|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
+x+x[quote] If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you succes
“As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified tothe police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in theUnited Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police undersection 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in theUnited Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police undersection 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Sorry, the above post was meant to post to Supreme Being, But I posted to several o you by mistake. But your comments, if any, will be most welcomed
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine.
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine.  To be fair, it's just about knowing where the official stuff is and knowing which sources you can trust. The Legislation website is part of the National Archive, and it's more reliable than what courts and law enforcement personnel claim they can do.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Theunknown
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 73
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is: “If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day” However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives. Which one is correct? Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999. Polygraph Interview. My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated. Hi, First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol. A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well. In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members. As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies. If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry. Polygraph: I would seek legal advice. The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts. You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach? Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns. I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success. “As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.![]()
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
(6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.
Well, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 was updated by The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Notification Requirements) (England and Wales) Regulations 2012. Section 10 of those regulations says that: "10.—(1) The information set out in paragraph (2) is prescribed for the purposes of section 83(5)(h) of the 2003 Act in a case where a relevant offender (R) resides, or stays for a period of at least 12 hours, at a relevant household." Section 2 says: “relevant household” means a household or other place— (a)where a child resides or stays, and (b)to which the public do not have access (whether for payment or not)." That seems to agree with the Unlock information. PPU won't tell you about this requirement, as the question should be asked every time you register, and they should then tell you to notify them if any of the information you have given them changes. Thanks, Supremebeing. You seem to be a Suprmebeing as you are a goldmine of information on questions like mine. Hello, here I am again. Thanks once again for your continued advice. As I mentioned before I was going to attend a Polygraph Test which I did. The questions were asked similar to those you mentioned that I might be asked. At the end of the test, the examiner said that that she did not believe that I had no unsupervised contacts with children u/16, which I never even I had nor was there any court order placed on me not to have any contacts with u/16. She was accompanied by a Police Officer who stayed outside the test room. However, at the end of the test, the examiner asked me to wait as she was going to see if the police officer who had come with her had any questions to ask, which she decided not to. I was given a sheet of the examiner and the police officer phone numbers if I had any questions had to ask later on. After coming back home I phoned the police officer asking that if that the examiner's comments would affect my SOR Removal application, which was going to be reconsidered. She was very sympathetic saying not to worry too much about it that just only the test results would have not have too much impact on me my reconsidered SOR removal application. The PPU Superintendent took this action when I had pointed out to my investigating officer that there were some fatal mistakes in the original determination. So my first worry is that if the examiner's comments would affect my SOR second review? Please, What are your comments about this issue? 2. I told the examiner that I had a resiprical visit every 3-4 months with a family friend coming with children but except Saying a Hello, I that hardly ever spoke to them and they are very shy anyway and there were always parents present there. However, I added that at one occasion the father went outside for about 20 minutes so I left the sitting room and went upstairs in case the mother popped into the kitchen. She asked what would I do if that happened again, I told that I would go out with him. My second worry is that examiner would report these visits to the Police and they might alert the Social Services and they would be visiting with the Police to my friend’s house and the Social Service asking to sign an undertaking with them for not have any contact with me when there are their children are present. They are our very close friends and us, and especially, my wife won’t like to lose contact with them. If the Police ask me their address, am I under any legal obligation to do so, as I have no order placed on me for not to have any contact with u/16 years old children? All the advice on these issues will be highly appreciated There's something like this going on in a separate discussion. The problem is that the police define unsupervised as "not supervised by one of the police, probation or social services". The fact that the parents are present is not always taken into account. Thanks for your guidance. I approached the site you mention. However, I notice the word SOR (I have bolded it) though this person is not on SOPO. Is it a mistake or not? Could you please clarify "This isn't overriding the SHPO, it's something different. They said it wasn't a breach of the SHPO, because it wasn't. However, the one-size-fits-all approach means nobody on the SOR can have contact with children regardless of what might be on their SHPO/SOPO, which is a matter for the police to pass to child services to consider. These situations can sometimes require written consent from the parent/guardian."
|
|
|
|