Court says aquitted man must tell police if he is going to have sex

In the absence of a constructive means to actually empower women, you can assume this trend will continue.

I am a woman. Every single time I try to talk about what women can do to take control of their lives in a world that will never be entirely without risk, I get attacked as "a rape apologist" and/or I get accused of "blaming the victim."

As long as the world as a whole sees sex as a male prerogative and male privilege and not something a good woman would actually want, we shall have no constructive path forward. As long as women who get laid are automatically viewed as servicing a man, being taken advantage of, etc. we shall have no constructive path forward.

If women want equal rights and equal opportunities, they need to start taking more responsibility for their own lives and stop playing the victim card, the helpless damsel in distress and so on. They need to quit screeching about how men need to behave better. They need to figure out what is within their own power to act upon and put their focus there.

"I'm no conspiriacy theorist, but ... anti-smoking laws are actually being used to limit the plebs ability to congregate together and discuss issues"

Smoking bans have not pushed people away from pubs, bars, etc. For example, see http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/63.abstract :

> Some were concerned [comprehensive smoke-free regulations in Ireland] would cause pub patrons to move their smoking and drinking from inside pubs to inside homes. ... Conclusions: Smoking and drinking in the home was not greater in smoke-free Ireland than in the United Kingdom, where there was not a smoke-free law at the time of the survey. These findings add further support to the enactment of comprehensive smoke-free laws, as called for in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control."

and at-home smoking rates in England went down after anti-smoking laws went into place ( http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/129.3.full ) so it's not like more people stayed at home to smoke.

Moreover, the underlying premise of Starbucks was to be a "third place" to congregate. Who would spend all the political capital to push pro-plebe isolation laws when they are so easily circumvented by someone out to make a profit?

For that matter, cars isolate us far more than DUI and anti-smoking laws. A walking neighborhood with its own local bars, parks, and businesses (instead of zoning purity) reduce isolation. And you can't arrested for DUI if you're walking home from the bar.

As to your main topic - I quite disagree, but that isn't a topic I want to discuss.

Due process has been dying a slow death on the other side of the pond for some time now. The UK has abolished the prohibition on double jeopardy, the right to remain silent, and, in most cases, the right to a jury trial. They also don't have an exclusionary rule, so the police are free to rely on illegally-obtained evidence in court. Lots of things that require judicial warrants, like communication intercepts, in the US can be done in the UK with only administrative approval.

Rape is a criminal charge and requires the jury to be persuaded beyond all reasonable doubt that he did it. English juries tend not to convict people for rape. These orders protect vulnerable people (usually children or people with learning disability[1]) from harm. They're granted by magistrates, in court, so in theory the police can't just impose them whenever they want. The fact that the law has been in place over two years and this is the first case that's made the news is somewhat reassuring, although we'd probably be better off without laws like this.

Here's the old law, which has been updated: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crosshead...

And here's the press release for the tighter controls: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-for-tighter-re...

Here's the discussion document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

It's pretty much the same justification for the sex offender registry. Everybody knows that all people who commit sex crimes are not fully human, but vicious monsters incapable of feeling guilt or remorse [citation needed, but don't expect one forthcoming] so for public safety purposes we must deny their freedoms, keep them on a very tight leash, and effectively prevent them from functioning normally in society again. SORs have stood up to Eighth Amendment scrutiny because the courts understand them not as punishments but as public safety measures like mandatory muzzles for pit bulls.

This is the same thing, except without that pesky conviction. Convictions for rape are hard to acquire, so as a prophylactic measure we'll put him on the leash anyway. You only need a conviction to punish someone but this is a public safety measure.