theForum » Volunteering » Criminal record checks for voluntary roles » Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

30sell — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:35:29 GMT

As an ex-offender I have had the opportunity to help the community by paying back through volunteering for charity, retail outlets. These as we know are non-profit making organisations, however they seem to have a varied approach to the recruitment policy and risk assessment of ex-offenders (if they even bother!). What I think needs discussing is that for certain individuals volunteering in this field is, for some, the best way to re-integrate and overcome the usual post-release depression and anxiety. I would like to collate people's experiences and write a piece for theRecord. For an example I have an ex-offender acquaintance who had been volunteering for a charity retail outlet; risen to the dizzy heights of key holder/relief manager; completed 18 months of said same blemish free and then was black balled as the charity suddenly altered their recruitment & retention policy making the unblemished record worthless even with the support of their ex-offender manager (who wrote to the CEO!)and their explanation of the word 'rehabilitation'. It destroyed my acquaintance and their belief of the existence of an understanding society.

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 17:35:29 GMT

[quote]

[b]Diogenese - 28 Feb 20 2:54 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]30sell - 28 Jan 20 10:00 PM[/b]

[/quote]

I have two experiences in this regard. The first was in applying for a paid position with that poppy dependant organisation, the Royal British Legion. Having seen the hundreds of thousands of poppies produced and assembled at HMP Ford, I thought the organisation would have an open minded policy on hiring ex-offenders - not so. When I disclosed, they turned me down flat because of the criminal record - nice.

The second was with the British Heart Foundation, the local outlet were looking for volunteers to handle the phone and book collections and other admin type stuff. The chap was interested until I told him that I was an ex-offender. He had no hesitation in saying that I could not volunteer there, even in a behind-the-scenes capacity.

Everyone is 'understanding' until it comes time for them to step up and put their money where their mouth is - then you see their true colours.

[/quote]

Hi
I liked you post as fully agree with the comments. I may of said earlier but on my - once a year - last PPU visit I was asked why I did not do voluntary work? They then insinuated I was wrong when I said " I do not wish to argue BUT in my experience, organisations will not take on ex-offenders and especially those of a sex offence.
I am still wondering if the Heart foundation will still my heart donation when that time comes around! lol

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Dean91 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:20:32 GMT

It sounds very much so the British Legion are happy for prisoners to undertake the labour to assemble but not allow an ex-offender an opportunity otherwise. Nothing screams hypocrisy as much as that.

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Diogenese — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:54:47 GMT

[quote]

[b]30sell - 28 Jan 20 10:00 PM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:49:33 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 22 Feb 20 11:18 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 21 Feb 20 5:57 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 21 Feb 20 9:45 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 20 Feb 20 2:14 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 20 Feb 20 10:51 AM[/b]

Lots to take in there. A few thoughts:

a) Guilt by association. This already happens, especially in the minds of politicians and the media, although that couldn't be the basis for a criminal prosecution, e.g. charging someone with sexual assault because they were caught in possession of images of that assault. If only some of the supporters in a football stand are singing an offensive song, would you still prosecute everyone in the stand?

b) Self generated images; kids in their bedrooms, with a webcam, and not a clue who is on the other end of that webcam. They account for 36% of the total number of images out there. It's true that a lot of them were coerced into doing things for the benefit of the person watching, but it is another part of the problem that can't be explained by the traditional demand/supply model.
Then there is sexting and teenagers putting images of friends or themselves out there via social media, that get picked up by others and then traded or handed on. Those images were not 'demanded' just because somebody acquired them later on.

c) Prevention/rehab etc - Lucy Faithful has outlined their own strategy for treating this as a public health issue, not a crime problem. - see link https://ecsa.lucyfaithfull.org/theory

d) "Someone may want what another made for themselves in isolation" - true, but it only becomes a demand, if and when that want is communicated to the supplier

e) "Humans need to be recognised and/or admired",- what's being described is a need for status - which is acknowledged as a motive for people who share files online, eg. music and movies, but how is that status enhanced by someone else acquiring what they share and is that the same as creating demand?

f) "the viewer may not recognise that fact and overtime adjust their personal controls to accept it as normal and commit an offence." yes, normalisation and desensitisation could increase a want or need for more images but it doesn't create demand unless that want is communicated to a supplier.

g) therapy - it's true that if someone is receiving therapy in prison and is told their release date will be delayed, if they don't co-operate with the therapy, it will incentivise them to try and appease the interviewer. That doesn't mean all therapy is a waste of time. Some will gain insight and understanding of their behaviour from it and will change. Some won't and will appease.

h) As to the costs of addressing the issues. I've mentioned elsewhere that the numbers being prosecuted for possession goes up every year. There are 58k on the SOR now, compared to just 32k in 2010, with a projected increase of around 7% per year. So, by 2030, it will be above 100k. The courts are overwhelmed already, which is why the NCA and CPS came to an agreement in 2018, to issue more conditional cautions for these offences. That still hasn't happened though. Nevertheless, plenty of people inside the justice system recognise that things have to change. As Chief Constable Simon Bailey, head of child protection in England & Wales said: "we cannot arrest our way out of this problem".

[/quote]

Hi
Therapy:
I am a great believer in therapy but it has to be done / managed by independent organisations. At present the Government do not believe in the success of it else psychological assessments supporting rehabilitation would be used to support removing SOR requirements prior to the 15 year point. This would help support your point about costs.

Also what would you suggest in my case were independent pre-sentence, HMP Whatton, post release Probation Service and finally independent psychological assessments undertaken after coming off licence, have all shown I am low risk and was/are not suitable to undertake ANY type of therapy or treatment courses. As I mentioned before; even the Lucy Faithful organisation did not have a suitable course for me!
Supply / Demand:
You seemed to be solely focused on the "supply" element of images as if to suggest only those found to be "supplying" should be convicted? A point you know I disagree with. I have demonstrated my thoughts that supply can create demand but to repeat myself for the final time, in my opinion - any illegal image has a victim or can / does assist in the of creating one.
Again no offence or trying to upset you but in the end I ask you - "what would you do if you found someone with an illegal image of your child? No matter how they gained it".
No offence but your logic also suggests "entrepreneurs" do not and have never existed and the marketing strategy of the business world does not exist.
Existing laws:
In the end I feel we have to accept that the success of the law is only as good as the barrister using it.
I once read that:
[quote] many good laws have been created in Parliament, it is only the manipulation of a law by a barrister in a Court to win their own case that makes it a controversial law. [/quote]

The Government will always do what is best for them under the guise of "Public Protection". It takes something of greater power to gain support for us and our rights against them: hence why I am sad about leaving the EU and European Human Rights Court.

