'might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb' argument.

There is nothing flippant about this, it is a serious discussion as to whether the sentence given is the best way to get the deiired outcome.

I can't imagine that this edit is in any form enforceable; are the authorities seriously expecting him to tell them? He could attack a woman then say 'It wasn't me because I didn't tell you 24 hours in advance'?

Poppycock farcical in my opinion ?

What an absolute waste Court time and Money this man would not think about the 24hr period if he wanted to partake in the dreaded deed he would obviously go ahead and do it he is almost certainly a risk to all females as well the Police know and it is just a matter of time (sadly) until they are proved correct.

Presumably, this is the least worse/best the police/courts could do at this moment to protect women. We know nothing about this man's behaviour or level of risk. I cannot imagine the police/courts have nothing better to do than make an order that will be difficult to enforce but that this man's behaviour has reached a threshold where they feel "something must be done".
As I mentioned earlier, it's a bit like warning parents if a pedophile moves into the street. Damned if they do and damned if they don't, so far as the "authorities" go.