|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+xRe: the "child living at address" requirement...what about hotels? There's no real way to know who is staying in the room next to you? I've not come across anyone who has had an issue with hotels. Yet holiday camps do have restrictions in their t&c on who can stay there. Hi I am replying to both of your posts. My SOPO stated that I could "not reside at any location children could /may be staying at" I was a contractor who lived away a lot and demonstrated to my Barrister that this was impossible due to my lack of knowledge of other guests staying in the like of hotels. The Judge agreed and changed it to "private residencies" Similarly they tried to impose a condition that I could not speak to an SO. I challenged this and it was dismissed on a data protection aspect. From a working perspective any employer would have to disclose the names and offences of any other employees that had committed an offence so I could know who I could not communicate with. This would also be a discriminatory offence if they had employed an ex-SO but would not employ me because I was an ex-SO. However whilst waiting for sentencing I was placed on the SOR and had work in London. I had to report into a Police Station who in turn did speak to the "security manager" of the hotel I was staying in. I was asked to leave immediately. My solicitor would do nothing about this.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+xRe: the "child living at address" requirement...what about hotels? There's no real way to know who is staying in the room next to you? I've not come across anyone who has had an issue with hotels. Yet holiday camps do have restrictions in their t&c on who can stay there.
|
|
|
|
|
Grey Area
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 18,
Visits: 48
|
Re: the "child living at address" requirement...what about hotels? There's no real way to know who is staying in the room next to you?
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected. Their use in recent years was politically motivated though, namely Tory Chris Philp was the face of it, adding to our freedoms which Tories have been quietly decimating, particularly from the far right. Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening. Government proposing to look in bank accounts of those on UC to "check for fraud" or taking us out of the ECHR... I don't think so! The real politics gets distracted with silly culture wars and it's dangerous. Especially for people in our position who the public might think that we can't have a say... until it affects them, of course, but then it's too late. Hi Mr W Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening.
Can I suggest you look back at some of the debates in Parliament about the Justice Bill? My reason for suggesting this is that you will see which ever Party speaks the basic thread is; be seen as "strong against crime" and especially sex offences. The Tories; as they are in Government, have implemented changes and so for the present get the blame but please do not think others will be more supportive due to the risk of loosing votes. We (ex-so's) are only a minor element of the ECHR as the priority seen by society is immigration Therefore as political ambitions are acheived by votes, they will do anything to win the votes! So please do not let other political thoughts persude you the Tories are the worse as far as SO go. It was New Labour that brought in IPP sentences. Some of those convicted are still in prison, 20 years later, despite only being sentenced to a couple of years originally. One of the worst human rights breaches in recent history. If the incoming govt had a conscience, it would release them on licence, as prison overcrowding is the biggest issue facing the justice system right now. So that would be my first test of whether things are going to be different. I don't expect them to announce anything before the election of course, but afterwards, we will get some indication of where they want to go by looking at things like this. Do they want to bring the prison population down, or are they going to press ahead with building new ones, and locking even more people up? Hi I fully agree with your example and comments. In my simple opinion, and having met some of those living with this sentence, it is on the same coverup as the Post Office and blood scandals - Governments protecting themselves by their use of the media etc. Some of those I met had been changed by the lack of faith in the system - hence some were constantly been rejected at "Reviews" on grounds I saw as consequences of this. Yes crimes where committed but when the introducing government introduces a system stating it will see "strong Justice", there is reluctance to admit errors and so reverse decisions. Sorry for being selfish but I really hoped they would follow a recommendation about the SOR discharge - after 10 years if low risk then discharge - but the Government would not accept the 10 year change and I do not see any other doing so! Why? Because that would leave them open to the oposition saying they are weak, in the same manner they have been accused that about "early release" or half inside and half on probation. One day the system will recognize "Each sex offence has unique individual aspects to it and so should be considered on them and not just as a name!" While I was in prison, we were visited by the then Shadow Minister for Prisons. He knew what sort of offences we had committed, and he seemed quite interested in the project we were in. However, when I raised the subject of media treatment of SOs and how both main parties fuelled that, he disengaged very quickly.... The only thing that is certain is that if things don't change soon, they will stay just as they are. Hi I fully agree. It is the same when you hear them talk / preach about how their policies are so "inclusive" and no one is "alienated". needn't say more do I.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected. Their use in recent years was politically motivated though, namely Tory Chris Philp was the face of it, adding to our freedoms which Tories have been quietly decimating, particularly from the far right. Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening. Government proposing to look in bank accounts of those on UC to "check for fraud" or taking us out of the ECHR... I don't think so! The real politics gets distracted with silly culture wars and it's dangerous. Especially for people in our position who the public might think that we can't have a say... until it affects them, of course, but then it's too late. Hi Mr W Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening.