[/quote]

I've never attempted to defend the abuse shown in the images, or to deny the existence of a victim. I only question the role that a viewer of images played in that abuse. If it were my child in those images, I would reserve most of my anger for the person who committed the abuse, probably 90%, with the rest aimed at the person who created the images of that abuse, who is probably the abuser, and the person who initially uploaded the images of that abuse onto the internet. That person might well be the abuser too.

Without those 3 actions, there would be no images out there for others to possess/view/demand/trade/supply/swap. It is correct to say that a child is harmed in the creation of those images. That child is harmed by the person who created the image. That person must bear the full responsibility for that harm.

If it were possible to show a joint enterprise between the producers of these images and the people who view them, often years later, then why has the law not done that already? Why has some clever lawyer not tried to tie the two together? I suspect it's because they know full well they could never prove such a thing in court.

Of course, I wouldn't want the images to be out there at all, but given that they are out there, I wouldn't waste too much of my outrage on worrying who might, or might not, be looking at them, or what those people might, or might not, be feeling. The damage done to the child has happened by this point. By constantly reminding the child that the images are out there, it probably harms their recovery.

In some ways, those of us who have had our offences published in the papers or online, already deal with the knowledge that people, somewhere in the world, who we don't know, and will probably never meet, are reading about us and making all sorts of judgements about us, saying terrible things about us etc, but I cannot control that, so I do my best not to worry about it, nor do I try to imagine what they might be saying, in order to torment myself even more.

As for the focus on supply. I concentrate on that because, without a supply, a demand cannot go anywhere. It is just a want. If there were a million people demanding these images and nobody was willing or able to supply them, what harm could be done? The fact that demand exists doesn't prove that harm has been caused. It's only when demand is communicated to a supplier and that supplier then agrees to meet the demand, that harm occurs. Demand without supply = no harm. On the other hand, supply without demand does still create harm, as in the case of an abuser who produces images for their own private use.

It strikes me as odd, to say the least, that so much attention is paid to the possessors of images nowadays, while the actions of the abuser, depicted in those images, are hardly even mentioned. It's probably because possession offences are very common and easy to prosecute, that they are in the public mind, while contact offences are hard to prosecute and so get less attention (prosecution rates for rape are at record lows).

As luck would have it, Carissa Byrne Hessick has written an article titled "Questioning the modern focus on possession", which is available here:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/j.ctt1gk08jr.9.pdf

[/quote]

Hi
In ways the following supports your thoughts. The female I paid for sex with also blackmailed me jointly with the female who persuaded her to work the street. However even though I provided the evidence to the blackmail and they knew the ID of the pimp no charges were brought against them or be used to mitigate any sentencing?
On the other hand I and some of her other clients where charged and punished. they even used "joint enterprise" to have nearly all her clients presented to the Court as one. This is even though the CPS and Judge stated no individual actually knew any other!! However it had the effect they desired in the media and allowed the subsequent punishment levels to be imposed. The knock on effect is that PPU's do not read all the offenders file so creates the possibility of my being seen as part of a gang in their eyes and creates constant emotional stress with having to produce legal documents to show I was not.
You may ask how this links with our previous discussion on the creator and viewer of images. Simple in the eye of those viewing me I am seen as committing the same offences as the others presented to the court. As others used/created videos, used drugs, drink etc and I did not, why is it correct for me to be punished the same as the others.
I know that sounds selfish but I am afraid we could spend a life time discussing why no law is in place now, did the chicken come before the egg etc and still not all agree.
Those in power and those desiring power will always want results over substance so until there is a quick way of linking the creator to the viewer there will be no change.
That does not remove the fact there is victims and at all levels individuals have to take the responsibility for there creation.

[/quote]

Forgive me for asking, but were you actually convicted of a joint enterprise offence? It wasn't clear from what you said, if that related to the offence itself, or if it were assumed by the media, or both. As for PPU not reading all the info, I was surprised by what the police wrote and the baseless assumptions they made about my character, in their charge sheet. All part of the game. It's about presenting the strongest case possible when you go to court and if that requires distortion of the facts and character assassination, so be it.

[/quote]

Hi
I agree our conversation on this topic has been worthwhile and varied - just the way I like my discussions to go as it keeps the grey cells active during it. PO and PPU do not seem to like that sort of discussion unless they lead and there is 2 of them. No offence to any of those individuals reading this just being truthful.

Joint enterprise (JE). First I will repeat that I was on bail for 2 years and of that, for 1 year I was waiting sentencing as I pleaded guilty at the Plea Management hearing. Reason why are for another day. However from my arrest I asked when I was to be sentenced. Then some 6 months later when I found out there were other offenders, I constantly asked why I was not being processed singly but could not get any answer. From their perspective, the authorities managed the whole process with one aim - according to the barristers of all the defendants. They held a trial with 2 defendants first then on that's conclusion persuaded the Courts to have all the rest of the defendants processed together to save money. So in theory JE.
This caused issues: (a) with the perception of the offenders - appearing to be a gang - (b) and also by financial charges by the various solicitor firms.
(a) the press reported it this way and as these offenders were "white" and at the time you had the various " other ethnic gangs" hitting the headlines, politically this was made into a Justice System's PR dream come true. Again confusion over JE.
(b) It was not until some 4 years later and after 3 years of complaining about my Legal Aid (LA) bill and other aspects, I discovered my solicitors had billed me as JE which meant I was actually paying some of the costs for those that went to trial even though I didn't. I might write a topic on this to warn others.
The CPS actually assisted me brilliantly by confirming in writing that I was not charged under JE and that created a LA review and subsequent refund. There is a lot more that could be written especially on the way the Solicitors handled my complaints and ignored me once I proved they had made a mistake over JE but that is for another topic.
I hope this answers your last question and look forward to discussing topics over time.

