Hi thorswarth 

you made an interesting point about your sopo, you might want to speak to you PPU, I know the legal team of the met police undertook a review of all there registered offenders and identified those that had SOPO that were not inline with there time on the register and after review took the ones they believed should be changed back to court to bring both the SOPO and SOR period in line with each other 

Great discussion. Just to be pedantic. The reason they say 'making' is because when you download an image from the internet, you are making a copy of it, on your device. It's not the same as 'taking' or 'production' of an image and the judges know that, when they sentence you.

With the SHPO, there are two tests. Is it a breach, or is it just something that the PPU don't think you should be doing. You can find out, really easily. Just tell them you've deleted that demo and see what they do. If they drag you down to the station and interview you under caution, then it's probably a breach. If they just shake their heads and make a note in their little book, then you know it's legal and you haven't breached your order.

However, I would very strongly advise you NOT to do that. Just ask them, in the same way you asked us on this forum. If they can't give you a clear answer, write the question down for them and ask for a written reply. It may take a while, and a lot of chasing, but they will let you know, one way or the other. As for the guy not being IT literate, he may not be, but he will have colleagues who are. They have tech savvy people who know what to look for, on a device, if an actual breach is suspected. They also have monitoring software they can use, but my PPU told me they only have a couple of licences for it, so they keep it for those offenders who really need to be actively monitored. In terms of article 8 privacy, you are giving that up, if you voluntarily agree to have that software installed.

The distinction between an SHPO, imposed by a court, versus the PPU's made up rules, is that an SHPO is based on evidence, put before the court. They do appear to have a template that they use, for the wording, but your barrister can ask to have it altered to suit your individual circumstances. Mine had a long argument with the judge, over the wording, before they agreed on a compromise. The PPU, on the other hand, use their own gut instincts and imagination, based on previous experience of offenders they've dealt with, to work out what an offenders risks are. That's why there are so many inconsistencies, in their behaviour.

punter99

Speaking more on the whole 'making, possession', I dug through some of the emails I had sent my solicitor and he included a pdf file which was a guideline on sexual offences. Same file can be found here https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Sexual-offences-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf. It states the following:
"Production includes the taking or making of any image at source, for instance the original image. Making an image by simple downloading should be treated as possession for the purposes of sentencing"
I then found this online by the CPS dated from 2018 https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children which in my view contradicts what is said in the above guidelines.

"Opening an attachment to an email containing an image"

"Downloading an image from a website onto a computer screen"

This was also quite an interesting read which I will also include http://www.dilloway.co.uk/definition-of-indecent-image-offences.html
In short, the courts are simply ignoring their own guidelines so that people get longer convictions because those who are issued with 'making' make better headlines which in turn, makes the public think the offence is more serious than it actually is. Followed by inconsistent restrictions given via SOPO / SHPO which are only place for individuals to fail.

Moving on to my PPU, I am under no orders to have any monitoring software installed, and even if it was offered to me now I will not be accepting it. I am happy to comply with his instructions until I have all the information from impartial and legal advice which will later be challenged. I respect your statement about giving up article 8 if you allow it to be installed. However if one thing has been proven time and time again is that the police will use everything they can against you. Because in their eyes everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

I did question my SHPO with the barrister however he completely failed to take any notes and pretty much skipped 80% of the issues I had. Ultimately the judge threw out his arguments and I was forced to have them imposed on me. In all honesty my head was not in the right place at the time and had I known what I know now the out come would of been completely different. But I suppose that is how certain cases are won, give as less defense to defendants as possible and cause panic and fear for better results.

On the making point, you are right that it sounds worse, to the public, but you don't get a longer sentence for making a copy by downloading. Making, in that sense, is treated as possession, for sentencing purposes. I agree that sentencing guidelines are written to imply that making is the same as production and it's true that production is treated as a much worse offence than possession. But the judges all know that making a copy is to be treated as possession, when they pass sentence. My barrister made exactly that point, to the judge, just to remind him.

I hope you don't mind me saying so, but you seem very aggreived. Angry at your legal team, the police, the law etc. I felt much the same emotions, after being arrested and convicted. I think it was really just anger at myself, for getting caught. Those feelings will pass, with time. The stress of the whole process, the trauma of the arrest, the fear I felt while waiting for sentencing, the intrusive visits from PPU etc. is immense and like you, my head wasn't in the right place, a lot of the time. My emotions were all over the place and from a mental health perspective, the effects are a lot like PTSD. You feel like the whole world is against you. But there are people on your side, like the guys on this forum for example. I wish you all the best, for the future. Take care.

You're right punter99, we've all messed up, and the systems in place certainly don't make it easy on us. We're all going through similar things and people here can relate to how tough it all is. It's good to vent on here (sometimes) rather than burden our close friends/family who don't fully understand what's going on and, frankly, would rather not talk about this stuff.
Ironically, the longer that these lengthy sentences go on, year after year all the systems that are there to help you seem to fall away one after each other, but opportunities to move on seem non-existent, mostly because of unspent/shpo/disclosure. Mentally, that's what I'm finding tough to get my head around.

So I guess my message to xDanx right now would be to try and take advantage of the resources that are available now that can help you move forward. We agree how this is handled is hugely questionable on all sorts of levels and certainly does more damage than is deserved (I don't say that flippantly either, I know all crimes are serious etc), but also we have to play the cards we're dealt and pick up the pieces. It's NOT easy, as everyone here will testify, but instead of trying to rewrite history, leave it there.



