I have been wondering this for a long while now and figured it might be good to discuss it further.

Are you legally required to inform a gym or even other places like cinemas, gigs of your convictions?

My old PPU once stated that anything I do outside I MUST disclose my conviction to the one in charge, I applied to attend this local place some years ago to do some DIY which only allowed 19+ yet I was still forced by my PPU to disclose my conviction. And so he him self could check the place out. I spoke to the owner directly and he seemed pretty relaxed with me being there but I still felt uneasy going, I eventually stopped going all together. I am looking at possibly joining up with a local gym as it would help me massively getting me out more but my PPU keep telling me that I MUST disclose. I have googled around and so far I have found nothing which legally tells me I 1, have to disclose to owner to gym or any other such place. 2, I do not have to inform the PPU I have even joined a gym or my where abouts unless of course.... as per the notification requirements someone under 18 resides where I will be present for a period of 12 hours or more.

Thoughts?

Its a tricky one which for me would ultimately boil down to three main things: 1 - What are the actual restriction(s) you have, 2 - What your order actually states you must do  3 - How picky/much of a dick is your PPU.

These will dictate how best to approach it and what hills to die on.

For most extra curricular activities (cinema, gym etc.) I'd say they generally don't need to be informed - As you mentioned, you're only obliged to inform them if you'll be at that venue for over 12 hours if there is someone under the age of 18 resides there. The wording I feel is important too as reside means to live permanently or for a considerable time in a certain place. I wouldn't expect anyone, let alone an under 18 year to live in a gym or a cinema, they could certainly visit it but not reside in it and I'm sure any reasonable person would think that too. Again, this is where it boils down to how picky/much of a dick your PPU is but I'd certainly say if anything were to happen you'd have a decent case against them as misinterpreting it as reside is a very clearly defined statement.

As for disclosing to the gym owner, that's a tricky one too as there might be some kind of wording or section in your gym contract that'll state about informing of criminal offences from a safe guarding point of view (having an abundance of violent offenders might make their insurance go up due to the high potential of an incident etc.)

On a personal note, with regards to your first bit about the 19+ DIY thing - I feel your PPU really overstepped their boundaries there and depending on my mood I would've perhaps called them out on in the form of a complaint. They're only supposed to check out and inform venues/employers etc. if they believe there is a risk to safe guarding which would breach your order, where would the line be drawn? Do you have to inform them when you go to Tesco to do your shopping? What about when you go to the doctors? How about a restaurant? I hope you informed them when you went to the bank! Without knowing the full details of your order and offence I'd say having to disclose gyms and things is highly unrealistic and I'm not convinced would be fully Smith compliant either.

Of course it's easy for me to sit here and say "Oh just tell your PPU to jog on", it's difficult because you want to do right by yourself but you also want to be somewhat independent and put your foot down on some things when you feel they might be taking the piss and because it's all so vague a lot of the time and open to interpretation it can be a very difficult system to navigate as one false step could see you getting dragged back to court.

If it were me, I'd be running through my order with a careful eye and making notes of any sections that appear slightly ambiguous, I'd then email my PPU asking for clarification on each of them, so to use your example it'd be something like:

1. "You agree to disclose to the OMU where you will be at a venue for 12 hours or more where a person(s) under the age of 18 will resides" - Given it stipulates 'resides' and following the definition of the word, my understanding is this is in reference to where someone under the 18 of lives or spends a considerable amount of time - Can you confirm if my understanding is correct?

There is no legal requirement to disclose. It is always at the discretion of the PPU. They should only do it, if it is proportionate and where there is an identifiable risk of harm to somebody. If the supposed risk is that 'there may be children there', then why is a gym, or a cinema, any different to a supermarket?

Your SHPO should contain a clause stating 'no contact with under 18s, except that which is unavoidable in the course of daily life'. This is to cover situations such as going to the shops, cinema, gym etc. The SHPO will not say anything about disclosing to shop owners, gym owners or cinema managers, because that is a positive requirement, rather than a negative.

The PPU are trying to put the pressure on you to disclose, because it is much more difficult for them to do it. When the PPU disclose to somebody, they must warn that person that it is highly sensitive information and that they could be prosecuted, if they share it with anybody else. Remember the council worker, who shared details of an SO's address with a Whatsapp group of vigilantes, after he rang up to request a food parcel? Everytime that you share details of your conviction with a gym owner, a cinema manager, or anybody else, it puts you at risk of the information being leaked to the public. That's why you should always let the police disclose to these people, rather than doing it yourself, because then if anything happens, the person who was disclosed to, can be held accountable.