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

punter99 — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 11:18:58 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 21 Feb 20 5:57 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 21 Feb 20 9:45 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 20 Feb 20 2:14 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 20 Feb 20 10:51 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Mr W — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 02:18:19 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 21 Feb 20 5:29 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 21 Feb 20 3:16 AM[/b]

I've learned how to use quotes.

[quote] I say respectfully, blaming the internet for everything that is wrong is not the answer [/quote]
Of course, but my point was that "the internet" is not one thing to its users. I mean it in the sense of we eat food but there isn't anything called 'food' it's doughnuts, apples and bread etc. Different aspects are involved in different parts of one's life. And there are many ways that the 'internet' happens to be the common ground of what leads to ending up in the same bin as the rest of us but with all sorts of different crimes with infinite different reasons/issues. Couple loneliness/feeling of disconnect/unresolved issues with increasing chances of falling down rabbit holes, virtually mixing with like-minded and normalising behaviour through others' actions - I say again, the punishment is absurd. So, for me, an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention and that, at this moment in time, is huge changes to 'the internet'. Now.

[quote] Your (b) point included "education and therapy" which I fully agree is a worthwhile but unfortunately it is an "unsexy" and costly approach.[/quote]
If you prove it works and can shout about its benefits it becomes very sexy and will pay for itself by taking the pressure off so many 'systems'. There will be so many cases of rehabilitation that could be shouted about more, but they don't make news, only failures do. "Society" won't pay that close attention to something like that at the ballot box anyway, it's not a top 3 priority, a few positively spun numbers and a vague guise of 'Rehabilitation For All' on page 36 of the manifesto would do the trick. It'll be like HS2, that's unsexy and costly but that's going ahead and we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere.

[quote] Not to jump but one downside to therapy stated by those who wish a "bullet" on sex offenders, is that any sort of therapy only informs the individual on what to say to appease the interviewer. Also the SOTP course circa 2010 - 2014 where found to increase reoffending by the courts last year.[/quote]
I can't speak for therapy inside as my sentence was suspended but that sounds a shame that people would use therapy just as a means of getting out quicker. I was lucky mine was a friend of a friend and affordable. It cost me money so I was going for me, not because I 'had to'. I grew in confidence through setting goals and I set up meetings with business advisors to help me set up my own business, I was approaching clients, I was helping others with their ideas and said she was really pleased with what I'd done so soon after conviction. I've changed locations and my ppu has undone all that, but I've ranted about that elsewhere. SOTP courses lack that feeling of achievement and have no real accountability afterward. I enjoyed meeting and getting to know the people but that wasn't the point of being there.

[quote] Why is a 15 year period on the SOR required before you can apply to have the requirement removed[/quote]
I know very little about this, excuse my distant memory waffle, but I heard ages ago about it is believed to take up to 15 years for a characteristic to change...? Something to do with maturity, perhaps? So it's easier for courts to say 15 years and be vague rather than saying it takes 5 years for ABC to change and 13 years for XYZ to change. Don't quote me on that, I have nothing to back that up with. Apologies if that's hogwash.

[quote] e) "Humans need to be recognised and/or admired",- what's being described is a need for status - but how is that status enhanced by someone else acquiring what they share and is that the same as creating demand?[/quote]
Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level. It's not uncommon for offenders to ask to see something they've heard about, for example, then for a sharer to then make it available. So I would say that 'service' helps create demand, whether the material is new or not.

[quote] The courts are overwhelmed already, which is why the NCA and CPS came to an agreement in 2018, to issue more conditional cautions for these offences.[/quote]
I'd be interested to hear more about this, I was initially told I would get a caution, but no, ended up a hair's width from being jailed which was not only a huge shock but obviously lead to a much more negative outcome than a caution would have.

[/quote]

Hi
I do understand your points and what you are trying to say but would offer considerations to think on and therefore expand your view:
I believe you are using the word "internet" to encapsulate the various means of communication open to modern day humans and that most do not really understand its dangers - hence scams are always happening.
[quote]an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention[/quote] To be pedantic this should be "education" as that hopefully will allow knowledge to remind an individual the reasons not to do something. The suggestion of prevention has to many dangers: people dislike being told what to do i.e. the "nanny state", you cannot close the internet down and to redesign it; certain countries are attempting to do this already causing concerns. There are many designs to the internet in existence already that the authorities are attempting to monitor, manage with little success - in relation to the scale of it.
Again I suggest "education" is the best approach: proof is to look at yourself before and after your therapy sessions. Prevention has not been used, you have been educated in the manner you are best to use those genetically inherited human instincts. You are not being prevented from using them.
[quote]we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere[/quote]
After my arrest and interview I asked the interviewer "where I could help others understand the dangers of paying for sex". Expecting to be guided to some form of prevention organization I was astonished for the reply to be "talk to your solicitor". Even today; with supported reports from both inside prison and outside organisations recognising my commitment to work with offenders, my PPU says I must prove I will not offend again and cannot say how I can do that. I fully support all efforts to change the perception of ex-offenders - especially sex offenders - by society so I am not dismissive of anyone's manner of thought or process. However the "communication" facilities available now allow "headlines" rather than "substance" to influence the masses, who believe things like "Coronation Street / Love Island" is real life or how we should present ourselves.
[quote]Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level.......[/quote]
I am sorry but I am unsure what you mean here as "sharing" is an important emotion with humans. We all have a need to share with others be that love, support etc. Unfortunately some i.e. Donald Trump, cannot control his "sharing" as it is an important means of showing to others how important he feels he is for example. In the use of the word in various parts of my posts I am trying to demonstrate that their is various methods for creating an unsolicited "demand" by using humans basic instincts / desires.

[quote]15 year .......[/quote]
Your "guess" possibly shows some thoughts that drove the decision to be 15 years but again in the same manner we spoke about "rehabilitation / SOTP courses" everyone is different. My Probation officer actually wrote in his pre-sentence report that his analysis conclusion is I do not fit what is regarded as a "sex-offender" profile. You also have to remember I have had numerous supportive psychological reports which have been disregarded by the authorities as they do not support their aims or the punishment that was given to me.
Therefore my question in ways supports other questions concerning sex offenders and the lack of true understanding on offences, punishments and belief; just as there are different classes of "murder" convictions there should also be for what is classed as a sex offence.

In the end all the readers and contributors here have the same aim, to be recognised as a human being who made a mistake, been punished and wish to re-join society.

