By xDanx - 17 Sep 22 10:50 PM
I have been wondering this for a long while now and figured it might be good to discuss it further.
Are you legally required to inform a gym or even other places like cinemas, gigs of your convictions?
My old PPU once stated that anything I do outside I MUST disclose my conviction to the one in charge, I applied to attend this local place some years ago to do some DIY which only allowed 19+ yet I was still forced by my PPU to disclose my conviction. And so he him self could check the place out. I spoke to the owner directly and he seemed pretty relaxed with me being there but I still felt uneasy going, I eventually stopped going all together. I am looking at possibly joining up with a local gym as it would help me massively getting me out more but my PPU keep telling me that I MUST disclose. I have googled around and so far I have found nothing which legally tells me I 1, have to disclose to owner to gym or any other such place. 2, I do not have to inform the PPU I have even joined a gym or my where abouts unless of course.... as per the notification requirements someone under 18 resides where I will be present for a period of 12 hours or more.
Thoughts?
|
By JASB - 29 Dec 22 1:56 PM
+x+x+xI know what you're saying but the "might be appropriate to consider disclosure" is the crux of the problem. Even if I didn't have my SHPO, my ppu still says the company's "terms and conditions" is an argument for disclosure. My legal rep says this is wrong but it doesn't stop the ppu trying it on. This is where it becomes slightly unrealistic because when she's putting in her phone calls and asks: "Hi, do you allow..." their response is always going to be no and that’s what she’ll relay to me. So without being deemed a trouble-maker, in the same breath, you have to ask the question: "What are you going to arrest me for?" because if it isn't breach of SHPO, they're going to have to have reasonable grounds to arrest you for something. This is why I've gone to my gigs even if they've said not to, they said I should come off social media and I didn't... and oh look, no arrest... because I've done nothing wrong and no disclosure was made either. The same would go for supermarkets etc they can't arrest you if you've done nothing wrong. It'll always be a case of self-awareness of your situation and picking your fights. Hi In essence I agree with your thoughts and believe we should pursue a life that is of a quality to a person. However it must be recognised that the "system" never really looses, so though they may not arrest you, how do you know that your "record" is not used as a tool against you? As mentioned before when I asked "who checks the data entries are correct?" As i have mentioned many times I discovered my ppu officer had twice emailed a positive statement to me but in-between those emails had written the complete opposite on my ViSor record which is affecting me now even though they apologized. I hate to call it a game but once convicted our lives are forced into a game of "strategy" in the hope we may succeed in getting a quality of life. Hi, interesting to see you'd challenged the data on the ViSor system. Who did you complain to...PPU or the Data Protection Team. The ICO states that there should be a dispute mechanism about the disputed data particularly where it involves data that is "inaccurate, unfair, and inadequate". As I find the PSD biased I'm wondering whether I should deal with the DPT... After a running battle from the start with a malicious PPU officer, I finally got her replaced and at same time obtained a copy of all her Home Visit reports. Well, i'd like to say i was shocked but i wasn't. The College of Policing states that "all necesary information" is recorded. on home visits. For me I found many statements that were inaccurate, skewed, inadequate for clarity and even fabricated not to mention no positive aspects that I'd told her about that should have been recorded. Oh and of course nothing down about certain unlawful behaviour of hers (the subject of a current complaint/IOPC review) or the genuine reason that I have felt compelled to record her visits on a number of occasions (they really don't like being recorded do they - strange that isn't it..)
Hi
My situation is rather unique; as far as I know may only be a couple of others included in this scenario so I would be interested in yours as it is all down to the "Relevant date" that defines the start date of the SOR initial registration.
I started with Unlock helpline (Debbie is a star") The issue is that many authorities take a different view of interpretation. That is the challenge.
I have emails from the Home Office Sex Offender management team supporting me, then they won't respond to further questions from me and interesting the areas Force Solicitor as well!
The college of Policing confirmed in writing I was correct but after being approached by the areas Force Solicitor, stated they had not understood all the facts so went against me. They refused to tell me what the "unknown facts" were as I have been 100% informative.
The ViSor quote references to the 2003 Act, and then the Pt1 guidance of the Act which does support their thoughts. However both of those documents show references to the Pt2 guidance which provides an explicit scenario that meets my own - female age and sentencing delay - that overrides the elements they state and so supports my case.
I attempted to go via a solicitor who had previously helped on removing certain SOPO conditions but they; in the same manner as ViSOR, refuse to acknowledge the Pt2. I believe because not many are aware of this and probably other reasons as well.
The Courts will not discuss it with me and say to get "legal advice"!
|
|