Have you considered submitting those questions under freedom of information? Considering its only the statistics your requesting and no personal information will be given I don't see any reason why this information could not be given. Unless it costs them £450 - £600 in work hours to retrieve the information. I would be quite interested in seeing the results too.

I agree 100% the public perception needs to change but we live in an age now where spreading bad news is good news. I was actually offered some training at a local hub near by, can not remember what the course was now but around 1-2 weeks before the course was due to start. some guy got spotted entering the building and a group of people had waited out side for him because they recognized him from the media. He got beaten up quite badly and from that day, anyone with a conviction is no longer allowed to take part in what ever courses they run at that building. But ultimately who are they protecting? Those with convictions? or protecting themselves from public scrutiny?

Sarahs Law allows any individual to check if someone they name is on the SOR, they are given in private this individuals real name if it was changed, what convictions are ect ect. The condition is that they are legally not allowed to disclose this information with anyone else not even their partners and is an arrest-able offence under data protection. But lets say an individual googles a name instead, finds all the same information police would give under Sarah's Law, yet this time there is no condition and they are free to share information with out consequence because it was made public and social media makes it easier than ever. Where is the logic?

What does a high risk offender really look like?

That is the million pound question and I think the answer is "Nobody knows" which is what makes it very difficult to police so they tend to essentially tar everyone with a similar brush until you prove yourself otherwise.

I agree with you and feel in the vast majority of cases images-based offence sentences are wildly disproportional to the crime committed when you compare it to other crimes. A lot of this has to do with the guides and laws being out of date and not keeping up with the ever changing technology. You just have to look at the wording of the law you've broken to see that.

A few things I'd be interested in seeing and it is not something I'm sure the public would be able to have proper access to aside from random hit pieces on questionable websites.

1. What is the criteria that defines if someone is Low, Medium, High risk
2. What is the average sentence for Low, Medium, High risk males
   
3. What is the average sentence for Low, Medium, High risk females
4. What is the percentage of re-offending for Low, Medium, High risk males
5. What is the percentage of re-offending for Low, Medium, High risk females

Not read the full document you linked but so far very interesting read with some valid points, those with an image based offence really do get treated as the worst of the worst while letting those with repeated offending just slip through the cracks until irreversible damage is done. When you do compare both circumstances it really does seem those with histories of repeated offending can simply ignore all the rules with little consequence, yet those with no previous convictions step one foot out of line they are brought down hard, because they are known to be non - violent.

Because of probation's error its now just easier for them to overestimate an individuals risk ignoring all possibilities of rehabilitation treating all as guilty until proven innocent. During the 2 years I was with probation, I felt rehabilitation was the last thing on my PO's mind. I had to ask for permission to do anything so checks could be done and disclosures made, regardless of whether there was zero chance of me coming into contact with under 18's. Judge considered me a medium risk up on leaving court, few months later after being appointed my 2nd PO I was made a high risk. Why? because I asked if it would be possible to have supervised contact with my children.

Independent review of the case of Joseph McCann - Independent-review-of-the-case-of-Joseph-McCann.pdf

I thought I would include a link to this public report into Probation's mis-management of Joseph McCann (currently serving 33 life sentences), because it highlights how risk can be wrongly evaluated in the case of many offenders.

McCann went on to be the countries worst ever sex offender, but he wasn't treated as an SO by the authorities, because his only convictions were for burglary. He wasn't placed on any register and he didn't receive any unannounced visits to his home by PPU officers, because he was seen as 'just a burglar'. He had some licence conditions but wasn't subject to all the restrictions imposed by an SHPO. He didn't have to disclose details of his offence to his family or anybody else in his life. This was despite all the evidence of his anti social thinking, threatening behaviour and failure to comply with probation rules, never mind his long list of previous (non sexual) offences, that is detailed in this extraordinary report.

Now contrast that to how indecent images offenders are treated. Unannounced home visits, severe restrictions on daily life, forced to disclose to anybody and everybody in their lives. Yet, most of these individuals have no previous convictions for any offence of any kind, no history of threatening and intimidating behaviour and most of them follow all of probation's rules to the letter. Yet, despite all this clear evidence of good character and compliant behaviour, they are regarded in the same way as McCann is looked at now, as being dangerous, potentially violent, predators and uncontrollable sex maniacs. The level of supervision put in place for indecent image offenders is entirely out of proportion to the risk they actually pose to the public. They are treated as if they are all just waiting for a chance to go on a rampage, like McCann did.

If they were burglars instead, even prolific burglars, or any other non sexual offender, they would not be treated so harshly.

Probation consistently underestimated McCann's risk of sexual harm, until it was too late. They did this because they didn't see him as an SO. For me, the most telling part of the report is the bit where McCann received a warning letter from probation (page 38 of the report). This letter caused him to be viewed as a sex offender, for the first time, by his partner's family. It was this letter, received on the 18th April, that most likely pushed him over the edge. He probably thought that, if they were going to label him as an SO anyway, then he would show them just what he was really capable of. He started his campaign of terror, just 3 days later.