[quote]To be pedantic this should be "education" [/quote] Absolutely, I'm not saying this is an 'and/or' situation and why I said 'an answer' as opposed to 'the answer'. If I had all the answers and how to implement them I probably wouldn’t be sat here, haha. But that’s why my option B in my other post talked about prevention/ education/ rehabilitation/ therapy/ opportunities etc. I’d say all are important and much better ways than wretched life-destroying punishment in an unforgiving society.

With my therapy, it wasn't so much educational, for me was tackling 'why' and understanding more about myself, it sounds cliche, but it's true. I'd recommend to anyone but I understand it's tricky to find someone to trust, I was lucky with who I found as it was a friend of a friend.

[quote] My PPU says I must prove I will not offend again and cannot say how I can do that.[/quote] As we've spoken about before, I empathise completely with ppus being impossible and mind games they play. Their role seems to switch from probation-esque (being helpful) to police-esque (not being helpful at all) when they see fit, it's bizarre and frustrating. I don't know if I'm being tested or it's just poor service - I'm on week five of waiting for a response about something.

[quote] Sharing ... [/quote] Apologies, that was in reply to punter99 and the act of sharing material with the argument of creating a demand, I probably wasn't clear enough in my quoting.

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:57:15 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 21 Feb 20 9:45 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 20 Feb 20 2:14 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 20 Feb 20 10:51 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:29:41 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 21 Feb 20 3:16 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Mr W — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:32:55 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 21 Feb 20 10:05 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 21 Feb 20 3:16 AM[/b]

I've learned how to use quotes.

[quote] I say respectfully, blaming the internet for everything that is wrong is not the answer [/quote]
Of course, but my point was that "the internet" is not one thing to its users. I mean it in the sense of we eat food but there isn't anything called 'food' it's doughnuts, apples and bread etc. And there are many ways that the 'internet' happens to be the common ground of what leads to ending up in the same bin as the rest of us but with all sorts of different crimes with infinite different reasons/issues. Couple loneliness/feeling of disconnect/unresolved issues with increasing chances of falling down rabbit holes, virtually mixing with like-minded and normalising behaviour through others' actions - I say again, the punishment is absurd. So, for me, an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention and that, at this moment in time, is huge changes to 'the internet'. Now.

[quote] Your (b) point included "education and therapy" which I fully agree is a worthwhile but unfortunately it is an "unsexy" and costly approach.[/quote]
If you prove it works and can shout about its benefits it becomes very sexy and will pay for itself by taking the pressure off so many 'systems'. There will be so many cases of rehabilitation that could be shouted about more, but they don't make news, only failures do. "Society" won't pay that close attention to something like that at the ballot box anyway, it's not a top 3 priority, a few positively spun numbers and a vague guise of 'Rehabilitation For All' on page 36 of the manifesto would do the trick. It'll be like HS2, that's unsexy and costly but that's going ahead and we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere.

[quote] Not to jump but one downside to therapy stated by those who wish a "bullet" on sex offenders, is that any sort of therapy only informs the individual on what to say to appease the interviewer. Also the SOTP course circa 2010 - 2014 where found to increase reoffending by the courts last year.[/quote]
I can't speak for therapy inside as my sentence was suspended but that sounds a shame that people would use therapy just as a means of getting out quicker. I was lucky mine was a friend of a friend and affordable. It cost me money so I was going for me, not because I 'had to'. I grew in confidence through setting goals and I set up meetings with business advisors to help me set up my own business, I was approaching clients, I was helping others with their ideas and said she was really pleased with what I'd done so soon after conviction. I've changed locations and my ppu has undone all that, but I've ranted about that elsewhere. SOTP courses lack that feeling of achievement and have no real accountability afterward. I enjoyed meeting and getting to know the people but that wasn't the point of being there.

[quote] Why is a 15 year period on the SOR required before you can apply to have the requirement removed[/quote]
I know very little about this, excuse my distant memory waffle, but I heard ages ago about it is believed to take up to 15 years for a characteristic to change...? Something to do with maturity, perhaps? So it's easier for courts to say 15 years and be vague rather than saying it takes 5 years for ABC to change and 13 years for XYZ to change. Don't quote me on that, I have nothing to back that up with. Apologies if that's hogwash.

[quote] e) "Humans need to be recognised and/or admired",- what's being described is a need for status - but how is that status enhanced by someone else acquiring what they share and is that the same as creating demand?[/quote]
Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level. It's not uncommon for offenders to ask to see something they've heard about, for example, then for a sharer to then make it available. So I would say that 'service' helps create demand, whether the material is new or not.

[quote] The courts are overwhelmed already, which is why the NCA and CPS came to an agreement in 2018, to issue more conditional cautions for these offences.[/quote]
I'd be interested to hear more about this, I was initially told I would get a caution, but no, ended up a hair's width from being jailed which was not only a huge shock but obviously lead to a much more negative outcome than a caution would have.

[/quote]

BSQ Briefing - Conditional Cautions for Indecent Image Offences – One Year On — Criminal Defence Lawyers - Berkeley Square Solicitors
As the article says, it still hasn't happened. Probably because possession cases are a quick and easy win for the CPS. They usually get a guilty plea straight away, without much effort/cost, so it makes their numbers look good and reassures the public that they are 'succeeding' in stopping abuse, when in fact they are achieving very little.

[/quote]

Makes sense to me, a proverbial slap on the wrist with the additional responsibility of "staying out of trouble" without the life-destroying public humiliation and none of this 'unspent' nonsense.
I would have jumped at the chance.

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

punter99 — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:05:13 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 21 Feb 20 3:16 AM[/b]

I've learned how to use quotes.

[quote] I say respectfully, blaming the internet for everything that is wrong is not the answer [/quote]
Of course, but my point was that "the internet" is not one thing to its users. I mean it in the sense of we eat food but there isn't anything called 'food' it's doughnuts, apples and bread etc. And there are many ways that the 'internet' happens to be the common ground of what leads to ending up in the same bin as the rest of us but with all sorts of different crimes with infinite different reasons/issues. Couple loneliness/feeling of disconnect/unresolved issues with increasing chances of falling down rabbit holes, virtually mixing with like-minded and normalising behaviour through others' actions - I say again, the punishment is absurd. So, for me, an answer of tackling the problem is through prevention and that, at this moment in time, is huge changes to 'the internet'. Now.

