It's probably not within the OM's pay grade, but perhaps writing to the chief constable, or to the NPCC, may uncover something that is in the pipeline?

It's probably not within the OM's pay grade, but perhaps writing to the chief constable, or to the NPCC, may uncover something that is in the pipeline?

Hi
Your points I have raised with all "supervisors" since my sentencing when questioned about employment and relationships. None could offer a solution but maintained the official stance; some even said they would contact the "prospective" employer. 
In my SOPO discharge application I even raised the point, especially over relationships. Though my words did not say a "declaration" would be avoided, I stressed the fact that "caution" was an initial and natural "defence strategy".
Again the Judge accepted that with understanding.

I've now raised the report with my OM asking questions of their knowledge on it; as in theory it would of discharged my SOR requirement 2 years ago.

Keep safe, compassionate and understanding of others.

I'm sure we do. But this is because it affects all parts of our every day (and future) of our short finite life. To them it may just be a job.
But I will not live my life by these insane labels and rules, in my view dangerous rules re: disclosure, for one second more than I absolutely have to.
And I don't say dangerous in a glib manner either, look at the white hot anger around 'top names' who haven't/haven't yet been found guilty of anything.
Especially when you've got a top senior police officer saying things cannot go on like this and our raising of such is effectively dismissed.

Hi
Though I could agree with the sentiment - gained from experience - all we can do is raise the opinion of a "senior and respected" official in the hope that it may start to influence; much like the famous "butterfly effect".

In my discussions I often think that the replying official is either: trying to push my stress controls to see how I will respond and then could have a negative comment to write OR they are just ignorant of the "official review" and doesn't want to show that and trying to gain more info so they can raise it back at the office.

We have to remember I would suggest that "we" probably research more than they do; be that from their lack of time or inclination.

Lets hope it is the former!

Fair enough. But that still shows the opinion/thought processes of the front line, they can't handle hearing anything that doesn't comply with their current thinking.
Even when, in this case, the line has come from a very experienced senior copper after some considerable thought. If he isn't listened to, who will they listen to?

The people on the frontline will be the last to hear about any changes. It's still with the higher ups.

I asked about this on my last visit and they'd heard nothing about it and seemed horrified at the idea of orders being discharged/amended *sigh*.

Hi

As you started this post I was wondering if you have found / read any updates on the "recommendations"?
I was thinking of trying to contact the author but thought ask you first.

Again thanks for finding this.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-management

Following on from my previous post, about the 'independent' review into policing SO, by a former Chief Constable. I have now read the whole report.

Although the opening paragraphs give the impression that it is the usual SO hating nonsense, this is not a report that the govt wanted to hear. Priti Patel originally asked for it and I think she was hoping it would recommend more punitive restrictions on SO, such as mandatory tagging and polygraph testing of all SO.

But it didn't do that. This report is truly ground breaking and forward thinking, in its suggestions for reform of the SOR.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/derbyshire-government-b2328265.html

Over the next few days, I will go through some of it in more detail, particularly the author's comments about the culture of MOSOVO units. But in the meantime, I would advise everybody on the SOR to read this report. It is only an executive summary, not the whole thing. The full report has been held back. Nevertheless, if the govt were to implement 50% of the recommended changes to the SOR, it would be life changing for many of us.

Now, I know that many people on this forum, will throw up their hands in despair and say that the govt will never change anything, because the haters at the Daily Mail and the Sun will not allow change and the politicians will always listen to them first. I don't believe that.

Reform won't happen, because politicians suddenly begin to care about the welfare of SO, but it could happen, if they recognise that the current system is going to be overwhelmed, unless changes are made.

I don't understand how the SOR has moved so far from managing risk, to being a punishment in itself.

I remember sitting down with my first allocated Police visitor (who was equally lovely, but terrifying - you would not want to cross her), and she said I can usually tell who will reoffend - I'm pretty close to 100% right. She did say that she would put money on me not doing so and I was to not prove her wrong. She frequently stated that it was a waste of time coming to see me because there were others that "needed watching".

I honestly feel the issue is with basic psychology. people who commit a SO are seen as depraved and un-rehabilitative because that suits the narrative that they are better than them. Look, I know I was in a bad place when I done what I done and I am deeply ashamed of it, and pretty sickened by myself. I watched an ex US prisoner on the internet rant about SO's for quite some time - I felt a huge amount of anger and rage, but realised what he was really doing was trying to say 'I done some pretty terrible things, but at least I am not a SO'.

