Hi
My situation is rather unique; as far as I know may only be a couple of others included in this scenario so I would be interested in yours as it is all down to the "Relevant date" that defines the start date of the SOR initial registration.
I started with Unlock helpline (Debbie is a star") The issue is that many authorities take a different view of interpretation. That is the challenge.
I have emails from the Home Office Sex Offender management team supporting me, then they won't respond to further questions from me and interesting the areas Force Solicitor as well!
The college of Policing confirmed in writing I was correct but after being approached by the areas Force Solicitor, stated they had not understood all the facts so went against me. They refused to tell me what the "unknown facts" were as I have been 100% informative.
The ViSor quote references to the 2003 Act, and then the Pt1 guidance of the Act which does support their thoughts. However both of those documents show references to the Pt2 guidance which provides an explicit scenario that meets my own - female age and sentencing delay - that overrides the elements they state and so supports my case.

I attempted to go via a solicitor who had previously helped on removing certain SOPO conditions but they; in the same manner as ViSOR, refuse to acknowledge the Pt2. I believe because not many are aware of this and probably other reasons as well.
The Courts will not discuss it with me and say to get "legal advice"!



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Hi, interesting to see you'd challenged the data on the ViSor system. Who did you complain to...PPU or the Data Protection Team.  The ICO states that there should be a dispute mechanism about the disputed data particularly where it involves data that is "inaccurate, unfair, and inadequate".  As I find the PSD biased I'm wondering whether I should deal with the DPT...

After a running battle from the start with a malicious PPU officer, I finally got her replaced and at same time obtained a copy of all her Home Visit reports.  Well, i'd like to say i was shocked but i wasn't.  The College of Policing states that "all necesary information" is recorded. on home visits. For me I found many statements that were inaccurate, skewed, inadequate for clarity and even fabricated not to mention no positive aspects that I'd told her about that should have been recorded.  Oh and of course nothing down about certain unlawful behaviour of hers (the subject of a current complaint/IOPC review) or the genuine reason that I have felt compelled to record her visits on a number of occasions (they really don't like being recorded do they - strange that isn't it..)

Hi
I agree with the quote however I also believe "we can challenge" as long as we have the "evidence"; what ever that might be, behind us.
Speaking on a broad sense, I personally have found that just saying "it's not fair" is not an argument as there are immediately to many comeback answers that gain the sympathetic support of society!

You may of read my previous topics on the start date for the 15 year appeal when on the SOR for life.
With the help of others (not solicitors) after more than 2 years, I even have my PPU confirming my evidence shows the date I can appeal is correct and is 3 years earlier than the date ViSOR etc state.

Remember the system cannot just say something is true and so your guilty, they have to prove the law has been broken. The issue is that they have the financial budget and greater knowledge of the law and how to "interpret" it to their advantage.

Great laws are created by educated authorities only to be manipulated by lawyers to meet their agenda 

  

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

The main overriding mission of the PPU is to emphasise that you no longer have control of your life. They abuse their powers to enforce this. It's how they are trained. If I'd been on an indefinite SOR, or even a 10 year one, my former civil liberties campaigning self would have been in court challenging them at every turn. 

However, I took Confucius' advice:

"The green reed which bends in the wind is stronger than the mighty oak which breaks in a storm."

Every person has to decide what is best for themselves.

Hi
In essence I agree with your thoughts and believe we should pursue a life that is of a quality to a person.
However it must be recognised that the "system" never really looses, so though they may not arrest you, how do you know that your "record" is not used as a tool against you? As mentioned before when I asked "who checks the data entries are correct?"
As i have mentioned many times I discovered my ppu officer had twice emailed a positive statement to me but in-between those emails had written the complete opposite on my ViSor record which is affecting me now even though they apologized.

I hate to call it a game but once convicted our lives are forced into a game of "strategy" in the hope we may succeed in getting a quality of life.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

I know what you're saying but the "might be appropriate to consider disclosure" is the crux of the problem.

Even if I didn't have my SHPO, my ppu still says the company's "terms and conditions" is an argument for disclosure. My legal rep says this is wrong but it doesn't stop the ppu trying it on. This is where it becomes slightly unrealistic because when she's putting in her phone calls and asks: "Hi, do you allow..." their response is always going to be no and that’s what she’ll relay to me.

So without being deemed a trouble-maker, in the same breath, you have to ask the question: "What are you going to arrest me for?" because if it isn't breach of SHPO, they're going to have to have reasonable grounds to arrest you for something. This is why I've gone to my gigs even if they've said not to, they said I should come off social media and I didn't... and oh look, no arrest... because I've done nothing wrong and no disclosure was made either. The same would go for supermarkets etc they can't arrest you if you've done nothing wrong. It'll always be a case of self-awareness of your situation and picking your fights.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

These are instructions on when it might be appropriate to consider disclosure, not a requirement to disclose in every situation. But the way that the risk is assessed is going to be crucial. The interesting thing, is that these suggestions apply, regardless of whether the person has a no contact provision in their SHPO, or not.

Now, if you don't have a no contact with u-18s clause, then it means that the judge who issued the SHPO, has concluded that the risk of a contact offence is so low, that it doesn't justify putting a no contact restriction in the SHPO, so why would the police then think that the risk is high enough to justify disclosure?

It's possible that the police, in their home visits, may have observed something that the judge did not see, in which case they should go back to court and ask the judge to amend the SHPO, to include a no contact provision. But if that is not the case, then where is the justification for disclosure?

In short, if contact is not forbidden by the SHPO, then disclosure should not be necessary, because the risk of a contact offence is not high enough.

But, even in cases where a no contact clause does exist, the risk may still not be high enough to justify disclosure. That would depend on the facts of the original case. In the R v Parsons (2017) case, he was convicted of an image offence only, but was given a no contact restriction, because the police found evidence of him 'browsing or searching for' websites that could have been used for chats with young children. Parsons was never accused of, or convicted, of a contact offence.

So on that basis, the police might consider disclosure to be necessary for him, but again, under what circumstances? The facts of the case suggest that a contact offence would only occur online, if it occurred at all. It wasn't an offence committed in a public place, so why would disclosure be necessary for public places such as gyms or cinemas?

Finally, there is the proportionality test. I've heard plenty of people say they have been told to disclose in some circumstances, but not in others. I've yet to hear of a case, where anyone has been told they must disclose to the supermarket manager, before they can go into a supermarket. But why not? We know that if you go into a supermarket, there are almost certainly going to be kids there somewhere, so if the risk of a contact offence is so high, then logically, you must disclose to the supermarket too. On the other hand, if the police don't consider a supermarket to be too risky, then why would a gym or a cinema be more risky?

After reading the jaw-droppingly depressing 10.11 on page 57 - "When to disclose", with catch-all phrases like: "others may be at risk", "potential victims", "new relationships... may include friends", "employment, training or education," "an event or venue" - how are we expected to think of ways of moving forward while having a massive sticker on our forehead saying 'bad person'

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

Thank you for the clarity.

The short answer is yes, they do have the power to disclose to the parents. They can ask you to do it, but they cannot make you do it, or they can do it themselves.
It does not depend on what the SHPO says, or doesn't say. It all depends if they think there is a risk of harm.