By hurrdedurr - 7 Nov 18 7:59 PM
I must say that this post concerns me too.
The bottom line, everyone who is on the SOR has been through a justice procedure and an attempt to run will cause your PPO to almost certainly raise your risk levels and then actually minimise the freedom that you so desperately seek.
A desire to 'start again' once the notification requirements as well can be understood, especially if your details were published in the local news and life has become difficult. But you can start again in the UK. My husband is still under notifications and with a lot of help from external agencies and support workers he is holding down a job, rebuilding our relationship, developing friendships again and, most importantly, accepting of the offence that was committed and committed to never becoming involved in any kind of activity that would lead him to get into any kind of trouble with the law. Even down to paying for 5p carrier bags :-)
Lucy Faithful Foundation were instrumental in support for both he and myself if you are finding yourself feeling like you may reoffend.
If it is a case of wanting to 'start again', think about what moving away would give you versus staying put. Often running away doesn't solve things, merely kicks the can down the road. Remove the SO from the equation and I would still offer that same advice. It's actually no different to the advice I would offer to an underage runaway too. Work with people to change the things that you hate, and learn the art of acceptance. It sucks, but I promise it will change your outlook.
Wishing you all the best and whilst I am concerned about your post I do wonder if maybe it wasn't quite taken in the light that was intended - equally, if it was in the light that it has been perceived, then please know that in the long term your life can return. It'll never be the same, but you can build a new life for yourself.
Good luck, and stay on the right side of the law. I'm sure no one wants to go through the hell of arrest, bail, trial ever again, whether it was us as family members or you as the people with the convictions.
|
By Zack - 10 Nov 18 1:25 PM
+xI must say that this post concerns me too. The bottom line, everyone who is on the SOR has been through a justice procedure and an attempt to run will cause your PPO to almost certainly raise your risk levels and then actually minimise the freedom that you so desperately seek. A desire to 'start again' once the notification requirements as well can be understood, especially if your details were published in the local news and life has become difficult. But you can start again in the UK. My husband is still under notifications and with a lot of help from external agencies and support workers he is holding down a job, rebuilding our relationship, developing friendships again and, most importantly, accepting of the offence that was committed and committed to never becoming involved in any kind of activity that would lead him to get into any kind of trouble with the law. Even down to paying for 5p carrier bags :-) Lucy Faithful Foundation were instrumental in support for both he and myself if you are finding yourself feeling like you may reoffend. If it is a case of wanting to 'start again', think about what moving away would give you versus staying put. Often running away doesn't solve things, merely kicks the can down the road. Remove the SO from the equation and I would still offer that same advice. It's actually no different to the advice I would offer to an underage runaway too. Work with people to change the things that you hate, and learn the art of acceptance. It sucks, but I promise it will change your outlook. Wishing you all the best and whilst I am concerned about your post I do wonder if maybe it wasn't quite taken in the light that was intended - equally, if it was in the light that it has been perceived, then please know that in the long term your life can return. It'll never be the same, but you can build a new life for yourself. Good luck, and stay on the right side of the law. I'm sure no one wants to go through the hell of arrest, bail, trial ever again, whether it was us as family members or you as the people with the convictions.
To be fair I do think the SOR is overused, and seems to automatically applied according to the offense and the length of offense, rather than based on the individual needs. There was a ruling some time ago about SHPOs. It found that it must be proportionate and not oppressive and it must tailor the facts of the offences to which it attaches. It does make me think if this should be extended to SOR too. Someone convicted of a downloading offence shouldn't really need to have to notify about travel etc, as this wasn't relevant to the original offence. I as the partner of someone on the SOR, shoudln't have my car registration inputted into their systems, or my details fed into whatever database they use when I travel with him overseas.
|
By AB2014 - 13 Nov 18 9:42 AM
+x+xI must say that this post concerns me too. The bottom line, everyone who is on the SOR has been through a justice procedure and an attempt to run will cause your PPO to almost certainly raise your risk levels and then actually minimise the freedom that you so desperately seek. A desire to 'start again' once the notification requirements as well can be understood, especially if your details were published in the local news and life has become difficult. But you can start again in the UK. My husband is still under notifications and with a lot of help from external agencies and support workers he is holding down a job, rebuilding our relationship, developing friendships again and, most importantly, accepting of the offence that was committed and committed to never becoming involved in any kind of activity that would lead him to get into any kind of trouble with the law. Even down to paying for 5p carrier bags :-) Lucy Faithful Foundation were instrumental in support for both he and myself if you are finding yourself feeling like you may reoffend. If it is a case of wanting to 'start again', think about what moving away would give you versus staying put. Often running away doesn't solve things, merely kicks the can down the road. Remove the SO from the equation and I would still offer that same advice. It's actually no different to the advice I would offer to an underage runaway too. Work with people to change the things that you hate, and learn the art of acceptance. It sucks, but I promise it will change your outlook. Wishing you all the best and whilst I am concerned about your post I do wonder if maybe it wasn't quite taken in the light that was intended - equally, if it was in the light that it has been perceived, then please know that in the long term your life can return. It'll never be the same, but you can build a new life for yourself. Good luck, and stay on the right side of the law. I'm sure no one wants to go through the hell of arrest, bail, trial ever again, whether it was us as family members or you as the people with the convictions. To be fair I do think the SOR is overused, and seems to automatically applied according to the offense and the length of offense, rather than based on the individual needs. There was a ruling some time ago about SHPOs. It found that it must be proportionate and not oppressive and it must tailor the facts of the offences to which it attaches. It does make me think if this should be extended to SOR too. Someone convicted of a downloading offence shouldn't really need to have to notify about travel etc, as this wasn't relevant to the original offence. I as the partner of someone on the SOR, shoudln't have my car registration inputted into their systems, or my details fed into whatever database they use when I travel with him overseas.
