Sexual Risk Orders are worse then useless (The case of John O’Neill)

Notice: This article was archived and has only gone through basic grammar correction.

So what if I told you we are at the stage where someone can be found not guilty but still be punished like a criminal just because the judge thinks he’s a risk, And what if I told you how the SRO placed on this person helps no one at all and infarct would make it easier for him to get away with sexual crimes,

Well, in this blog post we will go over what happened in the case of John O’Neill and the utter failure of North Yorkshire Police, National Health Service and York Magistrates’ Court and how useless Sexual Risk Orders really are.

This post will be broken into multiple parts to make it clearing what happened and to make it easier to read.

Time line of events:

22nd January 2016: John O’Neill was handed an interim SRO including having to give North Yorkshire Police 24 hours notice whenever he wants to have sex (Including giving them details of the Female aka name, address and date of birth) (Citation 1)

19th July 2016: John O’Neill told Victoria Derbyshire that he has to tell anyone he wants sex with that he is ‘potentially dangerous’, He lost all contact with his children because of the Sexual Risk Order and he told Victoria Derbyshire that the treatment he gets is worse than what criminals gets (Citation 2)

19th August 2016: John O’Neill told Victoria Derbyshire that because of the SRO had made him homeless, the DWP claimed that they could help him get back into work (Citation 3) Even though any sanction loving DWP worker could just force him to use Universal Jobmatch on computers that may not be available to police without a search warrant.

19th August 2016: John O’Neill loses appeal but might get better terms even though he may only lose the 24 hours notice for sex so would still have his life ruined. (Citation 4)

Why was the Sexual Risk Order applied for:

As he said the following:

That he had admitted cutting, biting and burning females adding that he needed them to be scared “or he could not respond or climax” but dismissed his activities as part of a sex game even though he also admitted he was not always sure whether they consented.

So they applied Sexual Risk Order on John O’Neill even though he was found not guilty (Aka punishing some who should not be punished).

The Downsides Of Sexual Risk Orders:

We will start with the blatant one that this is a system of punishing someone even though they were found not guilty, Meaning the justice system is not about what happened but the feeling of a judge who could have political leanings that may sway they judgment (Aka feminism listen and believe),

The scary thing about this is that John O’Neill life is being ruined for a crime of having the wrong thoughts, aka this is like the right and wrong think seen in the book 1984.

The biggest downside is that the outcome of this is that as John O’Neill is now homeless because of this order he cannot even afford to keep a mobile phone running so if he wanted to rape someone they will not have any mobile records to see what area this person is even in aka reducing the chances of a prosecution.

This is also being used in place of where mental health care could be used including hospitalization that could get him off the street until he is in a better frame of mind that will solve the core issues but they have him on the street ruining his life at the same time the public is getting zero protection aka everyone loses in this case.

Final Thoughts:

This is the perfect example of how authoritarian of the government because of the criminalisation of thoughts, If this happened to a woman they would be outrage but people don’t care about males at all and when MP’s try to bring it up as Philip Davies MP did they get big politicians calling for them to be suspended for having the wrong ideas, This is the type of order that helps no one but gives the government more and more power to control what people think that will go on a slippery slope leading to such things as any disagreement of any government policy being a crime that will mean the government after awhile becomes a dictatorship and that is not the future that will need to see and will lead to decades of social unrest and a reduction living of standards.

Published: 21st August 2016