By Teaspoon - 8 Jul 20 12:33 AM
Hi, I've been lurking for a while and have found this forum to be very useful for information. Sorry I haven't participated sooner - I will certainly endeavour to do so from now on. I have a question for anyone that is an RSO regarding informing the police when you move address.
I'm ashamed to say that I was convicted of an internet-related sexual offence in 2016 (although the offence was in 2013). I spent 2017 in custody and was released in 2018. I completed my license period at the beginning of this year and wish to move forward with my life. After my sentence, I moved back to live with my parents, who have been wonderful throughout this experience. However, I wish to move back to the city where I spent the last 20 years of my life (pre-conviction) as that's where I still have a lot of good friends who have been very supportive, despite my behaviour in 2013. Simply put, I wouldn't have made it through this without them!
I contacted my previous landlord to see if he had any flats available, and it turns out he does have a couple, in the area that I lived for 10 years. He is unaware of my conviction; only that I left his property due to a personal crisis. Although I'm not on license, I thought it best to inform PPU of the plan and ask if the address was ok. I have always been compliant with PPU since my release and I received a glowing final report from my probation officer upon completion of my license. My risk was reduced accordingly and I continue to do everything I can to reduce it further. Anyway, PPU forwarded the details to the Police force in the area that I wish to move to. After waiting 2 weeks, I finally got a response that they had said no. The reason being that the address was in close proximity (about 1/2km) to a school. Just to be clear, my prior offence had nothing to do with schools. I asked about another address and the response was the same. The problem is, most places will be in the general vicinity of a school - it's quite difficult to find places that aren't. It would also be more straightforward to stick with properties that my previous landlord owns as I had a good relationship with him and I wouldn't require the usual references and credit checks. His are also the only flats that I've come across that would just about be covered by Housing Benefit. However, all of the properties are around the same area.
This is obviously extremely frustrating. My PPU officer keeps telling me how important it is to find my own place and get some Independence back, as this statistically reduces risk. However, I am being blocked in doing so because of an imaginary risk. I say imaginary because it is not based on my previous offence. I realised that there is no legal requirement to inform the police that I intend to move - I am doing so purely as a courtesy. Nor do I have any restrictions regarding the location of my accommodation on the SHPO. According to the notification requirements, I am only required to inform police within 3 days of moving address. Also, 2 PPU officers have said that really, they can't stop me living anywhere, but it's best not to ruffle any feathers. My question is, what would happen if I just move to an address without telling them first? Especially as they've already disapproved. As far as I can see it, if there are no legal restrictions, then the negative response from the police is only advisory (?) I really don’t want to upset the police as I’m quite happy with the positive relationship I currently have with them (relative to the circumstances), but it seems I may have no choice. Does anyone on the forum have experience in this matter? I can find not a single piece of useful information online about this particular situation. I'm actually regretting asking them in the first place. If I had just moved, I could have claimed ignorance, but wouldn't have been breaking any rules.
If anyone has any advice, I would really appreciate it. I apologise for the lengthy rambling - it's a habit of mine.
Thanks for reading this,
Teaspoon
|
By JASB - 13 Aug 20 12:52 PM
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHi, I've been lurking for a while and have found this forum to be very useful for information. Sorry I haven't participated sooner - I will certainly endeavour to do so from now on. I have a question for anyone that is an RSO regarding informing the police when you move address. I'm ashamed to say that I was convicted of an internet-related sexual offence in 2016 (although the offence was in 2013). I spent 2017 in custody and was released in 2018. I completed my license period at the beginning of this year and wish to move forward with my life. After my sentence, I moved back to live with my parents, who have been wonderful throughout this experience. However, I wish to move back to the city where I spent the last 20 years of my life (pre-conviction) as that's where I still have a lot of good friends who have been very supportive, despite my behaviour in 2013. Simply put, I wouldn't have made it through this without them! I contacted my previous landlord to see if he had any flats available, and it turns out he does have a couple, in the area that I lived for 10 years. He is unaware of my conviction; only that I left his property due to a personal crisis. Although I'm not on license, I thought it best to inform PPU of the plan and ask if the address was ok. I have always been compliant with PPU since my release and I received a glowing final report from my probation officer upon completion of my license. My risk was reduced accordingly and I continue to do everything I can to reduce it further. Anyway, PPU forwarded the details to the Police force in the area that I wish to move to. After waiting 2 weeks, I finally got a