My details of my offence was reported in the local rag, and then plastered on the UK Database website. 
I am thinking of changing my name but wonder will the data base just find me through the Deed Poll ? 

Someone researched my name and now I have lost a friend because of it. I know the whole process is tricky but it might mean that with a new name anyone who casually Googles my name will not see the new me.

I am retired so it would not be for any other reason, other than to live in peace without worrying if I can exposed again.
I am a new and better person. Honest and will never go back to my Internet addiction, but people still think the worst of people like me.

Any thoughts? I would hate to go through the whole process of name changing then find that the UK database tracks me down "in the interest of the public". Having a sexual offence is a worry as there are many websites which try and find offenders "in your area".

In short, I don't think so. I wish I could be more definitive and supportive with that answer. They certainly have no right or legal obligation to do so.

I think your concern should not be dismissed though. There is a reason we have a privately controlled sex offender register. That website alone (with the cumulative help of the press - usually local rag) is making what is essentially a public sex offender register and that serves NO purpose other than encouraging hostility, causing stress for those who appear on it and anonymously avoiding accountability for anything that happens due to its existence.

Although there is no legal argument, I do believe this website should be taken down. I realise though, even if it is, you can't guarantee someone won't make another one. I tried reporting one on Facebook but they said it didn't go against their guidelines. Again, in my view, it's the *cumulative* content that changes things from just copying what is published by other sites.

You're not alone in this either. I understand the freedom of the press but (I'm going to assume the nature of your crime from what you've said) I think the press ever so slightly cross the line of duty of care / human right to a private life. Especially when so many sentences surrounding internet offences are served in the community when you take into account "society's" opinions versus the safety of the offender.

Urgent radical thinking is needed for this whole thing.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

You do not need a deed poll to change your name. You are allowed to use any name you choose as long as you use it consistently.

You will, however, need a deed poll if you want to obtain a passport in your new name (and I assume a driving license) and many Banks will require deed poll evidence before they will change account names.

If you consider the thousands of people already on the database (and the 2 or 3 others that exist) and the fact they are most likely run by a hand full of people who do it part time, then I can't imagine they have the time to fact check every single person on there 'just incase' they have changed their name. I've thought about changing my name also if only to stop the google effect. The people who run those sites do not have access to the actual VISOR, in order to find out about an individual the person needs a valid reason and often they are met first by a police officer to discuss it. These other data bases as someone previously said only really serve to name and shame and you can bet they will leave out any positive information such as courses the individual has been on, other reparation and self help work.

The only time you would be in serious bother is if you change your name and do not notify the police, that is your legal requirement but those other sites have no real legal duty or jurisdiction with regards to information about you, they rely solely on the fact the details of your ofence were publicly available at the time.

The other issue is of course if someone you knew or know notices you have changed your name and they report it to these data bases, ie: so and so is also known as xyz.

Technically what those sites do is not illegal, except when they steal online photographs of offenders where they do not own the copyright (happens a lot) but can you imagine the hypocrisy of an offender who was charged with indecent images contacting the site to say ' you are using my photo without my consent'

I don't think the authorities look favourably on those sites but they are tolerated because of public approval. I've often wondered why these sites don't post photos of known drug dealers and violent abusive partners since they are just as much risk to children (i was 15 when i was first offered drugs)

Some years ago, I think around 2008 or 2009, there was a website called The Rat Book. It did a similar thing to Chris Wittwer's "UK Database", but was worse in that it named people who had been arrested but not charged, or charged but not convicted, and also people who had been tried and acquitted. Their response was that everyone arrested for these crimes is guilty because your computer internet history doesn't lie, police never get it wrong, etc.

Each profile of a person had a comments section below, and users would make highly imaginative, disturbing and graphic comments about how they would torture and kill the person.

The comments section did have a few detractors. Not only people convicted of these offences (who had not (yet) been named on the website), but also seemingly ordinary, moderate people who felt it went too far, and that no one who had not been convicted should ever be on there.

The host of the website persisted and ignored all criticism. I was newly convicted at the time and very angry that such a website existed, knowing that I and most people convicted of online offences fully understand the seriousness of the offence, made massive steps to never do it again, and pose no actual danger to anyone.

A few comments on the forum - before the website owner could delete them - named the website owner. No idea how they found out! Anyway, it turned out he was a convicted drug dealer and violent criminal living in Spain. After doing extensive due diligence checks to make sure it was definitely the same person (I used to work in IT), I am proud to say I doxxed this guy on the comments sections of his own website. The website was gone in a matter of days, and has never reappeared. God's honest truth I can't remember the name of the guy, I wish I could.

So the Google effect isn't always a bad thing, then? 

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Well done on giving him a taste of his own medicine. It's amazing what happens when people see both sides of the story rather than just one.

Oh, I didn't know the UK database guy is part of another one of these vigilante groups, I should have guessed.
I missed this story: https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/police-told-strict-vigilante-paedophile-1069383
Huge irony about these groups "helping the police because they're so busy" actually giving the police more work to do by simply existing. I despair.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

Thanks all for your interesting comments. Having read more about that UK Data Base and its' aim, I feel it is far too extreme and if the site owner could, I am sure he would burn all of us Internet offenders at the stake. The websites statement is really scary.
I totally own up to what I did but now are totally free from pornography addiction (Something that should have a higher profile in the Uk as a major problem for individuals). In many ways I bet I am a better person than many out there that have no criminal record.

I know I could use another name but people already knowing my name would be suspicious and search me, so that causes more problems; however what if I won a prize and I needed to be featured as the winner ? I would want to disappear. Keeping a low profile is all I can do to avoid any publicity.

So, I am not decided on anything yet.

Just one last comment. I have a Sexual Offenders criminal record for slipping below the gay guys websites to viewing teen boys of under 18 - (btw sex is legal with a 16 year old, but inappropriate photos are illegal ???). The say I am an Offender but who did I offend exactly? As far as I can honestly say, it was no boy directly, - and before people accuse me of insensitivity, I am fully aware of the possible consequences of a victim of this kind of abuse. I am guilty as charged, and would rather die that to cause any child harm or mental disturbance. 

I would worry about publicity from a prize win if and when it happens. It should not be taken for granted that you want your name splashed over the internet because you won so they should respect your wishes (It might be worth checking terms and conditions of taking part if it is of genuine concern).

An offender is someone who commits an illegal act, it's not meant in the sense of causing offence to a person. It is also argued by judges in court that "every time an image of child abuse is viewed, it is abusing that child" (child being *anyone under 18* and 'image of child abuse' meaning a whole host of things even when no literal abuse is taking place, a naked selfie perhaps).

It's an argument to raise the age of consent to 18. It's an argument to ban under-18s using the internet. It's an argument to switch off the internet. None of which will happen, so the sledgehammers will remain right beside the conveyor belt of nuts.


=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

One day, someone is going to get murdered or end up in hospital as a result of these vigilante groups as there is no regulation, literally anyone can do it, all it would take is for a suspect to say the wrong thing at the wrong time and an emotionally unstable group.

I wonder if this trend will eventually become some form of separate government approved profession with regulations similar to the police with each county having it's own branch? I'm all for catching people who could be a danger to children, but currently it's handled very poorly. At least when you deal with the police they are professional, but the vigilante groups are all 'up in yer face' for the camera. The whole filming the confrontation has absolutely nothing to do with child protection and more to do with creating a spectacle for others to watch.