[quote] Your (b) point included "education and therapy" which I fully agree is a worthwhile but unfortunately it is an "unsexy" and costly approach.[/quote]
If you prove it works and can shout about its benefits it becomes very sexy and will pay for itself by taking the pressure off so many 'systems'. There will be so many cases of rehabilitation that could be shouted about more, but they don't make news, only failures do. "Society" won't pay that close attention to something like that at the ballot box anyway, it's not a top 3 priority, a few positively spun numbers and a vague guise of 'Rehabilitation For All' on page 36 of the manifesto would do the trick. It'll be like HS2, that's unsexy and costly but that's going ahead and we'll all reap the benefits one day - You have to start somewhere.

[quote] Not to jump but one downside to therapy stated by those who wish a "bullet" on sex offenders, is that any sort of therapy only informs the individual on what to say to appease the interviewer. Also the SOTP course circa 2010 - 2014 where found to increase reoffending by the courts last year.[/quote]
I can't speak for therapy inside as my sentence was suspended but that sounds a shame that people would use therapy just as a means of getting out quicker. I was lucky mine was a friend of a friend and affordable. It cost me money so I was going for me, not because I 'had to'. I grew in confidence through setting goals and I set up meetings with business advisors to help me set up my own business, I was approaching clients, I was helping others with their ideas and said she was really pleased with what I'd done so soon after conviction. I've changed locations and my ppu has undone all that, but I've ranted about that elsewhere. SOTP courses lack that feeling of achievement and have no real accountability afterward. I enjoyed meeting and getting to know the people but that wasn't the point of being there.

[quote] Why is a 15 year period on the SOR required before you can apply to have the requirement removed[/quote]
I know very little about this, excuse my distant memory waffle, but I heard ages ago about it is believed to take up to 15 years for a characteristic to change...? Something to do with maturity, perhaps? So it's easier for courts to say 15 years and be vague rather than saying it takes 5 years for ABC to change and 13 years for XYZ to change. Don't quote me on that, I have nothing to back that up with. Apologies if that's hogwash.

[quote] e) "Humans need to be recognised and/or admired",- what's being described is a need for status - but how is that status enhanced by someone else acquiring what they share and is that the same as creating demand?[/quote]
Sharing creates a false sense of purpose and one is probably in too deep if you're at this level. It's not uncommon for offenders to ask to see something they've heard about, for example, then for a sharer to then make it available. So I would say that 'service' helps create demand, whether the material is new or not.

[quote] The courts are overwhelmed already, which is why the NCA and CPS came to an agreement in 2018, to issue more conditional cautions for these offences.[/quote]
I'd be interested to hear more about this, I was initially told I would get a caution, but no, ended up a hair's width from being jailed which was not only a huge shock but obviously lead to a much more negative outcome than a caution would have.

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

punter99 — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:45:01 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 20 Feb 20 2:14 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 20 Feb 20 10:51 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Mr W — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 03:16:05 GMT

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 14:14:32 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 20 Feb 20 10:51 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

AB2014 — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:02:54 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 20 Feb 20 10:51 AM[/b]

[/quote]

Well, point (a) might be covered by joint enterprise. In theory, you could always walk away or ask the stewards to take action instead of staying there.
Point (b) touches on Outcome 21, but inciting a child to commit a sexual act is an offence. Using coercion rather than persuasion would be a major aggravating factor in sentencing.
Point (d) doesn't take into account demand that is already there but unknown to the supplier.
In point (e), status would be enhanced by being the supplier of what people want. It's more a case of the supplier's ego believing there is a demand.
Point (f) relates back to points (d) and (e), where the supplier might not know there is a demand but hopes there is.
In point (g), I saw people in prison who were keen to appease OBP facilitators even without the incentive of earlier release. They just saw it as easier in the long run, as far as I could tell.
Point (h) is an interesting one, as the much-heralded extra police recruits can be thrown at this once they're battle-hardened. As for not being able to arrest our way out of the problem, I dare say the Home Office would say, "...but we can't be sure until we've tried."

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

punter99 — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:51:10 GMT

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

AB2014 — Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:23:11 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 19 Feb 20 11:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 18 Feb 20 3:50 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 18 Feb 20 3:24 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 18 Feb 20 1:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 7 Feb 20 11:36 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

There is a load of stuff on Unlock about disclosure and DBS already. Put simply, a volunteering role is no different to a paid job, in terms of the rules. How those rules will be applied is another matter. Will always come down to the employer's attitude in the end. Volunteering is often seen by ex-offenders as an 'easier' way of getting back into work, than applying for a paid job. I think the perception is that voluntary organisations will be more willing to take on ex-offenders, because the roles are unpaid, and it therefore doesn't matter so much to them as it does to an employer who is paying somebody to work for them. Also, for ex-offenders who haven't worked for a long time, volunteering will be recommended by probation or the jobcentre as a way of getting back into that work routine. They also think that voluntary organisations will be 'less fussy' about the person having no recent work experience, than an employer who is recruiting for a paid job and on the whole I think they are right about that.

What irks me about the conversation regarding ex-offenders and work, is that it too often assumes they are all in the same position and are going to be treated exactly the same, regardless of their offence. We all know that this is simply not the case and that an employer, who will gladly give an ex-burglar a 'second chance', won't extend the same helping hand to an ex-SO. The level of prejudice towards, and therefore willingness to employ, SOs is entirely different to other groups of offenders. Don't get me wrong. I know ALL ex-offenders will be discriminated against, but SO face an extra level of discrimination, that isn't always acknowledged.

In my 'favourite' Red Top, the Sun, recently there was an article about SO being employed as care workers. The article stated that, despite the fact that these roles involved working with vulnerable adults, and despite the fact that an enhanced DBS check would be required, the employers were still willing to hire SOs, just because that sector is so desperate for people. They just can't find anbody else willing to do those jobs, so even though they knew all about the person's convictions and had the DBS results in front of them, they still hired them. It is always the employers decision, at the end of the day. So, no matter what the DBS check comes back with, if the employer is desperate enough they will still hire you. Gives hope to us all. Lol.