response that they had said no. The reason being that the address was in close proximity (about 1/2km) to a school. Just to be clear, my prior offence had nothing to do with schools. I asked about another address and the response was the same. The problem is, most places will be in the general vicinity of a school - it's quite difficult to find places that aren't. It would also be more straightforward to stick with properties that my previous landlord owns as I had a good relationship with him and I wouldn't require the usual references and credit checks. His are also the only flats that I've come across that would just about be covered by Housing Benefit. However, all of the properties are around the same area. This is obviously extremely frustrating. My PPU officer keeps telling me how important it is to find my own place and get some Independence back, as this statistically reduces risk. However, I am being blocked in doing so because of an imaginary risk. I say imaginary because it is not based on my previous offence. I realised that there is no legal requirement to inform the police that I intend to move - I am doing so purely as a courtesy. Nor do I have any restrictions regarding the location of my accommodation on the SHPO. According to the notification requirements, I am only required to inform police within 3 days of moving address. Also, 2 PPU officers have said that really, they can't stop me living anywhere, but it's best not to ruffle any feathers. My question is, what would happen if I just move to an address without telling them first? Especially as they've already disapproved. As far as I can see it, if there are no legal restrictions, then the negative response from the police is only advisory (?) I really don’t want to upset the police as I’m quite happy with the positive relationship I currently have with them (relative to the circumstances), but it seems I may have no choice. Does anyone on the forum have experience in this matter? I can find not a single piece of useful information online about this particular situation. I'm actually regretting asking them in the first place. If I had just moved, I could have claimed ignorance, but wouldn't have been breaking any rules. If anyone has any advice, I would really appreciate it. I apologise for the lengthy rambling - it's a habit of mine. Thanks for reading this, Teaspoon Apologies if i'm being too personal, these are the questions going around in my head: a - what does the SHPO say b - what was your conviction You do have to wonder how many PPUs and how the CPS are putting together SHPOs especially when you consider https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7a360d03e7f57eb094c Sorry for the slow response to this. The SHPO restricts unsupervised contact with girls under 16 and requires me to retain internet history (not that they ever actually check this). The conviction was related to indecent images (making, not producing) 5 years ago. Something that I'm extremely ashamed of, but have spent all the time since doing everything that I can to improve. I've done everything required of me by probation, while on license, and by PPU. I finished my license a few months back and really want to move forward. I don't have a social network in the city I'm currently living in other than my parents. I firmly believe it would be a positive step for me to move back to the city where I lived for 20 years, prior to my conviction, as I have a very strong support network there. I'm desperate to get my own place and start feeling like a responsible adult again. My own PPU believes that this is the next big step in terms of reducing risk.
As it is, Housing Benefit (through UC) would nowhere near cover accommodation where I currently live. The only option would be to move far away to somewhere cheaper and end up being completely isolated. Throughout the entire process, since my arrest (2015), loneliness has been raised as a significant risk factor. So moving somewhere that I have a good support network and social life would significantly reduce an actual risk factor. As it is, the Housing Benefit in the city I wish to move to, does cover modest rents (how Local Housing Rates are calculated is mystery to me).
As an update, my PPU called me yesterday and explained that, although the local PPU where I wish to move say that all the properties I've seen are unsuitable, I am under no obligation to seek permission to live anywhere. She was clearly choosing her words carefully, but strongly hinting that I would be better to just move and notify in the normal way once I'm there. They've made this point every time I've asked to check an address - I don't need to ask permission. She also said that, for her, the usual process is to look at risk factors (such as proximity to schools) once someone has notified of a new address. They then make an assessment based on the details of the case and after the initial interview with the individual. In terms of risk, the proximity to a school thing, is only really an issue if the individual has a history of approaching people at schools and has moved into a house that is next door to one (apparently this does happen). Even then, they would just monitor the situation more closely in the initial months.
I've got to consider the possibility that the local PPU have just looked at the addresses through the lens of me being a generic SO, without looking at the details of the case. I've also got to weigh up the imaginary risk (not based on previous behaviour) of the proximity to schools against the actual identified risk factor (loneliness). Objectively, the reduction of actual risk has to trump the imaginary risk. I say this as someone who has spent many years assessing risk in relation to hazardous materials.
