|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+xSo I have been debating for a while now to contact my PPU, request information from him, ask him what risk he believes I pose and to discuss some of the things I am concerned about such as the conditions on my orders. But I have been hesitant to do so and I can not explain why. Am I scared? Very much so yes. Why? Because of the level of control he has over my life? The fact he could potentially make up anything he wants in order to make my life worse if he believes I am not following his "orders"? What ever reason it may be, either way it triggers my anxiety which makes it extremely difficult to focus and ask the right questions and to keep my composure. I have been writing down many things I want to question and go through with him but I am always questioning if I should or not. Should I question him about the conditions on my orders making note to the case law that ruled the conditions must be proportionate? I have in the past but I always get the same answers (he does not believe anything needs to change) Should I challenge his previous statements? "If its not in your order then there is no restriction" Should I include complaints on the basis that I have not seen a single shred of evidence and give quotes from the code of practice? Should I request more information such as who drafted my SHPO and when exactly it was drafted? Many things are going around in my head which is making it difficult to concentrate on my uni work, so any advice on this would be massively appreciated. I have the same issue, the last lot in greater manchester pushed me in hospital a few times with overdose..... I have been writing down many things I want to question and go through with him but I am always questioning if I should or not. Should I question him about the conditions on my orders making note to the case law that ruled the conditions must be proportionate? I have in the past but I always get the same answers (he does not believe anything needs to change) i have in the past and just told - talk to the court. You can apply to your police force to have them changed... I'll dig out the paperwork
Should I challenge his previous statements? "If its not in your order then there is no restriction" It depends - what in particular
Should I include complaints on the basis that I have not seen a single shred of evidence and give quotes from the code of practice? Complaints should go to the polices psu.... I'd also ask for a change of OM. Should I request more information such as who drafted my SHPO and when exactly it was drafted? I'll dig out what I was told - but i'm under the impression its the CPS that drafted it....
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
+xAfter his inspections on his way out he had a quick look around my flat including looking inside my fridge... Maybe he was looking for something fishy? Sorry. Couldn't help myself. I'm on high blood pressure medication and even though my last encounter was a standard annual notification with nothing to hide, my chest got tight and heart was pounding. It is stressful, even if you are not guilty of a breach, so sometimes a laugh helps 😉
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+x+xAfter his inspections on his way out he had a quick look around my flat including looking inside my fridge... Maybe he was looking for something fishy? Sorry. Couldn't help myself. I'm on high blood pressure medication and even though my last encounter was a standard annual notification with nothing to hide, my chest got tight and heart was pounding. It is stressful, even if you are not guilty of a breach, so sometimes a laugh helps 😉 Even in the hardest of times, its important to always try and smile  But I agree its difficult to hold your ground against these people who have so much power over you and can ruin your life at any point for absolutely no reason other than "because they can" J
Should I request more information such as who drafted my SHPO and when exactly it was drafted?
I'll dig out what I was told - but i'm under the impression its the CPS that drafted it.... You just reminded me there, I did ask the new ppu this questions. He told me it would have been drafted from the arresting officer and it WAS handed to me on the day of my sentence. So I will be interested to know what his thoughts are when I go in to more details about the R vs Smith case law. Found this Home Office document online which also makes references to the case law https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755142/11.18guidanceonpart2ofthesexualoffencesact2003.pdf#page7
Should I challenge his previous statements? "If its not in your order then there is no restriction"
It depends - what in particular
This quote of my previous PPU came from me asking of where I can and can not go, I asked him if the order prevents from going into parks or even soft plays with my children while under supervision by social services. He asked me if the order says I can not enter parks of which I said no, not specifically. He then simply said the following quote "If it is not in your orders then there is no restriction" which again got me thinking.... If he believes that and my orders do not specifically restrict me from deleting a demo or even videos of documents and emails ect... then why is he telling me such a thing would be in breach of my order? My orders do not say I can not use a VPN as it only says to not use a "false IP" Like I said in a previous post somewhere, People get dragged in to court and charged for "dishonesty" yet the entire justice system is clearly based on dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xFigured I would update this post with my recent visit from my new PPU officer. Annoyingly I did not record the conversation due to not getting the software set up correctly. Anyways, I did challenge him on a number of points relating to my orders. Going back to the demo on my ps4 he was in complete agreement with me that by deleting a demo from my console does not breach my order. But he said he still wants me to call ahead if I am to delete anything else demo wise on my console. I tried to ask about other data that is not internet history related but he kept interrupting and got a phone call where he was rushing to leave so I will likely give him a call to clarify. I asked him if he was familiar with case law R vs Smith regarding conditions on SHPO's to be proportionate to the offense and he basically admitted he had no idea. any changes need to go through court and he felt none of the conditions needed changing. He seemed to have no idea that I needed his or his bosses permission to make the changes to my SHPO if under 5 years. He then of course asked the usual questions, any new relationships, how often do you do this... do that ect. Basically told me if i don't provide an answer then he will have no choice but to consider my risk high. When he asked me about jobs I said I am not working at the moment and I am doing a uni course in hopes of getting a job in near future, reminded me that I MUST disclose to any employer. I told him that is incorrect as I do not need to disclose if I am not asked, at which point he stated "in that case it would be us who would disclose". then proceeded to insist I give names of the tutors of my uni course. After his inspections on his way out he had a quick look around my flat including looking inside my fridge ( yes really... no joke) I was so shocked and stunned by this I just could not speak and ask him why he is looking in there. Once he was happy he left. Should I be asking for his bosses contact details so I can forward some complaints or wait a little longer to discuss things with my PPU? Regarding R v Smith, most PPU officers will have heard of it, but not all of them will know the details. After all, they have a Legal Services department to deal with that sort of thing. That also covers other aspects of the job, so if they're told to do something by their boss, they do it. The disclosure thing sounds heavy-handed, as they have the right to insist on disclosure if they have legitimate public protection concerns, but not automatically as a matter of policy. The fridge thing just means he's been watching too many US police shows, as that is where the incriminating evidence is always hidden.... No, seriously.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark15788
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 293,
Visits: 4.7K
|
Is PPU managed differently in different areas?
