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.


Small intro + SHPO advice


Small intro + SHPO advice

Author
Message
xDanx
xDanx
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 101, Visits: 1.8K
Basically I am on the SOR for the next 7.5 years (10 year order) and I am under SHPO restrictions, I was charged for "making" of indecent images which in my opinion is wrong as technically it should be possession, but due to my solicitors not giving me any information regarding evidence, or any opportunity to dispute said evidence I am now stuck with this conviction. I will happily share more of my experiences at a later date when relevant, but for now I have an issue I hope some others could shed some light on regarding SHPO restrictions and there definitions.

One of my orders states I am not to intentionally delete history or any other file which records internet or file browsing history, my PPU officer claims that by deleting ANY form of data will be in breach of this order. An example would be, If i download a demo on to my console and then later purchase the full game, I no longer need the demo and want to delete it. Does the order really prohibit me from deleting a game that is essentially "offline"? example 2. I make a document on my computer which I print out and later do not need, Does this order legally stop me from deleting my own personal data?

I would appreciate any insight over this as it is seriously driving me crazy. I would just like to say for the record that I have followed my orders including the ridiculous ones imposed by my PPU officer.


Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 185, Visits: 3.4K
xDanx - 9 Jun 20 2:16 PM
Basically I am on the SOR for the next 7.5 years (10 year order) and I am under SHPO restrictions, I was charged for "making" of indecent images which in my opinion is wrong as technically it should be possession, but due to my solicitors not giving me any information regarding evidence, or any opportunity to dispute said evidence I am now stuck with this conviction. I will happily share more of my experiences at a later date when relevant, but for now I have an issue I hope some others could shed some light on regarding SHPO restrictions and there definitions.

One of my orders states I am not to intentionally delete history or any other file which records internet or file browsing history, my PPU officer claims that by deleting ANY form of data will be in breach of this order. An example would be, If i download a demo on to my console and then later purchase the full game, I no longer need the demo and want to delete it. Does the order really prohibit me from deleting a game that is essentially "offline"? example 2. I make a document on my computer which I print out and later do not need, Does this order legally stop me from deleting my own personal data?

I would appreciate any insight over this as it is seriously driving me crazy. I would just like to say for the record that I have followed my orders including the ridiculous ones imposed by my PPU officer.


Hi Dan,
Welcome to the forum, you'll see as you browse the threads of this forum you're not alone with having lots of questions about the SHPO.

A quick word on "making", it is poor wording, but it is what it is for the moment and does cover 'viewing, possessing, downloading' etc but yes, explaining that to someone on the outside is tricky. I realise it looks, to someone who doesn't know the intricacies, worse than it is. "Taking" is the more serious charge when an offender has created an image with a camera for example.

It might be helpful to share the exact wording of this condition on your order. Until then the best advice I can give, if the order does specifically instruct files as well as internet history, is to simply show that you're willing to comply with not deleting files. Then on your next visit ask if your ppu can delete things that take up space from your trash/bin etc. My ppu after she's gone through my history sometimes deletes it. Hope this helps.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
3 Months Ago by Mr W
Simon1983
Simon1983
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 129, Visits: 3.4K
Hi Dan 

welcome to the group, as you will see you are not alone, totally agree with Mr W, sadly wording is not exact when it comes to making images as a charge, as we as ex offenders know it means downloading and a different charge of taking if that was the case.

SHPO/SOPO are the great mind field for any ex offender convicted of an internet offence, and sadly they do not keep up with the pace of technology.

there are Many chats on here you will find useful, and as Mr W has pointed out it would be good to see the exact wording so we can advise more, until then i would just go with the flow and show PPU you will keep to the letter of the law, as you will see from the chats there is a lot of PPU own interpretation on what the meaning of a SHPO point means
xDanx
xDanx
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 101, Visits: 1.8K
Thank you both for your replies the order is worded
"Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history"
I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach?

I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into.

Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 185, Visits: 3.4K
xDanx - 9 Jun 20 3:37 PM
Thank you both for your replies the order is worded
"Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history"
I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach?

I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into.

The wording of orders seems to get more complex as time goes on. It's the word 'files' that is throwing me, it's a clumsy word.
If it means folders, it might mean cookies folder and/or temporary/"temp" files.
"File browsing history" seems like 'recent' - so if you're on Windows 10, it shows what's been accessed most recently, so this instructs you not to delete that. Ie. so upon a check they can see what you've been using recently.

Put in the simplest of terms, don't delete anything and then your ppu can't complain, I think that's the best way around it and try and get it removed from your order when the time is right.

Plus, if you don't delete the demos, as per your example, and ask them to delete it, it shows you're willing to comply - win win! I'd like to think that they wouldn't arrest you for deleting a demo, but for now, I wouldn't take that risk until some considerable time has passed because they want to see you complying with the order (the ppu doesn't care how silly the order is, they're there to do a job).