After weighing up all of the above and discussing it with the people that I trust and care about, I've decided to go for one of the flats. If I don't do it, then I will just end up being stuck in my current location for many more years and spiralling into a pit of loneliness and depression. I am both excited and apprehensive at the same time. It may be that the local PPU are fine and there are no problems. But I now have all of these ideas going through my head in terms of what action they could take, if they were unhappy. Increasing risk is the obvious one. While I would find that demoralising, I would cope and continue to demonstrate that I'm not a risk. But could they do something such as seek an amendment to my SHPO that prevents me being within a certain distance of schools, thereby making it illegal for me to live in my home? (I would certainly hope that they can't legally do something like that and make someone homeless). Or, could they inform the landlord of my conviction, in the hope that he then evicts me? I can't see a reason for them needing to inform the landlord, as there are no families in the property, or in the area generally. But again, I just don't know.
It's quite upsetting that something that most people take for granted, such as moving to a new home, feels so risky and stressful as a result. Either way, I will be moving in a month's time. I will update this forum with what happens. I think I'll only feel a bit more relaxed, once I've had the initial interview with the local PPU and can gauge their feelings on the matter. Let's just hope I don't get one of the nasty ones!
Teaspoon
Sounds like the right decision, to me. PPU should not be able to change your SHPO without some actual evidence of an increased risk. If they do turn out to be difficult, at least you will have that support network around you, to help. Good Luck! Thanks punter99. I'm hoping the SHPO amendment thing is just me being paranoid (as we're all familiar with). They could of course argue that my risk has increased by moving to an area in close proximity to schools. Let's hope that's not the case. I'm planning on drafting a letter to detail the decision making process I've been through. I know I tend to ramble on when I'm nervous (which I will be), so putting things down on paper seems a sensible thing to do. Then I can point out the real risk factors that have been identified in the in the past (loneliness) and how the move will reduce this. Furthermore, I have consulted with many people that I trust about the situation and made an informed decision based predominately on risk-reduction. Also, when relying on Housing Benefit, there's not many places in the country that can be covered by the Local Housing Rate. As it is, I've found somewhere that is not only covered by HB, but is in an area that has the strongest possible support network. I doubt that the local PPU will be aware of any of these details yet. By printing a letter, I can have it ready on the first visit, if they bring it up. That way, if they don't bring up any concerns, I don't have to give it to them. I hope that it would demonstrate how seriously I take my own risk-management and how much careful consideration I give to big, life decisions. The apprehension is killing me though. I think I'll initially only move a minimal amount of stuff into the new flat, until I've had the first interview and can relax a bit. Teaspoon Hi Teaspoon, From a personal perspective - your offence was internet based and not a contact offence so provided your SHPO has no specific stipulations regarding your accommodation you are free to move where you like. You have a valid reason for wanting to move and any sensible PPU officer will recognize that the move will help to reduce your risk for the reasons you have outlined. I have been there with the apprehension and anxiety, go for a walk and when you get back in have a cuppa and a biscuit. Hope this helps Eddy Hi Eddy, Can I suggest that the offence not being a "contact" offence is irrelevant. It is how the offender is perceived, the reasons for the relocation and to be honest any possible reaction by society etc etc. Last year there was a case of a SO buying a house close to a "victim" for the purposes of renovating it. Though he stayed there overnight and registered it appropriately, it was not his registered home address. The Police did not have the powers to stop him no matter the outcrys from the "victim", media or society. Hi JASB, Yes I agree the nature of the offence is irrelevant, it is the terms of the SHPO and PPU's perception of your risk that matter. Apologies if my opening statement appeared a bit flippant, I certainly don't mean to dismiss internet based offences vs. contact offences, both create victims. The case you outlined sounds crazy, whilst I feel that the guy should be allowed to get on with his life and buy / renovate the house which he has registered by the book I think he was also unwise in his choice of location. There is of course a common sense balance to be struck. Eddy Hi Agree with your words. If memory serves me well his defence said he had a right to purchase a property wherever he wanted. He was not going to make it his permanent residence and could not afford to pay others to do the renovation. It may appear to be sympathetic or in some eyes immoral but he was not breaking the law. In the end I think the media was using it to generate anger from the public as news about SOs always sells, and to them, any suffering the victim felt was used to enhance the public feelings. Therefore in my opinion as we do not know all the in and outs of the case I have sympathy for both sides. I also have sympathy for both sides, but I remember something that was often discussed in prison - the Daily Mail Effect. What would happen if they found out about whatever it was? It's worth bearing in mind if you're not sure about doing something that is perfectly legal but could be seen as controversial. Sometimes, standing up for yourself can be more trouble than it's worth. Hi Sometimes, standing up for yourself can be more trouble than it's worth.
