+x+xThanks, yes you're right, it's only them mentioning an SHPO on my SOR refusal letter for the first time ever that makes me think they're planning an SHPO.
Would be interested to know for my own benefit where browsing history is stored so I know what to backup if/when it happens.
I use Windows 10 and Edge browser.
So you can't get off the SOR if you have an SHPO, but you also can't get off it if you don't have one. Sure, they can say that you haven't had the same level of supervision, but they've had all that time to consider applying for an SHPO but didn't do it. Why would they start now? After all, they've been doing risk assessments for all these years, so why would your risk level have increased to a level where they think they actually need one? Or are they just trying to bully you? Either way, in the criminal justice system, hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
What's happened here, is that they have made a decision based on incomplete information. The officer who refused the application to come off he SOR is more senior to the one who does the visits. They have to rely on the notes on the system, because they have never met the person whose application they are assessing.
They have obviously seen one note about the use of online forums and taken it out of context. They have probably assumed that this person spends every day on multiple online forums and therefore an SHPO is required so that the PPU can monitor the conversations that they imagine are taking place on these forums. But clearly the visiting officer is totally unconcerned about the forum. We know that, because not once in 15 years have they bothered to check the devices.
The senior officer has exaggerated the risk and we know that they always apply for an SHPO nowadays, whether its needed or not. It's a way of covering themselves, if something does go wrong.