The PPU must also complete paperwork setting out what the risk is and why disclosure was required, in each and every case. The other day I was in town and I went in half a dozen different places in one morning; the bank, library, 3 different shops and a fast food place. Imagine if you had to disclose to all of them, just in case. It would not only be impractical for you, it would only be a matter of time, until the whole town knew about your conviction. 

Now imagine if the PPU had to disclose to all these places and everywhere else, that you might visit in your normal daily life. The amount of paperwork they would need to complete, the phone calls they would have to make, and all the work they would have to do, would be enormous. They don't want to do that, so they try to make you do the disclosure instead.

You are under no obligation to tell them where you have been, outside of the 12 hour rule, and provided that any contact with children happened in the course of your normal daily life, so I would be inclined to call their bluff and say to them; "if you feel disclosure is proportionate, then you do it". 

You’ve stumbled upon my favourite subject…! Stick in the usual caveats about police forces being different (Saying that, I would like to hear if anyone has joined a gym without any of the utter farce I’m about to regale you with from police). The long battle I’ve had with my force over a gym has been ridiculous. My order states females under 16 (even though I don’t think it’s Smith compliant but I am getting it looked at soon). Anyway, even though I found two gyms that were over 16, my ppu still found excuses to not ‘let me’ join. One of their excuses was ‘terms and conditions’ (which was a lie as far as I was concerned because I went through the whole membership T&Cs and on their websites and couldn’t find anything). To be fair, as my legal rep told me, you can break a company’s terms and conditions, it’s not a police matter (Insert wider social media/online memberships etc argument here). Not even for people in our situation, they do not have the power to control our involvement with T&Cs. This was my argument from the very beginning but they insisted on pulling rank. They even threatened with arrest, I didn't ask what they would arrest me for but they never have. What I think they’re worried about is if it all hits the fan with someone they’re ‘monitoring’, they look bad. Which, again, is certainly not our concern but they’re certainly making it our problem.

A new gym opened, not walkable like the others, but only about a five minute drive. I thought I’d finally found a workable solution, over 16s, nothing in T&Cs, hurrah!… but this time they decided they wanted me to disclose. *They say* the ‘course of daily life’ thing doesn’t apply to private companies, memberships etc. Whether you buy that, it’s up to you. I don’t. So anyway, they wanted me to disclose and offered to come with me to do so. I think they wanted me to be too afraid to do that and suggested that so I’d shut up and go away. So I called their bluff, I agreed to do it with them. Then ppu went awol, tried chasing, and she was always ‘busy’. More months passed (this whole thing went on for two years!). Then, as if by magic, that ppu disappears and I get a new one. New ppu then said the gym has changed its mind and told me not to join. So, again, if I had joined anyway, the gym wouldn’t know any different and there’s nothing police can do. Then the pandemic hit, so everything closed. I cannot describe the long drawn-out frustration of all of this. And all the work I put into finding gyms, going through their T&Cs and everything, especially when I knew it wasn't necessary, it was pretty soul destroying to be honest.

They also tried the ‘terms and conditions' line when I was going to gigs, again, they told me not to go. But there is actually nothing they can do here. I went to a stadium gig in 2019 and one again earlier this year, my ppu knows and has done nothing. Oddly, on my recent visit she asked if I’d had a good time because she saw photos on my phone. So I find the whole thing bizarre. I personally think that this type of tactic falls under ‘gas lighting’ and is a very manipulative tactic and if there’s a complaint to be made, I will, I’m currently talking to my legal rep about this too.
A very cynical me says they just want to bide their time and keep us boxed up until you’re off their books but unaccountably making our life a misery in the meantime.

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

The term is "acting under colour of law". I think the PPU "operations manual" is to assert control as early as possible. They often use unlawful means to do this. Unlawful just means that they don't have the legal right to do something, not that it is illegal. The whole informing Facebook thing, for example. Unless your SHPO explicitly speaks about social media they have no legal right to do this. They do it anyway. My PPO even told me that if I reregistered there was nothing that they could do about it. As it happened, I was going to leave Facebook in any case so didn't pursue it. 