I think we all realise that in some cases the SOR is used just because it's there. The length of the registration period is decided by the sentence imposed (or the fact that it was a caution). Unlock has information about that on their website here. That is probably based on the assumption that the punishment fits the crime, whether or not it actually does. The requirements and restrictions should only apply to the person on the SOR, so your passport details shouldn't be input. They do ask for details of any car that the registered person uses, but obviously they have no way of knowing who else might be using it at any time, so I don't see how the information can be helpful to the police where a car is shared, for example. The words "sledgehammer" and "walnut" come to mind, but that does seem to be what the government/police/media want when it comes to sexual offences.
|
By Zack - 13 Nov 18 8:40 PM
+x+x+xI must say that this post concerns me too. The bottom line, everyone who is on the SOR has been through a justice procedure and an attempt to run will cause your PPO to almost certainly raise your risk levels and then actually minimise the freedom that you so desperately seek. A desire to 'start again' once the notification requirements as well can be understood, especially if your details were published in the local news and life has become difficult. But you can start again in the UK. My husband is still under notifications and with a lot of help from external agencies and support workers he is holding down a job, rebuilding our relationship, developing friendships again and, most importantly, accepting of the offence that was committed and committed to never becoming involved in any kind of activity that would lead him to get into any kind of trouble with the law. Even down to paying for 5p carrier bags :-) Lucy Faithful Foundation were instrumental in support for both he and myself if you are finding yourself feeling like you may reoffend. If it is a case of wanting to 'start again', think about what moving away would give you versus staying put. Often running away doesn't solve things, merely kicks the can down the road. Remove the SO from the equation and I would still offer that same advice. It's actually no different to the advice I would offer to an underage runaway too. Work with people to change the things that you hate, and learn the art of acceptance. It sucks, but I promise it will change your outlook. Wishing you all the best and whilst I am concerned about your post I do wonder if maybe it wasn't quite taken in the light that was intended - equally, if it was in the light that it has been perceived, then please know that in the long term your life can return. It'll never be the same, but you can build a new life for yourself. Good luck, and stay on the right side of the law. I'm sure no one wants to go through the hell of arrest, bail, trial ever again, whether it was us as family members or you as the people with the convictions. To be fair I do think the SOR is overused, and seems to automatically applied according to the offense and the length of offense, rather than based on the individual needs. There was a ruling some time ago about SHPOs. It found that it must be proportionate and not oppressive and it must tailor the facts of the offences to which it attaches. It does make me think if this should be extended to SOR too. Someone convicted of a downloading offence shouldn't really need to have to notify about travel etc, as this wasn't relevant to the original offence. I as the partner of someone on the SOR, shoudln't have my car registration inputted into their systems, or my details fed into whatever database they use when I travel with him overseas. I think we all realise that in some cases the SOR is used just because it's there. The length of the registration period is decided by the sentence imposed (or the fact that it was a caution). Unlock has information about that on their website here. That is probably based on the assumption that the punishment fits the crime, whether or not it actually does. The requirements and restrictions should only apply to the person on the SOR, so your passport details shouldn't be input. They do ask for details of any car that the registered person uses, but obviously they have no way of knowing who else might be using it at any time, so I don't see how the information can be helpful to the police where a car is shared, for example. The words "sledgehammer" and "walnut" come to mind, but that does seem to be what the government/police/media want when it comes to sexual offences.
Agree, but the "discreet" check at the border does state that they can report who he is travelling with the target. Whether they do I wouldn't know.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/schengen-information-system/#discreet-check-information
They are only supposed to use such if "there is a clear indication that a person intends to commit or is committing a serious criminal offence" or "they assess a person, in particular regarding their past criminal offences, and believe that the person will commit serious criminal offences in the future."
AFAIK it seems to be that anyone who reports they are going to travel overseas gets one of these alerts if they are on the SOR. If they risk assess someone as low risk should that really be enough justification?
|
By BenS - 14 Nov 18 12:12 PM
+xAgree, but the "discreet" check at the border does state that they can report who he is travelling with the target. Whether they do I wouldn't know. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/schengen-information-system/#discreet-check-information They are only supposed to use such if "there is a clear indication that a person intends to commit or is committing a serious criminal offence" or "they assess a person, in particular regarding their past criminal offences, and believe that the person will commit serious criminal offences in the future." AFAIK it seems to be that anyone who reports they are going to travel overseas gets one of these alerts if they are on the SOR. If they risk assess someone as low risk should that really be enough justification?
