Funny how Solicitors are suppose to give you legal advice yet Police can ignore that advice and simply impose what ever they wish on anyone because they are "the law".
What steps have you taken so far since then? Have you filed a complaint? Asked for a subject access request? Asked police to justify their reasons for the caution and not taking legal advice in to account?
Did your solicitor not help back up their advice?

I really can understand your frustration but as I said in my last post, you have to stay strong and collect as much information as you can.

The solicitor was a nightmare to be honest, at the time I was in a relationship with a woman who had a 10 year old child. I asked my solicitor (in writing) if I needed to inform police (pre sentencing). he said no and the QC agreed. The woman by the way was fully aware of the charges and was kept updated.

Post sentencing I wrote to my solicitor

"1-Does this now mean that I can have no contact with ****** youngest without involving the SS (Social Services)?"
My solicitor replied
"No - **QC [My QC] explained this at the last hearing. Such contact would be caught within the "normal and incidental" definition"

The police found out and I ended up with a caution for following the solicitors advice....

There is another story on here about police submitting a hand written SHPO to the court, on the day. These are classic examples of a system that is broken. CPS obviously turned up at the court that morning, realised they had forgotten to do it, and put one together on the fly. But I am surprised the judge didn't simply throw it out and adjourn the proceedings, until another day.

In my case, the judge and my barrister argued about the wording of the SHPO, until the judge said that he had another case to hear, that afternoon and he didn't want to spend the rest of his day arguing. At that point, he sent the CPS barrister away, with instructions to rewrite the SHPO and to send him a copy when it was done. I was sent home and got a copy of the SHPO in the post about a week later.

But like most of the people on this forum, it's only after the event, with the benefit of hindsight, that we start to realise something wasn't right. By which time, it's usually too late to do anything about it and to correct the mistakes that have been made.

Yeah - same thing happened to me. I was sat outside with my QC and solicitor, the clerk came up with the order and that was it. The QC and Solicitor said the orders are standard and there's no point in questioning it.

I was handled a copy by the clerk of the court at the end of the hearing and my solicitor also sent me a copy in their wrap-up letter. May be worth going back to them to see if they have it still on file.

"...I was told that I couldn't start them on the basis that Children would be ordering. or buying sweets etc..."

Stuff like this really gets my goat up at times. Similar to when you see folk online when someone is outed in media. "Oh Karen, this guy lives on your street! Make sure little Timmy is safe" as they're just going around abducting children left, right, and centre. If they even bothered to look into the facts and statistics it shows quite clearly physical harm to children is overwhelmingly carried out by someone close to the family, typically a father. So if anything they'd need to be keeping an eye on their husband more than some random in their street...

The police are obviously aware (or at least should be!) of this fact too.

I'm not sure how old you are, I'm in my 30s and I have zero record of ever doing anything to a child. With that in mind and what I mentioned above as well as also being arrested and monitored by the police this seems like a ludicrous stipulation to place on a someone who has never committed a contact offence. It's all based on an imagined risk on feelings. I'm sorry, but facts don't care about feelings.

And in regards to the initial issue with Home Bargains and Starbucks. Both are multi-million pound companies. I'm fairly certain they all have CCTV as well as a pretty steady customer base throughout the day. Do they honestly think you're going to be at the till and just snatching up children as they come through or something? The stupidity angers me, it really does.

I also have no idea how everyone knows what stipulations they have on their SOPO. I have never been given a list, I honestly couldn't tell you what I'm allowed or not allowed to do. The only thing remotely related I got was one sheet of paper which said what offence I'd been charged with along with the court dates and information and that I need to go to the police station within 3 days to hand over my details. I'm in Scotland so not sure if that changes anything.

It's always difficult to breakdown specifics without knowing more about you, family, the severity of images, the incident etc
I say this in hope that it helps - this whole thing is not so much about the number, the deleted factor or accessibility of the thumb.dl file, it's more about you being okay with seeking and viewing those images. That illegal action raises red flags in the eyes of whoever it is that decides the clauses and they think those are suitable (whether they're right or wrong, conversation for another day, but they are what they are for now) and proportionate for the crime. Eg. The offending was online, so we can check your internet history. Makes sense.

So, until that order changes (there's a recent thread about this) you're stuck with it. BUT, if you can move your focus away from the nitty gritty of the order and take some positive steps, for your own sanity if nothing else, then you're better off spending your time focusing on how to do that. It's NOT easy. Many of us know this pain. And it can be made difficult by your ppu, as mine does. So if you're able to go for those jobs, if your most recent ppu dialogue says you can, then absolutely do it. You've been given a green light by someone who is aware of the stipulations of your order. I don't know if Starbucks do DBS checks or not etc so just be aware of that if they do. But yes, I sympathise with having a lack of trust with unaccountable 'flexibility' which we just have to put up with from a ppu.

