I fully agree but I think we will just have to wait for the final bill and then our local OM's for their interpretation for our stress levels to possibly reduce. 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.

It would make sense to target these restrictions at the highest risk people only, and some of the legislation gives police the discretion to do that, but a lot of it does not. A point I made to Sarah Champion MP, when I wrote to her about this bill recently.

Hi
previously when I raised this as a "discussion" they were only interested in saying "some camp sites do not let SO's stay there." Though I get that this is probably just their quick answer but the whole point with wild camping is that you are not on a "site" or residence. Its the same when I visit someone I "stay" in my camper not a residence.

My assumption - though many may of already guessed this - is that is "process" will be tested  as - and though a good idea - the 3 words option is an idea but for the "authorities" to state as a requirement. But then again what happens when you follow this concept and get to the location only to find "wild camping" is no longer allowed? 

It is the same when we go out of the country and our plans change? How do you notify of a change and ensure that it is recorded? It is hard enough getting email responses now becuase they are so undermaned! 

As I said I think there will be a lot of Court hearings with legal auguements so I still wonder if these changes will be amended to be only for med/high risk. Time will tell.

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.

If they don't change the requirements of the current regime, then you would have a very good reason for not notifying at the police station, although they might insist that you notify at another prescribed police station (the list is available online). In terms of addresses, for wild camping I'd say the What Three Words app should be a great help, along with an email app on your phone.

=========================================================================================================

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)

For the full legal text of the bill, there is a pdf file here. https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3938

A couple of things regarding the issues people raised. The change about notifying in advance if you go to a house where a child might be living, will apply to anyone convicted of a child sex offence, plus anyone else on the SOR that the police choose to apply it to. So image offenders will be included automatically.

On being away from home, you will have to notify all details of your travel arrangements and your accommodation details, at least 12 hours before leaving and re notify police if your plans change after you have left home. So for wild camping you will be doing lots of notifications!

Hi

"requirements will be targeted at offenders that pose a specific risk of sexual harm to children, so it's possible this will not apply to all SOs."

To be blunt my experience is that if you have the Sex Register requirement then you are classed as a risk to children by default and so yes to your question.
However the words "make the requirement for RSOs of concern " make me wonder if this would be for "med or high" risk individuals only?

"The bill also gives the police a power to review offenders’ indefinite notification requirements of their own initiative after the 15-year minimum duration has ended"
It also states "Chief Constable Creedon recommended affording the police discretion to review offenders’ indefinite notification requirements of their own motion upon the elapsing of the 15-year minimum duration."

That is wrong as the original report suggested this should be done after 10 years on the register for Low Risk ex offenders. another kick in the teeth BUT at least it will hopefully save us money but again depends on your relationship ithe your area OM.

"This change will require offenders to notify the police in advance of absence from their sole or main residence where that absence is for a period of five days or more."
Questions:

• My OM is aware I use my campervan to sleep in rather than stay in others homes. 
• I also go on "traveling holidays" so not staying at a home or,
• Most of the time I wild camp so do not have an address.
• It says ex offenders abuse the requirement by staying at multi homes for less than seven days so do not notify. What real difference does it make just dropping it down to 3 days? Or will we soon see it drop to "any night away from home requires notification?"

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.

hi
from my experience ignorance is never accepted.

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.

Re SO being notified of changes, I wonder if we are not and prosecuted at a later date could we follow the lead of the "waspi" ladies and try to claim billions in compensation.

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.

Just a handful of things I've picked out on this:

The bill also gives the police a power to review offenders’ indefinite notification requirements of their own initiative after the 15-year minimum duration has ended. 

Maybe I'm being cynical, but what Police force is going to voluntarily discharge notification requirements, with the potential for future negative publicity that will entail?

The bill also enables the police to receive notification virtually subject to the offender meeting certain criteria and with clear safeguards.

This could be really useful given the massive amount of extra notifications that will be required as a result of some of these proposed changes, however, what will the "certain criteria" be?

