I would love to take an holiday again in Thailand, and from my research online it seems that the Immigration do NOT ask about convictions. So it is straight forward for me to book a trip and meet my friend for a holiday. But is it ?
I am on the SOR (internet addiction ) and have to notify the police when and where I travel. Europe is fine, no problem but Asian countries and understandably nervous about letting people in with sexual convictions.

So this is my question. If I plan and book a trip to Thailand, informing the local police, will I be able to enter.? On paper it is a YES OR is it likely that the information the police have of my trip will be passed onto Interpol and when i arrive, my passport will be flagged up, and they will refuse me entry?

If that can happen, do any of you feel this is a breach of my human rights to know that they will alert the country of my intended trip, WITHOUT telling me? If this practice does go on then the traveller should be told and then the trip may be cancelled as it might be deemed a great possibility a refusal of entry will be given. 
Uncertainty is a worry. 

Any ideas ?  

Forgive me for the sarcasm in my reply, but I promise you it isn't aimed at you, Harry. As with so many things in the criminal justice system, someone else has already been there and ruined it for everyone else. Some people saw going to South-East Asia as an opportunity to continue offending, which is what they did, meaning that Something Had To Be Done. As any tabloid reader knows very well, We're All The Same, so obviously everyone who has ever offended is queueing up to go to Asia to offend. You and I both know that's rubbish, but you'll never convince the tabloid editors, and they set the policy agenda.

On a more practical note, if you have ever been refused entry by Thailand, they may well have a record of that on their system. If the police have ever issued a green notice about you, they may well do so again, and they're in charge. It was established in the courts some time ago that an individual's human rights are not as important as public protection. Take the case of the man who was acquitted of a serious offence, only to be told by the Supreme Court that it was OK for the police to report their suspicions on enhanced DBS checks as public protection was more important than his human rights. Why does this sort of thing keep happening? As Ian Hislop said, "Easy target, no public sympathy, makes you look tough".   

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

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)

Hi Harry53

I have just seen your post so hopefully I am not too late as I am replying using my personal experience. Too be honest, as far as Uk telling other countries about you who really knows 100%. There are to many possible scenarios including how the other country can be bothered if the UK are willing to give permission? I could be wrong.

I first went to Thailand in '98 to see my father. He did live there for 10 years and I visited regularly. A point the Police and Probation tried to use against me even though there was no substance to their claims.
After I was arrested and placed on bail I actually went a 2.5 month tour of SE Asia: with my solicitors blessing and as far as I was aware the Police were aware as well.

However when I pleaded guilty and went on the register life changed. I knew I would not be sentenced for about a year so told everyone I was going back to Thailand to visit my extended family. No one raised an eyebrow until I notified the Met Police then everything went south. They took my passport, took me to Court (same Judge I had pleaded guilty to)  to request I be put on remand or have my passport taken off me. In court I told the Judge the truth about why i was visiting, and that I would be back to be sentenced. He dismissed the request for remand but did allow them to retain my passport. He also stated I should be congratulated for my honesty, felt I would come back but - this is the part more important for you - that area of the world has a reputation and if I had committed an offence, the media would find out I was waiting sentence and had been allowed to go, there would be a public outcry.

In brief it is not what you say you will do or not do it is 'everyone's assumption of what a person with the label of sex offender believes you will do'. In the UK today WE will not get much sympathy as there are not many EX-SEX offenders will to publicly complain for fear of retaliation.

I wish you could go as it is a beautiful country, beautiful people and culture as it is based on compassion and forgiveness. Unlike the UK.



Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.

Hi there, and thank you for your thoughts. When i was on my way to NZ to see my daughter and travel this February, I stopped at KL airport as part of the trip. I had time and actually asked the immigration officers what they saw on my passport. They said nothing, so that indicated i could enter Malaysia (I would like to visit a friend there) - however, our wonderful police would most likely tell them I was planning a visit, and then they would run scared. 
What bugs me is that I have CPO police who monitor me and really should know I am never likely to look at underage teen boys again online (YES, just an online offence), but still someone in the system seems to think countries should be warned about me!!  I find that a personal insult as I am 100% honest and have NEVER been a risk to any child.
Had it been a contact offence then i could fully understand their concern, but as you say, we are all thought of as being the worst people in the world.

Hi and sorry for the slow reply.
I DO understand your emotions regarding "their assumptions" and hopefully unfounded allegations but unfortunately the self protectionism of the Government / Justice system look at it from a view that is as convoluted as a wiring diagram of a calculation processor in a super computer.    

I spoke before about your statement "it was online and not contact" and that in reality, there is no difference because it is a fact that both do create a victim.  I fully understand your belief in yourself, but you could say that "if you are willing to look at an image, than if a physical individual was present then there is the percentage chance you could be persuaded to touch by the same psychological emotions that made you view. Note I am not judging you BUT that is how they look at it.  

Accepting (though not agreeing) with their assumptions will allow you to focus on future efforts to demonstrate that you would not, and not on a historical assumption as you cannot change those written words. Efforts could be via voluntary psychological interviews and reports, and working with child protection charities; even the NSPCC will help. You have to let go of your guilt from these assumptions and use the energy in a positive manner and so future written words are changed.
 
As mentioned, my offence was that I paid for sex with a working lady that unknown to me (and her other clients) was under 18. The condemnation and continual knock back, and so punishment I now receive, is because the PPU etc believe "I may" seek underage children. This is even though even I was always found unsuitable to attend ANY sex offender courses. Independent and justice system psychological assessments all stated I have no interest in underage individuals, Probation stated that if I had know the true age of the lady I would of not committed the offence.  Therefore my self rehabilitation strategy has been to accept their "self protectionism driven assumptions" and their demand "to prove I would not" - though give no support in how I am able to do that - and do what I advised above to you.

In regard to Malaysia, they do not accept individuals such as us and so if discovered will be forced to leave. Sorry. Also your passport would have the immigration stamp and so if your PPU inspect it on your return you have to think about what they would say, especially as you didn't declare that on your notification of overseas travel. The risk is that you may create an environment of them denying future trips to other places because of the this on the basis of " how can they trust your words".

Good luck in whatever you do and I hope you accept my words as I mean, SUPPORTIVE not judgmental.




Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.