I am rambling, but what I am trying to say is that the issue is society, we have got away from managing risk because things have become to emotive. We need to manage emotion and deal with real risk to protect those who we need to protect. There are people that no doubt need a weekly (or even a daily) police visit. There are those who need intense psychological support. But equally there are those who don't. My opinion is we need to risk assess, manage resources and keep people safe where needed and get ex-offenders contributing to society again.

Even if they use monitoring software, that is still a drain on their resources. The software tends to produce lots of false positives, which then have to assessed by a person to see if there is a real risk.

The biggest problem is getting them to agree to reactive management in the first place.

"Those who have not reoffended and are consistently assessed as low risk for at least three years will be considered for reactive management where they do not receive home visits."

So that'll be another excuse to bang on an SHPO and let the software do the monitoring. ;(
Whatever "reactiive whatever" brings, it won't be to our benefit.

I'd be the first to admit that I am one of those who thinks that these initiatives will never lead to change while governments are beholden to the media. However, the game-changer here is that the recommendations are coming from a senior police officer at the request of the Home Secretary. I still think it will take time, and certainly won't be on the timescale suggested in the review, but as it combines operational knowledge with a clear vision of what is needed and also practical. I'm not allowing myself to hope just yet, but this is the first green shoot for me. 🤞

I read the report and wondered whether to post here or not. I made notes as I read it. I've had to pull back on my sarcasm but a little may creep in. #SorryNotSorry Here goes...

“In terms of managing risk and protecting communities, an unequal process, structure and investment is in place.”

I’m glad this is recognised, drug dealers who use children don’t get the same schtick that we do, even though they bring misery on their family, community and directly groom, harm and traumatise that child. I find that utterly bizarre.

“In addition, working with those offenders convicted of a sexual offence should avoid an overly negative, blame-laden and punitive mindset and approach which is not only contrary to the values of this country, but also fails to recognise and support the desired and necessary path to desistance, which brings the danger of forcing offenders back to the negative place that potentially spawned their initial offending, despite the evidence that many of those convicted will not reoffend.”

I’m glad the punitive mindset has been mentioned. One of the factors in offending is feeling of disconnection, punitive measures to stop people engaging in completely legal activities needs to be addressed.

“I am also clear that, with a strategic objective of wherever possible rebuilding and rehabilitating offenders to prevent further offending, the best way to serve and protect victims is to better serve offenders.”

 This is right, you’re either taking responsibility of what happens post-sentence or you’re not, the system in my experience has certainly felt half-a-job and not because of volume. The attitude of *some* police make this a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

“Focus should be on reoffending and risk rather than technical, accidental, and/or non-risky breaches of civil orders or notification requirements. Within my full report, I set out the arguments for supporting desistance and successful reintegration into society, but this *will not be possible if offenders are unable to exist without falling foul of overly pedantic breaches*.

 ‘Overly pedantic breaches’ - music to my ears. Threats and gaslighting with no actual arrests is disgusting behvaiour. Get joining gyms guys, best thing you can do for your mind and body. On a more serious note, trying to explain the pedantry to others often means you get excluded from things, because friends and family start to think "won't invite just in case..." which in turn increases isolation. I did see a story recently about someone in court and jailed over usernames on dating sites or something, it was purely head in hands moment, when you consider the resource and cost going into that case. Interested to see what the 'full report' actually suggests here. 

“The notification scheme has now grown to such an extent that the opportunity cost of maintaining its bureaucracy set against the reality of the benefit is too great.”

 True, over the phone works fine. It should be the same for changes, a new username or bank account or whatever. My nearest station is 15 min drive.

“The post-conviction and post-sentence experience should be one of reform, rehabilitation, and mending”

Should be, but it isn’t, so how?

Out of nowhere, the recommendation of audio/video recording visits appears without any explanation or consideration for consent. 

Can anyone here explain what reactive management means? I've not come across that term.

I recommend that all forces should review and where necessary seek to amend or discharge remaining Sexual Harm Prevention Orders to ensure they remain necessary, enforceable and compliant with relevant case law, including ensuring they align with and do not exceed notification periods. This process should start with all those in place for offenders subject to reactive management.

 My interest was piqued here. Many of us would be spent by now, but these orders keep us unspent for arbitrary lengths, why does an employer today need to know I got the knock 7 years ago?! A decade of this constant second-guessing is too much.

Overall, without seeing the 'full' report, I can't see much changing in the immediate future and with a potential change in government, we have a sitting duck govt who can't take the credit for anything good. I'd imagine Patel wanted quick fix and big headlines to spout off about, wherever she is now, but she hasn't got anything here.