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

I find it interesting that your barrister reminded the judge of the guidelines regarding, mine did nothing of the sort. I had no idea until I started doing my own research which I have shared. you are right in thinking that I am aggrieved and angry not only at my solicitor / police, but the whole system. I am angry because police have twisted and reworded reports to fit their narrative, claimed all of my devices tested positive which I know to be untrue, but refuse to give me details. They claim my offence dates back 10+years which is also untrue plus impossible and has fallen on deaf ears. My solicitor despite many requests never informed me or allowed me any chance to review and dispute evidence later claiming it would be illegal, he simply told me to plead guilty and I would not go to prison which I did when brought to Magistrates. Even to this day I have little knowledge or understanding of what I have pleaded guilty to and they are still refusing to give me this information. I argued the charge of making with solicitor and said it should be possession but did nothing to change or even understand this. In short everyone I was involved with in my case have simply not done their jobs and I have felt for some years mistreated and a victim of negligence. I have struggled with my mental health over the years even before all this started, it is difficult to let go of how all this has made me feel but I can say I am using those feelings in a positive way to keep strong and fight for what I know is wrong.

Hi Danx 

mr W is correct, take what you can now in terms of help, because as time goes on it falls away,

when I cam out of prison in jan 2010 I had re trading courses after course thrown at me, as I could not go back to he profession I was in pre offence.

it was a training course that was run for ex offenders that got me he job i was in for close to 10 years and a job I loved and well paid.

since a staff member found out about me late last year I have been on unemployment, and sadly there is no retraining courses and no other help,

the reason given I am to over qualified for the courses and already well education so do not meet the criteria to get funding via the job enter.

so believe me if you are offered anything at the start take it with both hands 

stay safe 

I am taking steps with the help of my local council to apply for some courses at their expense, however the SHPO conditions have caused some delay and confusion. I too have been in a similar position where I am too qualified for certain training from the job center but I have been able to keep myself busy as much as possible getting some new qualifications along the way. Lately and most likely down to lock down I have been too focused on retaining information in to my case to discover why they did this, why they did that, that is has become my top priority. I really appreciate everyone's comments and contribution as it has helped remove any doubt I had. I have spoke to a number of people about this but with out all the information I have now so I will be contacting those people once again. Thank you all for sharing your experiences.

Hi'

I have a SOPO, now with 3 conditions left as I have managed to remove the rest.
My offence was paying for sexual services of a female under 18, so linked to prostitution and as the Court and CPS stated; no grooming, predatory actions violence etc and completely unknown to me before the offence.
Condition 1: not allowed contact with the female involved plus another female I do not know? However the PPU have agreed for this to be removed as it is now not relative.
Condition 2: is to do with supervision of under 16 year olds and notifying parents or guardians so does not say I cannot, I just have to inform them of my offence.
Condition 3: is staying in a household overnight where under 16 year olds may also be, again I just have to tell the parent or guardian not that I cannot.

Confusion that arises:
Condition one is who is the 2nd female but really now that is not relevant as they agree for it's removal when I apply but why was it there: I have that in writing
Condition 2 seems to logically contradict the statement made by the Court and CPS in that they agree I was approached by a working female not me to her!
Condition 3 I have argued is illogical partly in the same manner as No 2 and as the offence took place outside any house.

The 'argument' placed by the PPU/ force solicitor when I informed them I was applying for their removal was that they would contest 2 and 3 because females would be in my 'target' age group.
When i verbally spoke to them about this and reminded them of the statements in Court by the Judge and CPS, and that why does both include males, they said 'target' was a poor choice of word and refused any further comment.

However even though I have NO internet offences, note all my media and computers were checked for over 6 months on arrest with no concerns, they now focus on why I do use Privzer software to clean all history etc. Reminding them I have been an IT consultant since 1989 and have security concerns does me no favors.

I have (had) to agree not to delete any internet history until my next visit, when they will bring hardware/software to run on my laptop. They deny trying to catch me out; not that I have any concerns, but will not arrange a meeting date and time. Is it my sense of humour. 
I will not continue with this lack of personal security past the check or allow any software to monitor me because I have not committed an internet related offence.
Finally in regard to lie detector tests, I fully agree that it is a "media entertainment" attraction for individuals who want the focus to be on others. If I am asked to undertake a test I will refuse, partly because of my previous words BUT more importantly because on my arrest I stated 3 points as an explanation for my offence and I was willing to take a lie detector test to prove my honesty/word. My request was ignored/discarded as a gimmick and nothing more! So why should I take one now?

Keep safe, work with your PPU, believe in rehabilitation and remember constructive questions are not wrong, it is blind criticism that is not supportive to your / our case.





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

• No contact with anyone under 18 years, unless unavoidable as part of daily lawful life / conviction known to parents with approval of social services
• using devices with internet, unless retains history of internet use, makes it available for inspection
• deleting such history or any other files which record internet history or file browsing history
• using software which prevents internet devices from retaining history
• using false internet protocols address, name, alias or persona on internet
• using incognito mode
• possessing devices which store digital images, unless made available
• purchasing, using or downloading evidence elimination, encryption software or other file cleaning software.
• using any cloud storage, unless declared and made available
• not to engage in work / volunteer which could result in contact with under 18's
• refusing entry to your home