To start with I had a PPU Officer but he retired, the next thing I know there doing a reorganisation and some cases are assigned to neighbourhood police officers in my area now, including me, he is my contact, he does my annual visits, he inspects my devices, he’s actually really canny, down to earth and supportive
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 6.9K
|
+xIs PPU managed differently in different areas? To start with I had a PPU Officer but he retired, the next thing I know there doing a reorganisation and some cases are assigned to neighbourhood police officers in my area now, including me, he is my contact, he does my annual visits, he inspects my devices, he’s actually really canny, down to earth and supportive Every police force sets its own policy. Local stations may vary their approach within that policy, but they have to comply with what the policy says they must do. Then it's down to individual officers.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark15788
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 293,
Visits: 4.7K
|
Just makes you wonder how in my area neighbourhood officers have the time on top of their usual duties to manage a caseload too.
I remember my probation officer at the time saying the neighbourhood officers not knowing what to do or their lack of training, she said they wouldn’t have a clue about ARMS assessments etc.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 714,
Visits: 5.3K
|
Blame austerity. I saw some stats a while ago which showed the average caseload for a PPU officer is 50-60 people. In some areas though it is far higher. Merseyside police has the highest with an average of 103 people per officer. No wonder some forces have delegated the work to inexperienced staff.
As the numbers on the register get higher every year, it will be harder and harder for the police to monitor them all effectively. High risk offenders will get just one phone call a year, meaning dangerous individuals will slip through the cracks. Meanwhile low risk offenders will be subjected to visits that are not really necessary. There is already considerable regional variation and it will probably get a lot worse in future.
The politicians brought this on themselves by insisting that every SO must be monitored, irrespective of offence type or risk level. It's their own fault.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
+xThe politicians brought this on themselves by insisting that every SO must be monitored, irrespective of offence type or risk level. It's their own fault. Whilst I'd agree that the "something must be done" mentality is at the feet of politicians, the SOR is not particularly onerous. It's the excessive SHPO conditions which are the problem and manpower intensive. They are the direct result of the police and the CPS's behaviour in court looking for a "win", so they reap what they sow. I have no sympathy for any officer crying "austerity" when they have brought it on themselves. I was told accidentally on their first visit that they viewed me as "extremely high risk". This is more down to my IT skills than anything else, as my probation report correctly identified me as very low risk. But if they want to waste time and manpower on me, that is not my problem.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+xThe politicians brought this on themselves by insisting that every SO must be monitored, irrespective of offence type or risk level. It's their own fault. Whilst I'd agree that the "something must be done" mentality is at the feet of politicians, the SOR is not particularly onerous. It's the excessive SHPO conditions which are the problem and manpower intensive. They are the direct result of the police and the CPS's behaviour in court looking for a "win", so they reap what they sow. I have no sympathy for any officer crying "austerity" when they have brought it on themselves. I was told accidentally on their first visit that they viewed me as "extremely high risk". This is more down to my IT skills than anything else, as my probation report correctly identified me as very low risk. But if they want to waste time and manpower on me, that is not my problem. Hi Was "extremely high risk". This is more down to my IT skills
As someone who has been in IT since 1989 I find it interesting the uncertainty with the Police when talking about IT. I have learnt in my long life that no one knows everything about any subject as it is so vast. The main issue with anyone when discussing IT with someone that has taken the time to study some small part of it; be that excel, web design in its basics or how to set a printer up, they do not want to be seen as not compitatant or overshadowed. Whilst at HMP Whatton I was allowed to use skills I was recognised to have, to actually develop a system for the IT Learning centre. I also was asked to evaluate the access database application used by the kitchen staff to record inmates menu choices and for analysis / forecast requirements. My OM was really upset when the head of Kitchens contacted him to say he wanted me out of normal work hours to work on the application as he saw this as being applauded / rewarded and no imate should treated so. Basically in the end I have learnt to offer an explanation in a polite manner if I see they are not understanding or showing confusion over an explanation. That way they learn something, probably double check back in the office which is not a problem as importantly they start to see you in a better manner. In the end no matter who we interface with, if the other individual lacks the information to fully understand the conversation, it is a reflection on you on the level of knowledge they leave with. I believe the PPU should also consider this when ending a "home visit"
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|