[/quote]

All of these employment decisions should involve a proper risk assessment, or a care home will have to answer to the CQC. Let's say that the prospective employee was convicted of downloading/possession of indecent images. If they're not on the Adults' Barred List, then they can be considered for work in adult care.

[/quote]

Hi
You will know I bow to alot of your words but I will always speak up when persons say/suggest that convictions involving images is somehow a lower class of offence.
Individuals involved in a group offence are convicted under the law even though they may not of actually committed the primary offence. To me, though the "viewer" may not have had physical contact, they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand and so should be dealt with in the same manner of the individual taking the picture.
I did not make the lady in my offence a prostitute nor was I part of any group/gang etc, but I was punished / regarded as if I did though the individual(s) who did were not prosecuted.
You know I mean no offence to anyone by my words.

[/quote]

As an offender, I know that it's impossible to argue against the orthodox view, because people don't want to listen. Anything I say will be instantly dismissed as cognitive distortions on my part, or just me trying to minimise or deny my own offence. For that reason, I defer to an academic: Carissa Byrne Hessick, who works at the University of North Carolina and writes about this issue. In her article, published in the Washington University Law Review, she covers the 'creating a demand' argument and much else. Unlike an offender, she cannot be accused of having a vested interest in denying the offences, so perhaps her opinion will receive a fair hearing.
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1046&context=law_lawreview

[/quote]

Having read this thread I wanted to throw my 2p in because I think it's important to challenge the "orthodox view" with meaningful conversation, while also understanding, as punter99 says, my view could also be dismissed because I'm an (ex) offender.

Re: Harmless' post about 'acquiring creates demand' - Imagine being in a football stadium. There’s a group of loud people in a stand over the other side of the stadium. You don’t know who exactly is doing what but *that group* are responsible for making the noise, yes? By viewing images you’ve chosen to stand with that group. While there, you may not be making a noise, you may not agree with the song they’re singing, but you’ve chosen to sit in that stand which, as JASB says, makes you guilty by association. Crucially, that group is also visible for others to join simply by existing. You’ve been caught in that stand and are now paying the price, for whatever reason, that’s just how it is. I get it but as this thread is showing, there needs to be a serious conversation about this type of offending.

As with most subjects you have to delve much deeper than the headline to try to understand what's going on. So, where might the creation of offending material start? Well, thanks to the internet it’s now easier than ever for anyone to, even accidentally, get a ticket for a seat in that football stand, let's say, largely thanks to social media and camera phones (both are GIGANTIC changes in everyday life in such a short space of time when you think about it) enabling photos, videos, live streams, the sharing of online spaces and even followings (followings is a new level of scariness that is probably on the horizon as Belle Delphine (adult) has already proven - putting her bath water for sale to her millions of viewers). Then you have Generation Instagram/TikTok/ (Premium) Snapchat/‘Dating’ apps/Instant gratification growing and growing all over the world and those involved are getting younger and are using them in ways that they weren't meant to be used (including for money! They're that savvy). So what do you think attitudes towards sex/porn will be over the next few decades? Especially in areas of poverty (which also creates supply as shown in Eastern Europe, Russia and the far East). And then don’t even get me started on parents (usually mothers and girls) wanting their children to be famous…! These are only the things I dare mention here. Absolutely any involvement on any of those things which are used en masse will no doubt increase the lure(?) of that football stand. In addition, this is without even mentioning those with existing mental health problems. Oh and by the way, have you heard the new thing that more sexual beings are doing more of now?... Being lonely. So where will they turn long term for instant sexual gratification?... Where’s that ticket office? All of this doesn't come anywhere near scratching the surface of all of the so many different ways questionable material can appear online.

Many of these are very new 21st Century problems and there are so. many. issues. that come with each and every one of those things I've mentioned. So not meaning to sound glib, but punishing - to the extent that we do in the UK - for looking at images online and nothing else meaning the offender will be forevermore branded a sex offender (a label mostly associated with Epstein/Savile), potentially ripping families apart, putting pressure on all sorts of public services, a lack of rehabilitation (because let’s face it the only opinion for SOs rehabilitation is a bullet) etc etc etc is all “absurd” (Carissa Byrne Hassock, 2011).

While there’s plenty of noises about ‘this needs to be stopped’ because it is 'so serious’ - of course it does - but it doesn’t seem to be anyone’s priority from those with the power to make real change on a global scale. Especially when you look at the immediate call to arms with coronavirus or Jeff Bezos donating $10,000,000,000 to... climate change! Oh but that’s different, right?

For serious discussion, hysteria and emotion needs to be removed and practical processes need to be talked about. The real answer is to switch off the internet, but that's not going to happen, so here are two options: A) Continue spending so much money on a daily basis and dangerously branding people an SO after costly raids/arrest/LONG investigations/charges/court time/probation time/ppu time/welfare (unable to get work)/social housing (no job, no house ownership)/the problem of more loneliness because of countless labels and isolation/poor pension/homelessness/mental health/suicide or... B) How about spend half of that money solving the problem of: “The internet is here!’ and half on prevention/ education/ rehabilitation/ therapy/ opportunities etc.

[/quote]

Hi Mr W,
I understand and agree with a lot you are saying and would welcome any discussion on the categorization of sex offences and the associated punishments. I say this as my offence did not include grooming, predatory actions, violence etc - stated by the Judge and CPS - but I am being treated the same as those you quoted. I am aware that sexual offending elsewhere in the country and the PR statement wished to be delivered by the "system" influenced the manner of my sentence as the barrister raised this point with the Judge - though ignored - on sentencing day.

I say respectfully, blaming the internet for everything that is wrong is not the answer - if I have misunderstood your words I am sorry. It is only a tool that is misused, misunderstood by the majority of its users and misinterpreted as the answer to everything.

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, "imagery" has been available since humans became intelligent enough to make a mark. It is the interpretation of the image by society as a whole and desires by individuals that causes numerous issues. Example, a naked cherub in an art masterpiece is revered by society as a whole. However to certain individuals it is unfortunately something else. Therefore it is and will always be impossible to stop the production of "imagery" that can be used by some for sexual purposes; be that on the internet or not. However I stress the importance of making humans more knowledgeable of a humans own inherited psychological weaknesses. I have referred to this in other posts as the "old brain": the psychological behaviour remnants still in our psychological behaviour civilised "new brain".