Can I suggest you look back at some of the debates in Parliament about the Justice Bill? My reason for suggesting this is that you will see which ever Party speaks the basic thread is; be seen as "strong against crime" and especially sex offences. The Tories; as they are in Government, have implemented changes and so for the present get the blame but please do not think others will be more supportive due to the risk of loosing votes. We (ex-so's) are only a minor element of the ECHR as the priority seen by society is immigration Therefore as political ambitions are acheived by votes, they will do anything to win the votes! So please do not let other political thoughts persude you the Tories are the worse as far as SO go. It was New Labour that brought in IPP sentences. Some of those convicted are still in prison, 20 years later, despite only being sentenced to a couple of years originally. One of the worst human rights breaches in recent history. If the incoming govt had a conscience, it would release them on licence, as prison overcrowding is the biggest issue facing the justice system right now. So that would be my first test of whether things are going to be different. I don't expect them to announce anything before the election of course, but afterwards, we will get some indication of where they want to go by looking at things like this. Do they want to bring the prison population down, or are they going to press ahead with building new ones, and locking even more people up? Hi I fully agree with your example and comments. In my simple opinion, and having met some of those living with this sentence, it is on the same coverup as the Post Office and blood scandals - Governments protecting themselves by their use of the media etc. Some of those I met had been changed by the lack of faith in the system - hence some were constantly been rejected at "Reviews" on grounds I saw as consequences of this. Yes crimes where committed but when the introducing government introduces a system stating it will see "strong Justice", there is reluctance to admit errors and so reverse decisions. Sorry for being selfish but I really hoped they would follow a recommendation about the SOR discharge - after 10 years if low risk then discharge - but the Government would not accept the 10 year change and I do not see any other doing so! Why? Because that would leave them open to the oposition saying they are weak, in the same manner they have been accused that about "early release" or half inside and half on probation. One day the system will recognize "Each sex offence has unique individual aspects to it and so should be considered on them and not just as a name!" While I was in prison, we were visited by the then Shadow Minister for Prisons. He knew what sort of offences we had committed, and he seemed quite interested in the project we were in. However, when I raised the subject of media treatment of SOs and how both main parties fuelled that, he disengaged very quickly.... The only thing that is certain is that if things don't change soon, they will stay just as they are.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected. Their use in recent years was politically motivated though, namely Tory Chris Philp was the face of it, adding to our freedoms which Tories have been quietly decimating, particularly from the far right. Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening. Government proposing to look in bank accounts of those on UC to "check for fraud" or taking us out of the ECHR... I don't think so! The real politics gets distracted with silly culture wars and it's dangerous. Especially for people in our position who the public might think that we can't have a say... until it affects them, of course, but then it's too late. Hi Mr W Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening.
Can I suggest you look back at some of the debates in Parliament about the Justice Bill? My reason for suggesting this is that you will see which ever Party speaks the basic thread is; be seen as "strong against crime" and especially sex offences. The Tories; as they are in Government, have implemented changes and so for the present get the blame but please do not think others will be more supportive due to the risk of loosing votes. We (ex-so's) are only a minor element of the ECHR as the priority seen by society is immigration Therefore as political ambitions are acheived by votes, they will do anything to win the votes! So please do not let other political thoughts persude you the Tories are the worse as far as SO go. It was New Labour that brought in IPP sentences. Some of those convicted are still in prison, 20 years later, despite only being sentenced to a couple of years originally. One of the worst human rights breaches in recent history. If the incoming govt had a conscience, it would release them on licence, as prison overcrowding is the biggest issue facing the justice system right now. So that would be my first test of whether things are going to be different. I don't expect them to announce anything before the election of course, but afterwards, we will get some indication of where they want to go by looking at things like this. Do they want to bring the prison population down, or are they going to press ahead with building new ones, and locking even more people up? Hi I fully agree with your example and comments. In my simple opinion, and having met some of those living with this sentence, it is on the same coverup as the Post Office and blood scandals - Governments protecting themselves by their use of the media etc. Some of those I met had been changed by the lack of faith in the system - hence some were constantly been rejected at "Reviews" on grounds I saw as consequences of this. Yes crimes where committed but when the introducing government introduces a system stating it will see "strong Justice", there is reluctance to admit errors and so reverse decisions. Sorry for being selfish but I really hoped they would follow a recommendation about the SOR discharge - after 10 years if low risk then discharge - but the Government would not accept the 10 year change and I do not see any other doing so! Why? Because that would leave them open to the oposition saying they are weak, in the same manner they have been accused that about "early release" or half inside and half on probation. One day the system will recognize "Each sex offence has unique individual aspects to it and so should be considered on them and not just as a name!"