It's the capricious interpretation of the orders that really got to me, with no basis in the wording that a reasonable observer or judge would agree with. The language interpreting a court order has to have its ordinary meaning. A tortured interpretation of words is not legal.

Unfortunately, the remedy is to call their bluff, have them arrest you, and then appear in front of a judge and show that they have abused their powers and the order of the court. The PPO could get into serious trouble for exceeding their lawful powers, but they rely on it being a risk that I suspect few will take.

Capricious - a great and accurate word and one I’ll have to remember. I think your mentioning of unlawful vs illegal is also the crux of the matter, one which leaves us with little power to do anything about.

The fact that I’ve been threatened with arrest, threatened with disclosure etc and the fact it’s not happened once brings me back to gaslighting because the amount of hours I’ve spent mulling all of these things over - while also being really objective of my own thinking - is time I will never get back. But they obviously know all of this and if challenged will always fall back on that impenetrable ‘safeguarding of children’ get out of jail free card. But when, in terms of 16+ gym, no children are even involved, it blows my mind.

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

My take on this is that I don't disclose my conviction to any venue, gym, cinema that I use. I have never spoken about this with my PPU nor has she ever asked me (apart from in general terms) what I do in my spare time. I certainly don't give her a running commentary on what I am doing or what I have done.

The sex offender registration does not require you to disclose your conviction to venues etc, the rehabilitation of offenders act does not require you to disclose your conviction to venues etc. Yes if you have a SHPO or your conviction is not spent you must declare your conviction to employers and insurers when asked.

If you have a SHPO which prevents you from going to certain venues or contact with under 16's then this is the only thing that can stop you going or having to disclose.

As for the PPU they are supposed to do a risk assessment before they disclose your conviction to anyone. If you have an officer that is informing loads of people of your conviction I argue this is unfair and is grounds for a complaint as it puts you at risk of being exposed.

I also urge not to over share with your PPU. Whilst they can question you about your activity I wouldn't tell them anything if they don't ask.

I am lucky that my PPU pretty much leaves me alone and when I see her she does ask me what I do in my spare time and I am honest with her. At no point has she ever said I should disclose my conviction nor does she say I can't attend cinema, theatre, football matches etc.

It is great reading all of your perspectives on the matter, although my PPU does tend to ask a lot of questions and encourages me to get out more. I will follow his advice and sign up to a gym, if I am not obligated to share information that is out side of the notification requirements then I will simply not share it. Risk of doing this I would assume is an increase to my level of risk?

What about other hobby related activities? such as for example : go karting, paint balling, arcades.
My first PPU once told me that in order for me to do things such as paint balling. disclosure to the event handlers must be made and checked to ensure they are equipped to "manage" me attending. He then proceeded to state that he was "not happy with the idea of me crawling around bushes where under 18s may be present" and so basically told me I am not able to attend. Would this not still be considered a lawful activity where contact with under 18's is unavoidable? Granted, by not attending contact will be avoided but why should I have to miss out on something that "gets me out" just because of the potential under 18s will also be attending?

Do I have to avoid arcades, go karts, fairs, just because under 18's are more likely to be there?

One thing that’s been coming up in conversations I've had with people recently is ‘protective factors’.

So if you’re going with a group of friends, relatives, a girlfriend etc. Then police shouldn’t really stifle what you do (I say shouldn’t, it doesn’t mean to say they won’t.) The theory is that people you go with will act as ‘protective factors’ from the potential of anything which could put you or someone else at risk.

But if you’re going on your own to something like paintballing/arcades etc stuff which a ppu might think is ‘stuff that kids do’ then they might (rightly or wrongly) get a bit jumpy. For me, it’s where that line is drawn, especially over a long period of time of saying ‘no’ because, remember, they’re also assessing your “attitude towards authority”.

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

I think it comes down to an individual's SHPO. I had no restrictions on association apart from the SOR 12-hour requirement. I would not even bother to contact my PPO if what I was doing wasn't covered by the SHPO or SOR. When I went to my sister's I always stuck to the letter of the order. There was no ban on overnight stays, just not longer than 12 hours. I got a job at an Amazon warehouse (or at least I had until the basic check came back!) I didn't think for one moment of telling my PPO I had it. It did not involve internet connected devices. I had no legal obligation to notify them.

However, we know that there are fellow forum posters with restrictive conditions. Unfortunately for them, it's either declare to their PPO or go back to court to challenge the conditions.