Your (b) point included "education and therapy" which I fully agree is a worthwhile but unfortunately it is an "unsexy" and costly approach. You only have to look at the issues surrounding sex education and religious beliefs over the last year, to show not all society will accept it. In my opinion what is correct - at the earliest stage, is the psychologically development of humans towards human sexual behaviour and what is acceptable in today's society.

Not to jump but one downside to therapy stated by those who wish a "bullet" on sex offenders, is that any sort of therapy only informs the individual on what to say to appease the interviewer. Also the SOTP course circa 2010 - 2014 where found to increase reoffending by the courts last year.

I say "unsexy" as it is not an instant one Government timeframe solution, also Government would be implying everyone is/could be a Sex Offender so everyone needs preventative treatment.
I say "costly" because financially it would cost a lot whatever you did. Also it would lose votes for any Government for various reasons. A simple matter of a parent having to help their child with their homework on the matter when they do not really understand the subject, would cause them embarrassment, anger and issues for being put in that position. This is how it was/has been with computers in ways you referred to.

I think we both agree that in the modern forensic world of today, psychology is a vital tool used by the authorities to not only gain a conviction but to enhance the dangerous behaviour of the offender to impose a harsher sentence etc. It is however strange; and I would enjoy a debate - on why is a 15 year period on the SOR required before you can apply to have the requirement removed, and yet not the evidence from the same psychology experts that state someone is of low risk and it is safe at an earlier date.

[/quote]

I'm not looking to get involved in the wider debate, but I can offer some information about the 15 years minimum notification period. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that notification for life was a human rights breach and directed the UK government to change the law. Good old David 'Man of the People' Cameron then said he would do the minimum possible to comply with the ruling. I'm surprised he didn't try for 20 years as an opening position.

[/quote]

Hi AB2014,
Thank you for the info, which my post didn't make clear I was aware of, so sorry but I am sure it will be useful in making others aware of the history.
I suppose and is my manner, I am raising the point that it is the authorities habit to use evidence that supports them but not when supports others. To me it is illogical - being politie.
Again thanks and always willing to read your words.

[/quote]

As is often the case in social policy, and especially in government, they are more interested in policy-based evidence than in evidence-based policy. :( :angry:

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Wed, 19 Feb 2020 11:31:54 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 18 Feb 20 3:50 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 18 Feb 20 3:24 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 18 Feb 20 1:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 7 Feb 20 11:36 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

AB2014 — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:50:25 GMT

[quote]

[b]JASB - 18 Feb 20 3:24 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 18 Feb 20 1:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 7 Feb 20 11:36 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 15:24:21 GMT

[quote]

[b]Mr W - 18 Feb 20 1:31 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 7 Feb 20 11:36 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

Mr W — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 01:31:43 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 7 Feb 20 11:36 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

JASB — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:26:17 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 13 Feb 20 11:30 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Feb 20 4:38 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 9 Feb 20 11:20 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand

[/quote]

I truly, truly and with the best will in the world, don't know what makes people say this, but people say it a lot with a kind of automaticity I find baffling.

Tell me child porn makes Jesus weep, and I'll agree with you. But tell me "the very act of acquiring it creates a demand" and you've lost me.

Strictly with reference to this one narrow, technical consequentialist argument, this "create a demand" stuff applies if, and only if:

1) The images are acquired in such a manner so as to send an acknowledgement back up the supply chain all the way to the author (whether through communication of view counts or currency). They are not, economically speaking, "found lying in the street".

2) The events depicted are done for the sake of the depiction. They are not for example filmed as an afterthought.

3) A demand for depictions serves as an incentive for the events.

All were normally true in the early days of internet pornography (20th century porn is sex for porn's sake, footage sold direct). All are normally false nowadays (21st century porn is sex for sex's sake, filmed as afterthought, disseminated for free as a byproduct). But because the law proved so useful early on as a kind of preemptive tagging system for suspicious characters, the economic argument of "paying for it fuels a commercial industry of abuse", was clumsily refashioned to "but you're still paying for it in view counts even if not money", which is a weaker point whenever it is the case, and usually it's not.

Bottom line is, to encounter almost any jpeg online nowadays is to "find it lying in the street" (with regard to supply and demand - no soul on Earth knows you found it). It is a form of eavesdropping or voyeurism at worst. Not incentivisation.

The internet is a scrapheap of circulating secondhand jpegs, long since forgotten by their authors, and plucking something from this stream does nothing, especially it's an act of copying and not removal. The vast majority of pornographic jpegs (legal and illegal) online are free, tenth-hand byproducts of deeds whose motives are sexual, not cinematic or commercial. You could make amateur porn magically impossible and it wouldn't reduce the amount of sex acts happening in the world by more than a tiny margin. If you see some porn you like online today, not only is it likely to be free, it's also likely you wouldn't know how to find the authors to thank them even if you wanted to.

The cops possess jpegs as evidence, but they do not consider themselves child abusers because they acquired the images as part of a raid, and by possessing them they are not participating in any economy that leads back to a child abuse event (raiding a house sends no demand, gratitude, or currency back up the supply chain, which they see themselves as breaking). But then again neither does getting an image off of 4Chan (which sends no view count to posters). But that logic , however unassailable, will not spare an offender from the accusation that he has "created demand". In fact nobody seems interested in finding out if the chain is intact or not. If it was an important consideration as they say it is, they would be.

It is a polite fiction to say that "demand" is the motive for sustaining such laws. The motive is: they are a useful tripwire for dangerous people. Just on a simplistic level, the same law is being broken even where images are pencil work and never left the drawing board. But the artist is probably a bit weird so best he be premptively tagged with this conviction.

Why does this matter? Imagine if you've been done for possessing a knife, you wouldn't appreciate being sat down and told, very insistently, and without any appeal to logic or specifics, that you've got blood on your hands (whether you have or not). It doesn't matter how much of an un-nice thing knives are, and it doesn't matter how useful the knife possession laws have proved to be, you're going to find this experience objectionable no matter what. But now imagine that to make matters worse, any attempt to contradict the logic is received as a pedantic, desperate excuse-making for knives borne out of a creepy fascination with knives.

This law is created and prosecuted using the logic of contraband (so, strict liability offence), which is all very well, except the offender is sentenced and managed under the logic of sexual risk. This makes for a bunch of non-sequiturs in interactions anyone seeking to educate the offender on what they've actually done.