Elsewhere in that same document, it is stated that all SOR people notifying foreign travel are to have an alert on them for a discreet check.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/schengen-information-system/#the-use-of-article-362-alerts-for-visor-nominals
The police have no discretion on this - even if they deem you low risk, they must add an alert if you notify foreign travel.
And I agree with the quotation marks in "discreet". Sometimes in my experience it has been extremely indiscreet.
|
By Outsourced - 14 Nov 18 8:30 PM
VISOR is a huge data set that is fed each and every interaction with RSO's.
What you think is unimportant is the very opposite to the system.
Ie. Car reg, on its own not worthy information. Now take the data of all area RSO and overlay the ANPR hits. Now you can see the regular trips and hangout
So now overlay the big data of all travellers and you see resorts and hotel's.
Basically the notification system saves intelligence officers time and effort doing this the hard way. Now you know why the police fail to solve most crime. Burglars and drug offenders dont need to notify anything.
Also 99% of police work is by a policy or process, there is seldom freedom of authority or decision making. They like to think they do, but they are just foot soldiers with better pay and pensions.
|
By AB2014 - 15 Nov 18 9:20 AM
Yes, well, obviously foreign border control staff didn't get the memo and update from the College of Policing.... As discouraging as things are over here, they could still be worse. As for the discreet check, it even mentions objects the subject of the alert is carrying. What - a cheese sandwich? A cup of coffee? A passport? What if they quickly pass the sandwich to someone else to try to avoid detection? Where does this petty invasiveness end?
|
By Zack - 17 Nov 18 6:45 PM
"Elsewhere in that same document, it is stated that all SOR people notifying foreign travel are to have an alert on them for a discreet check." Ben I know, but the bits I quoted: e.g. "there is a clear indication that a person intends to commit or is committing a serious criminal offence" or "they assess a person, in particular regarding their past criminal offences, and believe that the person will commit serious criminal offences in the future.". These are the EU rules they are supposed to be following, I think they are misusing their powers by automatically using these alerts, it's not just a case that the UK authorities can use EU systems without following EU regulations: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007D0533
I guess it would have to be tested in court in order for them to change their ways.
|
By BenS - 19 Nov 18 7:38 AM
+x"Elsewhere in that same document, it is stated that all SOR people notifying foreign travel are to have an alert on them for a discreet check." Ben I know, but the bits I quoted: e.g. "there is a clear indication that a person intends to commit or is committing a serious criminal offence" or "they assess a person, in particular regarding their past criminal offences, and believe that the person will commit serious criminal offences in the future.". These are the EU rules they are supposed to be following, I think they are misusing their powers by automatically using these alerts, it's not just a case that the UK authorities can use EU systems without following EU regulations: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007D0533 I guess it would have to be tested in court in order for them to change their ways.
Sorry about that Zack, yes I see your point.
Sadly the UK has long broken EU law in certain matters without a care in the world and without the EU taking any action on it.
For example, a non-EU spouse of an EU citizen who has a valid visa in their EU country of residence has the right to freedom of movement everywhere in the EU, i.e. they can travel to all other EU countries (Schengen and non-Schengen) with no further paperwork, landing card, etc. required. I have a French friend who lives in France with his Peruvian wife and when they visit the UK, she needs a UK visa, in direct opposition to EU law, whereby she should enjoy freedom of movement as a spouse of an EU citizen legally residing in the EU. Last time, following the Home Office visa guidelines, she got all her documents translated into Welsh (as the choice is English or Welsh), just to annoy the Border Force who couldn't care less about the law.
|
By Harmless - 13 Oct 18 5:30 PM
Does anyone know any good uses for Ireland?
I remember when I was in prison, a lot of SOs were saying they were planning to tell the cops they'd moved to Ireland (and then still live in England), so they wouldn't be bothered, and if evidence came to light that they were still living in England (e.g ATM activity), they'd put it down to an excursion to England lasting fewer than 3 days.
I wonder how they got on!
That's all illegal. But still, there is a huge swathe of our English-speaking archipelago where you're immune to the sex register, so why don't more people go there, or find ways to take advantage of it?
This thought came to me when I was on holiday in Germany for the first time since my conviction, fully aware I could go where I pleased and do what I pleased, but that restrictions would kick in again when I got back home. Then I realised I have my own little "Germany" right on my doorstep.
Isn't there a mismatch between the police's automatic unwillingness to (for example) let a child rapist live with a child in Britain, and their perfect willingness to let them go abroad and endanger foreign children? A hot potato ethic (rather than a child protection ethic) is revealed in policies like this.
Like consolidating your debts into one monthly payment, I'm thinking I'd rather just trade my sex register punishment for a normal life in Ireland, somewhere near the border.
Best of both worlds.
Ireland is also convenient when experimenting with travel to the US, as the US customs there are on Irish soil so no dealing with the infamous American border agencies.
And there's a lot of will in the Brexit process to keep the border intangible.
|
By ScaredyCat - 12 Mar 19 4:00 PM
And whatever you do don't travel without notifying, you will find there is a "marker" on your passport that shows up when you come back into UK
|
|