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+x+x+x+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected. Their use in recent years was politically motivated though, namely Tory Chris Philp was the face of it, adding to our freedoms which Tories have been quietly decimating, particularly from the far right. Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening. Government proposing to look in bank accounts of those on UC to "check for fraud" or taking us out of the ECHR... I don't think so! The real politics gets distracted with silly culture wars and it's dangerous. Especially for people in our position who the public might think that we can't have a say... until it affects them, of course, but then it's too late. Hi Mr W Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening.
Can I suggest you look back at some of the debates in Parliament about the Justice Bill? My reason for suggesting this is that you will see which ever Party speaks the basic thread is; be seen as "strong against crime" and especially sex offences. The Tories; as they are in Government, have implemented changes and so for the present get the blame but please do not think others will be more supportive due to the risk of loosing votes. We (ex-so's) are only a minor element of the ECHR as the priority seen by society is immigration Therefore as political ambitions are acheived by votes, they will do anything to win the votes! So please do not let other political thoughts persude you the Tories are the worse as far as SO go. It was New Labour that brought in IPP sentences. Some of those convicted are still in prison, 20 years later, despite only being sentenced to a couple of years originally. One of the worst human rights breaches in recent history. If the incoming govt had a conscience, it would release them on licence, as prison overcrowding is the biggest issue facing the justice system right now. So that would be my first test of whether things are going to be different. I don't expect them to announce anything before the election of course, but afterwards, we will get some indication of where they want to go by looking at things like this. Do they want to bring the prison population down, or are they going to press ahead with building new ones, and locking even more people up?
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected. Their use in recent years was politically motivated though, namely Tory Chris Philp was the face of it, adding to our freedoms which Tories have been quietly decimating, particularly from the far right. Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening. Government proposing to look in bank accounts of those on UC to "check for fraud" or taking us out of the ECHR... I don't think so! The real politics gets distracted with silly culture wars and it's dangerous. Especially for people in our position who the public might think that we can't have a say... until it affects them, of course, but then it's too late. Hi Mr W Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening.
Can I suggest you look back at some of the debates in Parliament about the Justice Bill? My reason for suggesting this is that you will see which ever Party speaks the basic thread is; be seen as "strong against crime" and especially sex offences. The Tories; as they are in Government, have implemented changes and so for the present get the blame but please do not think others will be more supportive due to the risk of loosing votes. We (ex-so's) are only a minor element of the ECHR as the priority seen by society is immigration Therefore as political ambitions are acheived by votes, they will do anything to win the votes! So please do not let other political thoughts persude you the Tories are the worse as far as SO go.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
+x+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected. Their use in recent years was politically motivated though, namely Tory Chris Philp was the face of it, adding to our freedoms which Tories have been quietly decimating, particularly from the far right. Thankfully this rabble are getting the boot, it seems, and if the left are in power, I'd hope to see a cessation if not reversal of what's been happening. Government proposing to look in bank accounts of those on UC to "check for fraud" or taking us out of the ECHR... I don't think so! The real politics gets distracted with silly culture wars and it's dangerous. Especially for people in our position who the public might think that we can't have a say... until it affects them, of course, but then it's too late.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+xI wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place. The facial recognition stuff was not part of any of the bills going through, so it won't be affected.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
I wonder if this means all this Big Brother facial recognition stuff stops too... not that any of us consented to/voted for it in the first place.
