theForum is run by the charity Unlock. We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions but we may intervene and take any action as we think necessary. Further details can be found in our terms of use. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report-a-post button or email us at forum@unlock.org.uk.


Polygraph Interview also SOR Requirements


Polygraph Interview also SOR Requirements

Author
Message
Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Harmless
Harmless
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)Supreme Being (7.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 110, Visits: 381
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?

My SOR conditions (as presented to me in the paperwork and the intro talk) say nothing about children one way or the other. 

Children are just a subsidiary concept in the sense that if cops come visit you and see you're living with children, they might invoke child services.


Edited
6 Months Ago by Harmless
JASB
JASB
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)Supreme Being (11K reputation)

Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 379, Visits: 627
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.

Thanks all of you for useful advice. .
Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
Harmless - 5 Feb 20 1:39 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?

My SOR conditions (as presented to me in the paperwork and the intro talk) say nothing about children one way or the other. 

Children are just a subsidiary concept in the sense that if cops come visit you and see you're living with children, they might invoke child services.


Same here. I was only verbally asked to provide my bank details, which I did. Thanks for your reply. 
Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.
As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notification requirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. Help about Changes to Legislation

his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997,

 (6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.



Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.

As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notification requirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. Help about Changes to Legislation
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997,
 (6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.


Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.

As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notification requirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. Help about Changes to Legislation
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997,
 (6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.


Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 6:49 PM
JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.
As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notification requirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. Help about Changes to Legislation

his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997,

 (6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.



JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.

JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.

“As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
 (6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.




Theunknown
Theunknown
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)Supreme Being (929 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 24, Visits: 36
JASB - 5 Feb 20 3:01 PM
Theunknown - 5 Feb 20 10:51 AM
If you are on SOR, as noted from the NARO website, one of the following requirements is:
“If you are living with a child or staying in a household where a child lives for at least 12 hours each day”
However on the Unlock website says that a person on Sex Offender should inform the police if he has stayed in a household for more than 12 hours where a child u/18 lives.
Which one is correct?
Also the PPU has never informed me about this requirement? I was put on SOR in 1999.

Polygraph Interview.  My application for SOR discharge was rejected by the PPU HQ giving false reasons. When I pointed out this to them, the PPU HQ invalidated their decision admitting the mistakes and have decided to reconsider, No apologies, but has made it more difficult for me by INVITING me to attend a polygraph interview. Note: Polygraph tests, being very unreliable,(a report from Wikipedia) are not admissible in the UK Criminal Courts. But can carry some weight in a civil court setting in a criminal court, which could apply in my case. 
I feel very nervous about it and suffer many medical conditions which can affect the test. I have informed the PPQ HQ about these conditions. A week has gone, still, I have not received a reply, Shall I go ahead with the test, bearing in mind I am not required to take the polygraph interview. 
A reply to the above two questions will be highly appreciated.


Hi,
First and most important the fact is that websites are not always up to date and like many aspects of legal life, it is the writers interpretation of the legal wording - unless it is a cut and paste from a government document and than as long as that is the latest version lol.
A SOPO condition does not have to be in place as it comes under the term of "public protection", and as interviews are not recorded, there is no constraining of their questions if they wish. Its is suggested that these sort of questions come under the heading of "risk assessment" as well.
In my experience any sex offender when visited will be asked about family and relationships. If either or both exist, the conversation is expanded to include contact with children, even if they are extended family members.
As mentioned, Social Services would be contacted unless the PPU felt there was no risk. Be aware that from my experience, that decision can differ between PPU officers and constabularies.
If you have always ensured you have not broken any of their rules and kept the PPU informed of your consequences, then you should not worry.

Polygraph:
I would seek legal advice.
The Government / Media response after the Jeremy Kyle escapade, highlighted the concern that many psychologists are strongly opinionated about there accuracy as many are stating they are not. The same concerns have also been raised - after the recent terrorist atrocities - by the Government and experts.  
You have mentioned you informed them of your medical health concerns, which could be seen as a avoidance tactic so why not take a positive and co-operative approach?
Possibly consider / offer to undertake an independent psychologists assessment instead because of the expert accuracy concerns.

I hope this helps in some small way - keeps us informed and wish you success.
“As advised by you in the first paragraph of your post, I have gone through the Govt. Website but I can't find anywhere having resided/stayed for more than 12 hours where a child under 18 lives. Kindly correct me if I have misunderstood their information
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/2/crossheading/notification-requirements
Changes to legislation:
Sexual Offences Act 2003, Cross Heading: Notificationrequirements is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before05 February 2020. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Changes that have been made appear in the content and are referenced with annotations.
his having resided or stayed, for a qualifying period, at any premises in the United Kingdom the address of which has not been notified to the police under section 83(1), this subsection, or section 2 of the SexOffenders Act 1997,
 (6)In this section, “qualifying period” means—
(a)a period of 7 days, or
(b)two or more periods, in any period of 12 months, which taken together amount to 7 days.




GO


Similar Topics


As a small but national charity, we rely on charitable grants and individual donations to continue running theForum. We do not deliver government services. By being independent, we are able to respond to the needs of the people with convictions. Help us keep theForum going.

Donate Online

Login
Existing Account
Email Address:


Password:


Select a Forum....
























































































































































































theForum


Search