Living with a SHPO is mentally difficult, everyone here who has a SHPO has found it tough, including myself, to get their head around what seems to be barrier-less rules. Having the order at the forefront of your mind is what they want. They're to keep you avoiding slipping back into old ways and to see how you react when questioned about it. If you keep calm, especially when they test you with their "catch up chats", all will be fine.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
3 Months Ago by Mr W
Simon1983
Simon1983
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 129, Visits: 3.4K
Spot on there Mr W as always couple not have said it better myself,

Life is easier if you keep PPU on side, 

i have the challenge of of a life time, i have 4 points on my SOPO, the first two have been ruled by the Supreme Court as items that should be not on a SOPO based on an internet offence, and then have a further two

1 not to have access to any device that can access the internet (They have allowed me to have an IPhone and iPad for the last 10 years and had a laptop for work as well

2 not to undertaken any work that in its nature could bring him into contact with under 16 year olds 

Just spent the last 10years in a job that brought me into contact with under 16yr olds, and this job was given the ok by both probation PPU and MAPPA, so have spent the last 10 years in limbo which has not helped my mind set, then on top of that i only see PPU once a year 

part of me wants to take it back to court, but don’t want to run the risk of press coverage, PPU don’t want to help (Standard answer i seem to find) but yet have told me that i need to get it sorted within the next two years if they are to support an application to come off the register 

You cant win, don’t get me wrong i follow the rules and have a very good relationship with my PPU officer and i have had her for 10 years which has helped, if i was to move areas I don’t know what would happen 
Edited
3 Months Ago by Simon1983
Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 185, Visits: 3.4K
Simon1983 - 9 Jun 20 4:13 PM
Spot on there Mr W as always couple not have said it better myself,

Life is easier if you keep PPU on side, 

i have the challenge of of a life time, i have 4 points on my SOPO, the first two have been ruled by the Supreme Court as items that should be not on a SOPO based on an internet offence, and then have a further two

1 not to have access to any device that can access the internet (They have allowed me to have an IPhone and iPad for the last 10 years and had a laptop for work as well

2 not to undertaken any work that in its nature could bring him into contact with under 16 year olds 

Just spent the last 10years in a job that brought me into contact with under 16yr olds, and this job was given the ok by both probation PPU and MAPPA, so have spent the last 10 years in limbo which has not helped my mind set, then on top of that i only see PPU once a year 

part of me wants to take it back to court, but don’t want to run the risk of press coverage, PPU don’t want to help (Standard answer i seem to find) but yet have told me that i need to get it sorted within the next two years if they are to support an application to come off the register 

You cant win, don’t get me wrong i follow the rules and have a very good relationship with my PPU officer and i have had her for 10 years which has helped, if i was to move areas I don’t know what would happen 

I appreciate the kind words. I've had my ups and downs with mine. I have the females under 16 thing too. I mentioned a rock concert I intended on going to in a conversation with my ppu. She said she would get back to me about whether the terms and conditions of the venue allowed me being there - that completely threw me as far as I was concerned terms and conditions of private companies are not legal issues, they're civil matters, no matter how big the company. However, she advised not to buy tickets and I never heard anything after that. After seeking legal advice, he was angry about what I'd been told, so he said it was fine to go because 'not going to gigs' wasn't on my order and "what would they arrest you for?". I went to the gig. Afterwards, I told my ppu I went during the conversation and she tutted, shook her head and wrote something down. I wasn't arrested though. So, I was baffled as to what all the fuss was about.
In my opinion, living with the SHPO is difficult and the mental impact is not taken anywhere seriously enough, but equally, I'm not going to miss out on things I'm passionate about because of a vague wording on a SHPO. If it was a concert to see Little Mix or BTS, I would understand some questionable eyebrow raising, but this was a rock band that have been around for 20 years! We still need to live a life. And the concert was excellent.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
xDanx
xDanx
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)Supreme Being (1.6K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 101, Visits: 1.8K
Mr W - 9 Jun 20 4:00 PM
xDanx - 9 Jun 20 3:37 PM
Thank you both for your replies the order is worded
"Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history"
I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach?

I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into.

The wording of orders seems to get more complex as time goes on. It's the word 'files' that is throwing me, it's a clumsy word.
If it means folders, it might mean cookies folder and/or temporary/"temp" files.
"File browsing history" seems like 'recent' - so if you're on Windows 10, it shows what's been accessed most recently, so this instructs you not to delete that. Ie. so upon a check they can see what you've been using recently.

Put in the simplest of terms, don't delete anything and then your ppu can't complain, I think that's the best way around it and try and get it removed from your order when the time is right.

Plus, if you don't delete the demos, as per your example, and ask them to delete it, it shows you're willing to comply - win win! I'd like to think that they wouldn't arrest you for deleting a demo, but for now, I wouldn't take that risk until some considerable time has passed because they want to see you complying with the order (no matter how silly some of it is).

Living with a SHPO is mentally difficult, everyone here who has a SHPO has found it tough, including myself, to get their head around what seems to be barrier-less rules. Having the order at the forefront of your mind is what they want. They're to keep you avoiding slipping back into old ways and to see how you react when questioned about it. If you keep calm, especially when they test you with their "catch up chats", all will be fine.