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+xIt looks like the Criminal Justice Bill won't get through parliament in time, so none of the changes in it will be made in the near future. The next government may have other plans. Ive been searching to see if any parts would be rushed through to support the "Strong on Justice" claim by the Gov. Today they stated the "non-smoking" law will not be completed. As mentioned previously, watching the debate in parliament brought some concerns because of the amendments Labour wanted but failed to gain the vote. Hi I read on the BBC news site that the Justice Bill has been stopped. It will be interesting to see what will happen with the different elements (a) if Conservatives stay in or (b) Labour get in... One thing for sure Labour will probably bring in the amendments that the Conservatives voted against!
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xIt looks like the Criminal Justice Bill won't get through parliament in time, so none of the changes in it will be made in the near future. The next government may have other plans. Ive been searching to see if any parts would be rushed through to support the "Strong on Justice" claim by the Gov. Today they stated the "non-smoking" law will not be completed. As mentioned previously, watching the debate in parliament brought some concerns because of the amendments Labour wanted but failed to gain the vote.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
It looks like the Criminal Justice Bill won't get through parliament in time, so none of the changes in it will be made in the near future. The next government may have other plans.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xJust to clarify, these are just proposals, yes? They're not new/current rules. What is the name change ban? I know it's been spoken about in the past but what's the wording? Just talking about it was what made me go through with it last year thinking that a ban would probably be imminent. I'm glad I did and recommend getting on with it for those who are hampered by the Google effect. The wording of 'five day absence' is interesting because does that mean it usurps the 7 nights at a different address? Again it is looking like more cash for solicitors. lol
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xJust to clarify, these are just proposals, yes? They're not new/current rules. What is the name change ban? I know it's been spoken about in the past but what's the wording? Just talking about it was what made me go through with it last year thinking that a ban would probably be imminent. I'm glad I did and recommend getting on with it for those who are hampered by the Google effect. The wording of 'five day absence' is interesting because does that mean it usurps the 7 nights at a different address? So if I stayed with a friend for 3 days and I stayed at a hotel for 3 days after, currently means I don't tell police anything. But the five day absence rule would mean I would have to report this trip. Currently amendments to the bill working it's way through parliament. They don't become law until it gets royal assent. There's still a fair way to go before then. The name change thing is the same in that somebody needs to be given notice they can't. It doesn't apply to all SOs despite the claims of the MP who campaigned for it saying it does. She obviously hadn't even read the details of the thing she posted and she's still arguing the toss. Depending on how long the parliamentary process takes and when the general election is called, the bill might not make it into law and would have to wait its turn in the next parliament. That would then depend on the priorities of the next government, who would probably want to make a few changes so it doesn't look like they're just copying the current plan. Hi I watched the debate date this week on this and many MP's raised this point. The reply was that it should be as could be good for the Government in the election.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+x+x+xSome changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report. The new clauses make the following changes: 1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address for five or more days. 2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children. 3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances, removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station. 4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first. 5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications, which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs. and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days. Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR. But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear. But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something. Hi and as always you seem to find the gems - all though balanced with some negative, bits of news. I think some of the bad points are there to just show "we will protect you" and the actual "practical working aspects" left to those who enforce. They could also be there to offset any arguments about the "good "points ie para 4. We all know about the report done last which listed recommendations but I have not been able to find any further updates. Question is have you found this info as an update to the report I mentioned and what stage is this at please. My hope this would remove the "discussions" I am / have had about when my "Relevant date" actually was and depending when/if implemented I could be off the SOR this year  No, I've not seen any direct response to the Creedon Report, although it was mentioned in passing in relation to these changes. There are a couple of things that I need to update though, as I've also looked at the actual law changes that are being proposed and they differ somewhat to the summary of what these changes suggested. The change allows the police to remove someone from the SOR, only after 15 years, but the person does not have to apply to be removed. The rules on name changes and notifying contact in advance, would only apply to certain SO, identified as posing a risk by the police. They would not apply to all SO. On the point of knowing in advance who will be at the address where they are going, I'm sure the police would expect the