T W A U ... The Chase....today's...
Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Are We On The Way To A Totalitarian State?
16 Answers
It would appear so when the police can get things like this when a Court has (unanimously) declared innocent.
They have already destroyed his life and wrongfully imprisoned him for 16 months, are they trying to deflect the inevitable compo claim?
http://
They have already destroyed his life and wrongfully imprisoned him for 16 months, are they trying to deflect the inevitable compo claim?
http://
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No.
These orders do seem Draconian but having read quite why the first chap (Teeside) was given his order I can more fully understand why the Police think this is a responsible thing to do.
There certainly seems to be some sort of case for the Cheshire Police to answer having kept Crawshaw imprisoned for 16 months before this came to trial.
These orders do seem Draconian but having read quite why the first chap (Teeside) was given his order I can more fully understand why the Police think this is a responsible thing to do.
There certainly seems to be some sort of case for the Cheshire Police to answer having kept Crawshaw imprisoned for 16 months before this came to trial.
We've been on that road for ages, it's just that it's been so softly softly every step could be dismissed by many. Until it is too late of course. We have CCTV monitoring decent citizens by the State everywhere, everyone is on multiple databases which are being linked together, commercial concerns grab all the info they can, 20 mph limits and revenue cameras ensure you no longer look to drive safely but continually check the speedo to not give an excuse to be penalised: there are so many small but controlling changes relentlessly and insidiously added to, to make our lives controlled, stressful, apparently worth little to the State. Citizens are not to be served, they are simply the cash cow to pay for everything, a blooming nuisance to the authorities, and the cause of everything that needs to be dealt with.
the public seem strongly in favour of CCTV, presumably because they're so scared of everyone that they want everything everywhere recorded.
http://
http://
JTH, so can you explain please because I cannot understand how the Police can get an order without a Court/Jury appearance.
Just because the Police think someone is dangerous does not make them so. Especially if they have been unanimously declared innocent of the what Plod have accused them of.
They clearly got it wrong last time so how can they bypass the Jury system?
Just because the Police think someone is dangerous does not make them so. Especially if they have been unanimously declared innocent of the what Plod have accused them of.
They clearly got it wrong last time so how can they bypass the Jury system?
Firstly, let’s leave aside the issue of why he spent 16 months in custody before his trial. That is a separate matter to the order he has been subject to. That said, the issue needs to be thought through before hysteria takes a hold.
“I cannot understand how the Police can get an order without a Court/Jury appearance.”
To be clear they cannot. There is no jury involved (it is not a criminal trial).
Sexual Risk Orders can be made in the Magistrates’ Court. Either party can appeal to the Crown Court if they disagree with any decision made in the Magistrates’ Court in relation to the order.
There is a general rule in the UK that you cannot be prosecuted for what you might do or are thinking about doing. However, the first duty of the police is to prevent crime and they need tools to carry out that duty. There are instances where orders can be made to reduce the risk of harm to others. A simple and more widely used measure is restraining orders. These can prevent individuals contacting certain people or visiting certain places, even though no criminal conviction associated with those people or places has taken place. There seems to be no similar objection to those orders.
S113 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for Sexual Risk orders and for Sexual Harm Prevention orders. The guidance that goes with that Act says this about Sexual Risk Orders:
“Sexual Risk Orders can be made where a person has done an act of a
sexual nature as a result of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made, even if they have never been convicted. They replace the previous Risk of Sexual Harm Orders.
The court needs to be satisfied that the order is necessary for protecting the public, or any particular members of the public, from sexual harm from the defendant; or protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
The Orders prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order, and can include a prohibition on foreign travel (replacing Foreign Travel Orders which were introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003).”
I’m not so sure that these measures indicate that the UK is on its way to a totalitarian state. If a person was known to engage in certain practices which place others at risk it surely makes sense to do whatever is necessary within the law to prevent those activities. The protection from a totalitarian state is the courts who must be satisfied that such an order is necessary and proportional. From what I see the law is damned if it does and damned if it does not. If a member of the public suffers at the hands of a perpetrator who may have been prevented from his or her activities by means of one of these orders, no doubt there will be a hue and cry to ask “Why was (s)he not prevented from doing this? Everybody knows what (s)he is like”.
In my view too much emphasis is placed on a criminal conviction being the dividing line. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a legal convention, not a fact. As soon as you steal somebody’s wallet you are guilty. There may not be sufficient evidence to convict you, but you are none the less guilty. Society needs to be protected from guilty people, especially when their activities are extremely unpleasant.
“I cannot understand how the Police can get an order without a Court/Jury appearance.”
To be clear they cannot. There is no jury involved (it is not a criminal trial).
Sexual Risk Orders can be made in the Magistrates’ Court. Either party can appeal to the Crown Court if they disagree with any decision made in the Magistrates’ Court in relation to the order.
There is a general rule in the UK that you cannot be prosecuted for what you might do or are thinking about doing. However, the first duty of the police is to prevent crime and they need tools to carry out that duty. There are instances where orders can be made to reduce the risk of harm to others. A simple and more widely used measure is restraining orders. These can prevent individuals contacting certain people or visiting certain places, even though no criminal conviction associated with those people or places has taken place. There seems to be no similar objection to those orders.
S113 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides for Sexual Risk orders and for Sexual Harm Prevention orders. The guidance that goes with that Act says this about Sexual Risk Orders:
“Sexual Risk Orders can be made where a person has done an act of a
sexual nature as a result of which there is reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made, even if they have never been convicted. They replace the previous Risk of Sexual Harm Orders.
The court needs to be satisfied that the order is necessary for protecting the public, or any particular members of the public, from sexual harm from the defendant; or protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
The Orders prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order, and can include a prohibition on foreign travel (replacing Foreign Travel Orders which were introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003).”
I’m not so sure that these measures indicate that the UK is on its way to a totalitarian state. If a person was known to engage in certain practices which place others at risk it surely makes sense to do whatever is necessary within the law to prevent those activities. The protection from a totalitarian state is the courts who must be satisfied that such an order is necessary and proportional. From what I see the law is damned if it does and damned if it does not. If a member of the public suffers at the hands of a perpetrator who may have been prevented from his or her activities by means of one of these orders, no doubt there will be a hue and cry to ask “Why was (s)he not prevented from doing this? Everybody knows what (s)he is like”.
In my view too much emphasis is placed on a criminal conviction being the dividing line. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a legal convention, not a fact. As soon as you steal somebody’s wallet you are guilty. There may not be sufficient evidence to convict you, but you are none the less guilty. Society needs to be protected from guilty people, especially when their activities are extremely unpleasant.
// JTH, so can you explain please because I cannot understand how the Police can get an order without a Court/Jury appearance.//
because we read the article we have cited
The order is interim and the case will be heard on Nov 2 'when he will try to overturn the order'. The order may well have been sought ex parte without telling the other side
Defending and overturning an order which has been sought/granted ex parte ( without notice ) has a high chance of being overturned apparently - like the judge hears the other side ( which he didnt get previously) and thinks "ooer there is more to this than I thought"
because we read the article we have cited
The order is interim and the case will be heard on Nov 2 'when he will try to overturn the order'. The order may well have been sought ex parte without telling the other side
Defending and overturning an order which has been sought/granted ex parte ( without notice ) has a high chance of being overturned apparently - like the judge hears the other side ( which he didnt get previously) and thinks "ooer there is more to this than I thought"
1 to 16 of 16
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.