If you want a positive, I'd say 3 d ii - is a good thing for you. My order doesn't state either way about work computers, so naturally, Force A was ok with this but I moved and Force B continue to suffocate me. They even hinted at checking a computer I used during an interview, ffs! They didn't in the end. Endless mind games. Anyway, I'll stop before I rant. I hope this helps. Turn your focus away from the offence, away from court, away from the order and focus your energy on positive goals, a future, and the day we can rip up that bit of paper.


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

Hi James
I feel the same as you do, and agree those orders that have been placed on your SHPO are an absolute joke. If you are willing, I would be interested to know how your solicitor dealt with your case. Did you ever make complaints or take it to legal ombudsman? Did you pay them yourself or was "defense" provided for free?

As difficult and frustrating our situations are, you have to remain strong. Do not let them win.

I'm a registered sex offender, and nearing the end of my tether I just feel like the last 4 and a bit years have been crazy my original conviction was for 17 deleted images and i've been hounded and profiled non stop by greater manchester police and west yorkshire police.

At no point can anyone explain to my how such a draconian and onerous order was imposed, no one can tell me about why RvSmith and RvMortimer was ignored. Nor can anyone explain to me why when I travel green notices are issued by forces.

It has got to the point where I feel i've been completely mistreated, misrepresented. I just don't know what to do or where to go to progress, I dont know how to move on and find work, I dont to how I can even start work.

Last year I approached west yorkshire police I was offered 2 jobs at starbucks and home bargains. I was told that I couldn't start them on the basis that Children would be ordering. or buying sweets etc. This year i'm told, hey you can go for those jobs. Who do I believe or who do I trust when one year they say one thing, and the next another.

I just dont know what to do

PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS AND ISSUES:

The police executed a warrant at the defendant's address on 8/8/15.

A number of electrical items were removed.Examination of a laptop revealed inaccessible indecent images of children at Categories A, Band C.Admissions have been made by the defendant to his partner who has provided a statement.

Every image found states
This image has been recovered from a 'Thum bs.db' file on the Windows user profile of '********''.Thumbs.db files are generated by the Windows operating system to enable a user of the OS to see athumbnail representation of a number of graphic files in a single location. These 'system' files are notreadily accessible without specialist knowledge.

indecent photographs of children x 18 making indecent photographs of children x 18 


Bearing in mind my offence was for 18 deleted images, how does that translate into a SHPO like this????

  1. Having contact either directly or indirectly with any child under 16 years except:
(a) Normal, incidental and not reasonably avoidable in the course of lawful day to day life
(b) Contact with the express written approval of Social Services for the area where the defendant is residing
(c) Contact with any child to whom the defendant is the biological father and a court order pursuant to the Children's Act 1989 has been granted
authorising contact.
2. Residing at any address without prior approval of his Police Offender Manager (SOMU).
3. Possessing or using any computer or device capable of accessing the internet including mobile phones unless:
(a)The make model and serial number of the device have been notified to a Police Offender Manager for the area where he resides AND
b) It has installed and maintained, monitoring software that is approved and monitored by Greater Manchester Police or any other police force in
the area in which he lives. AND
c) He does not tamper interfere remove bypass disable alter or attempt to do any of those things to the components or settings relating to the
installed risk management software.
d) With exception of a device owned and used within a public library -0r internet cafe the details of which he has provided details to his Police
Offender Manager.
OR
The device is used solely for the purposes of work or employment (other than self-employment), is not removed by or on behalf of the Defendant
from the employer's premises, internet use of the device is subject to security measures monitored by the employer which are deemed suitable
by the Public protection Unit of the Police Force in which he lives ..
4. Taking up employment paid/unpaid (includes elf employment/voluntary work) that will bring him into regular contact with children under
16yrs.
5. Possessing any still or moving image of a child under 16 years old (excluding family members who must have their genitals, buttocks and torso
covered) except for televised programmes, commercially produced videos or DVD's and lawful publications such as magazines and catalogues.
6. Taking any visual image of a child under 16yrs except with knowledge and permission of that child's parent or guardian who is aware of his
conviction.
7. Possessing any device capable of storing digital images unless he provides the details, make and model of such an item to his Police Offender
Manager for the area where he resides and make such a device available for inspection on request.