RSO to have disclosed their record to the people at that address. Those people can then juggle their social commitments to avoid those situations, or call at the last moment if someone unexpected turns up, so that they can stay away while the situation exists. The proposed legislation turns out to be a bit more complicated than it appears. It requires the police to issue the person with a notice first stating they have to give this information. That notice can be appealed to a magistrate and it must be reviewed by the police every 12 months, so it cannot last forever. But then the person must notify police no less than 12 hours before going to the address, or if that's not reasonably practicable, within 3 days of arriving at the address. So that would cover the unexpected child scenario. But bizarrely, if the person didn't go the address after all, then they must also notify police within 6 days, that they didn't go! The rules for being absent from your home address are also being tightened up. Now if you are away from home in the UK for more than five days, you must tell the police where you are going, the type of accommodation, how you plan to get there and what date you are going to be back. This applies to all SO and makes going away, even for a short break, or to visit family, a much more onerous process than it currently is. Hi This point about being away from home (keeping the details loose) in ways will cause the same confusion as something I am going through and have raised with my OM. I have a campervan so whenever I visit "anyone/anywhere" I sleep in that. 1) going out of the country I am still awaiting confirmation how I am suppose to confirm where I will spend the first 3 nights as I do not go on "sites"; 2) This allows me not to register addresses of those I visit who have stood by me BUT what privacy. The only reply I have is that I must check the details of any camp sites as some may not all ex-offenders to stay there but nothing about going out of the country. So going away from my home I can inform them I am but not where I will be staying? As an ex military / IT / HR person who believes in processes, the last 15 years of this process has shown me that alot of these concepts are just that when implemented. Be interesting to read the final words.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+xJust to clarify, these are just proposals, yes? They're not new/current rules. What is the name change ban? I know it's been spoken about in the past but what's the wording? Just talking about it was what made me go through with it last year thinking that a ban would probably be imminent. I'm glad I did and recommend getting on with it for those who are hampered by the Google effect. The wording of 'five day absence' is interesting because does that mean it usurps the 7 nights at a different address? So if I stayed with a friend for 3 days and I stayed at a hotel for 3 days after, currently means I don't tell police anything. But the five day absence rule would mean I would have to report this trip. Currently amendments to the bill working it's way through parliament. They don't become law until it gets royal assent. There's still a fair way to go before then. The name change thing is the same in that somebody needs to be given notice they can't. It doesn't apply to all SOs despite the claims of the MP who campaigned for it saying it does. She obviously hadn't even read the details of the thing she posted and she's still arguing the toss. Depending on how long the parliamentary process takes and when the general election is called, the bill might not make it into law and would have to wait its turn in the next parliament. That would then depend on the priorities of the next government, who would probably want to make a few changes so it doesn't look like they're just copying the current plan.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+xJust to clarify, these are just proposals, yes? They're not new/current rules. What is the name change ban? I know it's been spoken about in the past but what's the wording? Just talking about it was what made me go through with it last year thinking that a ban would probably be imminent. I'm glad I did and recommend getting on with it for those who are hampered by the Google effect. The wording of 'five day absence' is interesting because does that mean it usurps the 7 nights at a different address? So if I stayed with a friend for 3 days and I stayed at a hotel for 3 days after, currently means I don't tell police anything. But the five day absence rule would mean I would have to report this trip. Yes, these are proposals. However if you look at section 85A of the SOA 2003, there is already a rule for Northern Ireland only, relating to absence from your home address that requires you to notify even an absence of 3 days or more. It seems likely that England and Wales are going to follow this. On the name change. This relates to getting new documents, such as a passport or driving licence and it doesn't apply to all SO, just those who have been identified as risky by the police.
|
|
|
|
|
tedstriker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 50,
Visits: 2.9K
|
+xJust to clarify, these are just proposals, yes? They're not new/current rules. What is the name change ban? I know it's been spoken about in the past but what's the wording? Just talking about it was what made me go through with it last year thinking that a ban would probably be imminent. I'm glad I did and recommend getting on with it for those who are hampered by the Google effect. The wording of 'five day absence' is interesting because does that mean it usurps the 7 nights at a different address? So if I stayed with a friend for 3 days and I stayed at a hotel for 3 days after, currently means I don't tell police anything. But the five day absence rule would mean I would have to report this trip. Currently amendments to the bill working it's way through parliament. They don't become law until it gets royal assent. There's still a fair way to go before then. The name change thing is the same in that somebody needs to be given notice they can't. It doesn't apply to all SOs despite the claims of the MP who campaigned for it saying it does. She obviously hadn't even read the details of the thing she posted and she's still arguing the toss.
|
|
|
|