It's a hybrid between a crime of possession and a sex crime. And in order to square that circle it relies on so many plainly false or tenuous assumptions that I've just written it off the "demand" thing as "one of those things" that people tend to believe.

[/quote]

Hi
AB2014 reply has covered some aspects of how I would of replied to you so I will attempt to be brief and hopefully "readers" will appreciate I am not being offensive to anyone who has been convicted of this type of offence. However I just wish "others" to accept the broader aspects and consequences of an offence of this nature.

I would suggest none of us here fully understand what is behind the cognitive behaviour processes that allowed us to commit our offences.
When we talk about demand, we are should not only be trying to consider it from our personal perspective but also the creators. Your point seems to focus on economical reasons and free photos being available on the internet, why? Consider the cognitive behaviour of the individuals who created the first computer virus: they did it for "free", because they could and just wanted to find a way of satisfying their "none economical needs" and so graining "satisfaction". Also they know some individuals find irresistible to click a link to satisfy their "need" for what might be being offered even though know it could be dangerous.

Is this not what someone viewing illegal images demands / needs? Therefore it is possible the creator of the images does so for the same "needs" as the virus creator.

The main difference in the above examples is that for the image creator to meet their "personal needs" they have to create a "victim" first. The "victim's" image is then being used to achieve / satisfy the "needs" of the viewer. So yes I stand by my point that the end viewer is just as responsible as the image creator for the creation of the victim.

It is the "Butterfly effect".

On your "economics" point, it is common for a business to create a "demand" by enticing individuals with "free samples" as this plays on a human's "old brain" instincts. I refer you to an excellent book "The Compassionate Mind" by Prof. Paul Gilbert of Derby Uni.

[/quote]

I agree with the point about computer virus creators having non-commercial motives, but that explains how the supply comes to exist, it doesn't explain how demand caused that supply to exist. Indeed, it supports the argument that the virus or the images would have been created anyway, even if there was no demand for them at all.

[/quote]

Hi
Catching up so I hope this reply covers both yours and AB2014 views. The discussion appears now to be focused on "demand" and how do we recognise that the "supply" of images was developed to satisfy that demand.
Consider the following possible scenarios please.
First the creation is made by the creator because they could probably have to satisfy their own demand. Their demand for this type of image could be one of having something physical to view and not "memory" to help stimulate themselves.
I think it was back in the '70's individuals were trying to get child sex made legal, also remember it was only in Victoria's day that activity with a 13 year old's was made illegal.
I mention this because a long time before facebook or peer to peer networks etc appeared, communication between individuals about this type of material obviously - and unfortunately - existed. Therefore it is not beyond plausibility that not all had the skills to create an image but some did. As with most items in our history, someone may want what another made for themselves in isolation without a "sales" strategy. This therefore is how a demand created the need for supply.

In modern day with the technology available and the psychological issues that have been enhanced / created concerning the humans need to be recognised and/or admired, it could be just someone showing they have the ability to do something and want to show off and be recognised as having the skill. To them the content maybe immaterial or maybe as simple as an anti establishment view trying to cause havoc with the system by putting images out there. After all, as my words earlier have shown, the demand an individual human places of themselves to satisfy their sexual desires could be vast or simple. It is all subject to the development of the psychological nature of that individual.

Another example, we are all used to humans presenting information to us on the television, in ways that is what society expects - demands - and so it was anticipated and supplied.
In the Far East especially, why is information now being supplied by human like images, robots - whatever you what to call them. Who asked for that? No demand but the supply is there because someone discovered they could create the images.

Finally and I will repeat my opinion that illegal images do create victims: the person in the image being created that is not allowed to be. Therefore the viewer is guilty via association.
If the image is created via software then that also can create victims. This is because the viewer may not recognise that fact and overtime adjust their personal controls to accept it as normal and commit an offence.

I think that all makes sense. LOL

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

AB2014 — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 11:26:50 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 17 Feb 20 10:58 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 17 Feb 20 9:47 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 14 Feb 20 10:25 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 20 11:44 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 13 Feb 20 11:30 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Feb 20 4:38 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 9 Feb 20 11:20 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand

[/quote]

The motive for the initial creation could be irrelevant, as it's what happens later on that counts. Facebook wasn't created to be a multi-billion pound tax-dodger, but look at it now. The first computer virus wasn't created as a money-making tool for organised crime, but look at it now.

[/quote]

The principle is the same further along the line. For example, if someone makes an image available for downloading through a peer to peer network, they do so for personal, not commercial, reasons and they do so irrespective of whether anyone is demanding it or not.

[/quote]

Or maybe they're hoping someone will want it so they can start swapping.

[/quote]

p2p doesn't really work like that. Users are not swapping, they are sharing. There is no direct communication between the sharer and the downloaders. People put stuff out there, like the computer virus creator, without an expectation of getting something back in return.

[/quote]

However it works technically, whether directly or indirectly, there would probably be some sort of expectation of some sort. You can't say someone is being altruistic by making that image available without expecting something in return. Otherwise, why share? It might be a hope that others would make similar material available through the same system. After all, if you wanted to share your holiday photos, you'd put them on Facebook. This isn't something you could put on Facebook, so you need a different channel.

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

punter99 — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 10:58:43 GMT

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 17 Feb 20 9:47 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 14 Feb 20 10:25 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 20 11:44 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 13 Feb 20 11:30 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Feb 20 4:38 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 9 Feb 20 11:20 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand

[/quote]

Or maybe they're hoping someone will want it so they can start swapping.

[/quote]

RE: Differing recruitment policies and standards of risk assessment for ex-offenders volunteering in Charity shops

AB2014 — Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:47:08 GMT

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 14 Feb 20 10:25 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 13 Feb 20 11:44 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 13 Feb 20 11:30 AM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 10 Feb 20 4:38 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]Harmless - 9 Feb 20 11:20 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]JASB - 6 Feb 20 5:03 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]AB2014 - 6 Feb 20 12:16 PM[/b]

[quote]

[b]punter99 - 6 Feb 20 11:56 AM[/b]

they are implicit in the creating of the victim by creating the demand

[/quote]

Or maybe they're hoping someone will want it so they can start swapping.