I agree with the sentiment however, I often decide that defending what is right; especially on a personal aspect, is the correct option else where does the degrading of a person stop. Like medicine, the symptoms for the majority we take it for could possibly disappear by nature taking its course. However there are times the quality of life is degraded so much, you take it in the hope of improvement else if you follow nature's course it is only resolved with your death, and possibly not then for your family and friends. I can never understand why the "Sun" is so popular inside as that paper does more harm on so little evidence than any other in my opinion. I remember back in circa 2012 that paper reporting on a man taking photos of females in various positions unknown to them. The guy was humiliated etc and it even asked for information from people who knew him. You turn the page and what do you see, a picture of a female celebrity on a beach struggling to hold a towel around her whilst she changed her clothing, and you could see her panties she was struggling with. The words they used to describe the scenario were probably similar to the guy in the previous report but, that paper thought their actions were justified in the name of public interest. Wasn't this the same paper that had a countdown and celebration for when Charlotte Church became 16 and "legal"? Yes, well spotted. Charlotte Church has been quite clear about the effect that had on her mental health then and since. Still, the tabloids all agree on one thing - "Don't do as we do, do as we say". They also have a different definition of the public interest: Is this something that would interest the public? French and Saunders also did an excellent parody of the attitudes of Sun readers to Page 3, if you can find it. Hi Your memory about Charlotte is something I had forgot about but Sam Fox I remember well due to my youth then and the anticipation from everyone I worked with - both male and female. I don't remember the Sam Fox case, but I do remember Charlotte Church discussing it in a TV interview. Hi I think i am showing my age. In comparison of the 2 though, in the recent documentaries about Page 3, Sam Fox still says she has no regrets about "HER" life's choices and objects to the thought of any damage being done. It's up to the individual. Sam Fox was putting herself in the public gaze and monetising her looks, and bought in to the hype. Charlotte Church was a singer who was monetising her voice but being judged on her looks. She didn't want all the other hype, and countless women and girls across the country are still subjected to this on a daily basis, regardless of whether they have reached the age of consent. The sort of pictures of Sam Fox in her page 3 days would be considered as an indecent image, and with the aggravating factor that she was paid, others paid for the paper, and her name was used in conjunction with the images. Although mitigating factor is that it was all perfectly legal at the time, and she was on the older end of what is illegal today. But we know fine well there are other images which were legal when taken which are prosecuted for downloading today, possibly of the same age as Fox. I doubt that she is in the police database though, I get the impression if the image is of a celebrity, and well distributed it is considered less serious than an unknown person, presumably because it would open too many people to investigation - but maybe I am wrong. Was Sam Fox groomed by the Sun, and is everyone who paid for that paper responsible for "creating a market"? How about those who have held on to back copies of the paper today. I would assume that the images of Sam Fox are the less serious images out there of category C, but in truth very few people will actually know that. Only descriptions of a few example images are usually given. Anyway, there is a big level of hypocrisy of the Sun who produced and profited out of these images compared to their reporting of people who played a much lower part in this industry. You could argue that things were different then, which is fair enough p but maybe it would be sensible for the Sun to acknowledge in every article they write on the topic how they made such content "acceptable". You could argue that things were different then, but the market for those pictures existed then and still exists today. There is no doubt that anyone who paid for a copy of the Sun helped to create a demand for more of those pictures. But by stretching the argument further, you could argue that anyone who possessed, or read, a copy, whether they paid for it or not, was also guilty of creating a demand. The argument as to whether anyone who still possesses a copy today would be charged today, has not been tested in court. But what was interesting is that the pictures were still considered suitable for broadcast on TV today, albeit in a partially redacted form. Could anyone who watched that programme be accused of creating a market?
Hi
make an interesting case for "historical sex offences"
Could anyone who watched that programme be accused of creating a market?
we have spoke before on this and it can be said that viewers do "create / support" the market. There is a difference between the two words but in essence you could say in certain circumstances the linkage is the age of the individual in the victim.
|
|