Let me explain where this confusion has originated from, I was visited by my PPU officer few months ago and I had a few questions I needed his guidance on relating to my orders. His words were basically "If it is not in your orders then there is no restriction". If that is the case and the order only makes reference to internet history, then why would I be in breach of the order for deleting a demo? Granted I would need internet access to download the demo but after that it becomes my personal data which ultimately does not need an internet connection in order to play. Lets take out the internet all together and say for example I purchase a game from the shops, I install the game from disc on the console hard drive which is standard in this day and age. I then purchase another game but no longer have the space for it and would need to delete the previously installed game. Am I technically breaching this order since the internet was not used? Its no different to writing on a bit of paper then throwing it in the bin.

This is what my ppu officer is failing to understand, but rather than understand it he is simply imposing a no data deletion ban which in all honesty, is going above his authority. I will be challenging this eventually but right now I am abiding by the "rules" and gathering information before I raise my issues.

Mr W
Mr W
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)Supreme Being (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 185, Visits: 3.4K
xDanx - 9 Jun 20 4:48 PM
Mr W - 9 Jun 20 4:00 PM
xDanx - 9 Jun 20 3:37 PM
Thank you both for your replies the order is worded
"Intentionally deleting such history or any other files which record internet or file browsing history"
I have spoke to some legal advisors about this and they seem just as confused as I am as to why this order even exists. It clearly only relates to "history" so why would deleting a demo or anything else for that matter which is unrelated to the internet be considered a breach?

I feel it is only in place for police to interpret the order which ever way they see fit which in turn makes me feel I am being set up to fail potentially. I have searched for legislation on this but have so far found nothing. Its a grey area that really needs looking into.

The wording of orders seems to get more complex as time goes on. It's the word 'files' that is throwing me, it's a clumsy word.
If it means folders, it might mean cookies folder and/or temporary/"temp" files.
"File browsing history" seems like 'recent' - so if you're on Windows 10, it shows what's been accessed most recently, so this instructs you not to delete that. Ie. so upon a check they can see what you've been using recently.

Put in the simplest of terms, don't delete anything and then your ppu can't complain, I think that's the best way around it and try and get it removed from your order when the time is right.

Plus, if you don't delete the demos, as per your example, and ask them to delete it, it shows you're willing to comply - win win! I'd like to think that they wouldn't arrest you for deleting a demo, but for now, I wouldn't take that risk until some considerable time has passed because they want to see you complying with the order (no matter how silly some of it is).

Living with a SHPO is mentally difficult, everyone here who has a SHPO has found it tough, including myself, to get their head around what seems to be barrier-less rules. Having the order at the forefront of your mind is what they want. They're to keep you avoiding slipping back into old ways and to see how you react when questioned about it. If you keep calm, especially when they test you with their "catch up chats", all will be fine.

Let me explain where this confusion has originated from, I was visited by my PPU officer few months ago and I had a few questions I needed his guidance on relating to my orders. His words were basically "If it is not in your orders then there is no restriction". If that is the case and the order only makes reference to internet history, then why would I be in breach of the order for deleting a demo? Granted I would need internet access to download the demo but after that it becomes my personal data which ultimately does not need an internet connection in order to play. Lets take out the internet all together and say for example I purchase a game from the shops, I install the game from disc on the console hard drive which is standard in this day and age. I then purchase another game but no longer have the space for it and would need to delete the previously installed game. Am I technically breaching this order since the internet was not used? Its no different to writing on a bit of paper then throwing it in the bin.

This is what my ppu officer is failing to understand, but rather than understand it he is simply imposing a no data deletion ban which in all honesty, is going above his authority. I will be challenging this eventually but right now I am abiding by the "rules" and gathering information before I raise my issues.

I can sympathise with the confusion. I think the critical point with your example is around 'file browsing history'. If you delete a demo, you will be intentionally deleting the fact that you had that demo at all and it won't appear in the file browsing history. I'd suggest asking your ppu that exact question and it'll no doubt him ending up making a judgment call and then you'll have to go with that. I'm no legal expert, so I'd have to refer up on this one, your defence of 'some bloke on a forum said...' probably wouldn't get you too far. Haha. In the meantime, don't delete stuff, try and get clarity when you can and try to focus on what you can to help move forward with your life.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
Edited
3 Months Ago by Mr W
Simon1983
Simon1983
Supreme Being
Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)Supreme Being (3.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 129, Visits: 3.4K
Hi Dan 

As Mr W has said do not delete any thing at the moment, if needed seek legal advice, I did not catch when you were sentenced, but if its recent then you need to get that relationship with PPU bedded in, this will work in your favour going forward.

you will find over time that every PPU officer will interpret things differently which does not help us, i know i keep referring to the relationship, don’t get me wrong PPU are not there to be our friends, they are there Hoping we slip up, by following the rules, “yes sir no sir three bags full sir” we don’t give them that opportunity and show them that we are the reformed person, and we prove them wrong, and show that ex offenders with a sex offence have the lowest reoffending rate of any ex offenders, something you don’t find published.
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