|
ScaredyCat
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 4
|
I worked in IT, my employers told the POLICE it would be almost impossible and very expensive to alter protocols so that all computers held forever the browsing history ( as required in my SHPO ) the POLICE insisted, result I was sacked. This is despite the company having very high spec filtering on internet use.
A lot depends what your SHPO says , mine refers to any device I possess capable or accessing the internet or storing images.
|
|
|
|
|
ScaredyCat
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3,
Visits: 4
|
+x+xThanks everyone for your advice, greatly appreciated! I've had the meeting now, and it went pretty well. There will be a further meeting to go over my home PC and meet my wife, but in the meantime my officer will check with her Inspector about what will need doing. I showed them the work laptop, which I'm able to bring home with me, so I can make available to them any time they want to see it, and I've proved that there is restriction software in place. I'll go over the contract more thoroughly, and if it comes to disclosing I'll check with them whether they can do it without revealing who they're asking about. My SHPO does state that the "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work", so hopefully that combined with my cooperation and (hopefully) their positive opinion of me will make me a low enough risk to not need to disclose. I'm glad your meeting went well. I'm also glad to hear your wife has stood by you. Now this is interesting. I googled "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work" and only 2018 results came up. I wonder if this is a new line that is put in to help people get back to work. I'm finding this issue a HUGE barrier. My order does not say either way whether it affects work or not by my draconian copper has just decided it does. Anyone have any info in that line? That would have kept me in work, and would have enabled me to get a job where I am now, interesting though IF I made my home my place of work ...
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+xThanks everyone for your advice, greatly appreciated! I've had the meeting now, and it went pretty well. There will be a further meeting to go over my home PC and meet my wife, but in the meantime my officer will check with her Inspector about what will need doing. I showed them the work laptop, which I'm able to bring home with me, so I can make available to them any time they want to see it, and I've proved that there is restriction software in place. I'll go over the contract more thoroughly, and if it comes to disclosing I'll check with them whether they can do it without revealing who they're asking about. My SHPO does state that the "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work", so hopefully that combined with my cooperation and (hopefully) their positive opinion of me will make me a low enough risk to not need to disclose. I'm glad your meeting went well. I'm also glad to hear your wife has stood by you. Now this is interesting. I googled "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work" and only 2018 results came up. I wonder if this is a new line that is put in to help people get back to work. I'm finding this issue a HUGE barrier. My order does not say either way whether it affects work or not by my draconian copper has just decided it does. Anyone have any info in that line? That would have kept me in work, and would have enabled me to get a job where I am now, interesting though IF I made my home my place of work ... It might be worth looking at Unlock's info on SOPOs, especially the links to case law. The link to R v Hemsley mentions this in paragraph 5. If the police won't play ball, then you'd probably need a solicitor to go to court for you to get it sorted out. It seeme to be generally true that the police like loose wording so that they can interpret it to suit themselves.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
AndyR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 18,
Visits: 177
|
+x+xThanks everyone for your advice, greatly appreciated! I've had the meeting now, and it went pretty well. There will be a further meeting to go over my home PC and meet my wife, but in the meantime my officer will check with her Inspector about what will need doing. I showed them the work laptop, which I'm able to bring home with me, so I can make available to them any time they want to see it, and I've proved that there is restriction software in place. I'll go over the contract more thoroughly, and if it comes to disclosing I'll check with them whether they can do it without revealing who they're asking about. My SHPO does state that the "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work", so hopefully that combined with my cooperation and (hopefully) their positive opinion of me will make me a low enough risk to not need to disclose. I'm glad your meeting went well. I'm also glad to hear your wife has stood by you. Now this is interesting. I googled "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work" and only 2018 results came up. I wonder if this is a new line that is put in to help people get back to work. I'm finding this issue a HUGE barrier. My order does not say either way whether it affects work or not but my draconian copper has just decided it does. Anyone have any info on that line? "Anyone have any info on that line?" Just a straw in the wind really, but my probation officer has told me that supposed to be a greater focus on offenders building a new life now, so they may be more accepting or arguments that support that.
|
|
|
|
|
Outsourced
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 25,
Visits: 2.7K
|
I would suggest that those with civil orders looking for jobs, simply send all the Job specs and employers info to the PPU and formally request that they provide an assessment prior to your job application.
They will soon get snowed under with tens of thousands of risk assessment requests and seek to get rid of the burden.
Don't wait until you get the offer and wait for the dreaded assessment. Be pro active. Then your success at interview can be backed up,with the fact that the Highest authority in the land have APPROVED the job.
Worked for me.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+xThanks everyone for your advice, greatly appreciated! I've had the meeting now, and it went pretty well. There will be a further meeting to go over my home PC and meet my wife, but in the meantime my officer will check with her Inspector about what will need doing. I showed them the work laptop, which I'm able to bring home with me, so I can make available to them any time they want to see it, and I've proved that there is restriction software in place. I'll go over the contract more thoroughly, and if it comes to disclosing I'll check with them whether they can do it without revealing who they're asking about. My SHPO does state that the "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work", so hopefully that combined with my cooperation and (hopefully) their positive opinion of me will make me a low enough risk to not need to disclose. I'm glad your meeting went well. I'm also glad to hear your wife has stood by you. Now this is interesting. I googled "prohibition shall not apply to a computer at his place of work" and only 2018 results came up. I wonder if this is a new line that is put in to help people get back to work. I'm finding this issue a HUGE barrier. My order does not say either way whether it affects work or not but my draconian copper has just decided it does. Anyone have any info on that line? "Anyone have any info on that line?" Just a straw in the wind really, but my probation officer has told me that supposed to be a greater focus on offenders building a new life now, so they may be more accepting or arguments that support that. It's true that probation have a greater focus on building a new life, but they can only really offer risk management. They can also only speak for themselves, and they have always been clear with me that the police have their own agenda and different priorities....
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
Blackbird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5,
Visits: 41
|
Finally had the result - based on the company paperwork I was able to provide, mosovo were satisfied that the company had sufficient measures in place and I don't need to disclose to them. 'Phew' doesn't quite cover it...!
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xFinally had the result - based on the company paperwork I was able to provide, mosovo were satisfied that the company had sufficient measures in place and I don't need to disclose to them. 'Phew' doesn't quite cover it...! That is excellent news!  It's always a pleasant surprise to hear that "the system" is working for everyone for a change.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|