The bill also lowers the rank of police officer able to apply for a warrant allowing police to enter and search a relevant offender’s home for the purposes of assessing their risk of sexual harm, from superintendent to inspector. 

Can never be good news for anyone subject to notification requirements who makes any sort of challenge to police officers supervising them. 

The bill also enables the police to serve a notice on registered sex offenders requiring them to seek the police’s approval before changing their name on specified documents, namely UK passport, driving licences and/or immigration document. The police will be able to refuse permission for a name change on these official documents when they are satisfied that it is necessary to protect the public from sexual harm. 

So this does seem to confer a limited power upon Police to stop a SO from changing their name, if they can justify it. Which they will likely find some legalese way that will be hard for anybody subject to the SOR to challenge in court to do if they want to.

The law currently requires registered sex offenders to notify the police where they spend 12 hours or more in a household where children are present. They must notify the address, the date on which that stay or residence began, and the period for which they intend to reside or stay at that household. 

The changes in the bill will remove the time threshold after which the notification requirement is triggered and make the requirement for RSOs of concern to notify when they are entering a private place (i.e. one to which the public does not have access) where it is reasonably foreseeable children will be present. Following consultation with the police, these changes are considered necessary in order to: (a) provide the police with actionable information in advance of an offender having contact with children; and (b) remove a time threshold that is well above the time in which sexual abuse can take place and which is hard to verify after the fact. 

The change will result in these notification requirements being targeted at offenders that pose a specific risk of sexual harm to children.

This is going to be a huge change, and of concern to anyone on the SOR. It does say that these requirements will be targeted at offenders that pose a specific risk of sexual harm to children, so it's possible this will not apply to all SOs. This being said, it will be interesting to see how the police will interpret this - will they place these requirements only on contact offenders, or will they impose them on internet offenders too? Who imposes these requirements in fact, the police, or the courts at sentencing? How will people be notified if these requirements apply to them, if they committed their offences 10-15+ years ago and don't have regular PPU contact?

These are all very concerning issues and things that need to be addressed and further answers are needed on how these things will be implemented. I don't hold my breath that we will receive any of those answers anytime soon, though.

Their idea of applying common sense appears to be giving you a conditional caution, which would then involve a polygraph.... Of course, you can only have one of those within two years, or you will probably be charged, so if you've had one recently.... Don't forget that ignorance of the law is not a defence, but if you're lucky it might be taken as mitigation.

=========================================================================================================

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)

No, it is not in effect now. The bill is still being debated in Parliament, although given the govts majority, it will almost certainly become law at some point.

But you raise an important issue. The police are notoriously bad at informing people of their obligations under the SOR. Take the current confusion about whether online usernames and email addresses count as names that have to be notified to police, for example. When these changes are introduced, I expect lots of PPU will not even be aware of it. It will take a while for the news to filter down to the frontline, then there will be further delays while they inform all the people they are managing.

So plenty of people will be in breach and will not know they have broken the law until they notify the police about something and the officer says, you should have told us about that a week ago. Hopefully they will apply common sense and let it go, the first time, but I predict this bill will inevitably lead to a lot more work for the police, because there will be so many more notifications that they have to deal with.

So is this in effect now? If it is how would any SO know of these changes if they didnt come on this forum and not on probation. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-bill-2025-factsheets/crime-and-policing-bill-management-of-offenders-factsheet

Not exactly closing the loopholes, just making them a bit smaller. You will only be able to go on holiday for 4 days at a time in future, not 6. Stupid really, as anyone who is gaming the system can carry on gaming it, and only innocent people will be caught out.

Name changes have to be notified 7 days in advance, not within 3 days of the change taking place. Again, will only hurt innocent people who forget, not the so called 'predators'. It is not a total ban on SO changing their names, despite what the media are saying!  Could be interesting as they intend to include online aliases and email address and phone numbers specifically for the first time.

Big one is notifying police in advance before going to any private residence where a child might reasonably be forseen to be present. In other words, SO have to be clairvoyants and predict where children are going to be.