You say your partner has served his sentence, I assume that means he has either served his time in prison or, served the suspended sentence and is now on license with probation with a SOPO/SHPO? if so how long does he have left? I honestly do not understand if he is considered a medium risk to children, how can he be a low risk to society?

In regards to disclosures and after reading the link AB2014 provided, I may have missed it but where exactly does it say police have authority to disclose a partners conviction to their employer? I have tried searching for laws relating to instances such as Mamacita's but so far I'm not seeing anything definitive. Everything I have found all relate to disclosures on those WITH the conviction and not those in association. So how can the PPO interfere in someone else's life when they are not the one with the conviction?

If in doubt I would seek legal advice about this before you make any decision
 

They have as much authority as anyone attending a public sentencing can inform an employer. There is no law against it. 

An example, Facebook - a commercial company, has in their terms and conditions that a registered sex offender cannot use their platform. It is not against the law to continue using their platform. You are not committing an offence if you register a new account after they have deleted your account although you are breaching their terms and conditions. The police even acknowledge this. However the PPU will, as a matter of policy, inform them anyway and your account will be deleted. 

Try not to confuse what the police are entitled to do in law with what any "concerned citizen" (which they no doubt count themselves as) with no other authority could also do.

So you are saying there is no law for police preventing them from informing an individuals employer that they are in a relationship with a sex offender? Despite having no convictions of their own? What about article 8 rights to a private life?
Although your example is correct, your example only refers to the individual who is a sex offender. Not someone who is associated or in a relationship with someone who is a sex offender.

There is no law that prevents them from informing anyone. Under Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) rules they, in theory, have to be able to justify it under the Human Rights Act, but in practice you would have to take them to court and they know a registered offender is unlikely to want the publicity.

Section 327A: Disclosure of information about convictions etc. of child sex offenders to members of the public. This section:
Requires the Responsible Authority to consider disclosing information about the previous convictions for sexual offences against children of a child sex offender to a member of the public.
Creates a presumption in favour of disclosure (even if no-one has requested it) if the child sex offender poses a risk of serious harm to any children and disclosure is necessary for their protection.
Empowers the Responsible Authority, in making disclosure to a particular person, to impose conditions preventing any further disclosure.
Requires the Responsible Authority to record its decision whether or not to make disclosure in each case.

Whilst most people would interpret that in its normal sense, it does not say that they are restricted to only notifying members of the public directly related. The police can justify basically any interpretation they want using "necessary for their protection". I have no restrictions on associating with under-18s (apart from the standard SRO 12 hours at a single location) but they still decided that they were going to disclose and talk to all my sisters anyway.

You can make a formal complaint, but that would be after the horse has bolted.

There are numerous things that my local PPU have done which are nominally unlawful (such as my PPO suggesting that I make a fraudulent PPI claim!) but that is not the same as it being illegal.

This does not apply to people in all occupations. In this case, the occupation is covered by what used to be called "notifiable occupations". It is based on someone being in "a profession or occupation which carries special trust or responsibility, in which the public interest in the disclosure of conviction and other information by the police generally outweighs the normal duty of confidentiality owed to the individual". You can make your own minds up about the wrongs and rights of that.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

It just does not seem right to me at all that police can interfere in someone else's life just because there in a relationship with a sex offender, especially when there are no under 18s involved and have no convictions of their own. Again we go back to the whole guilty till proven innocent saying. Is this why my PPO asks for friends details and where they work? So he can make a decision on whether they need to inform their employers that they are essentially friends with a sex offender?

When it comes to relationships I can understand the need for disclosing convictions and sharing partners details on the basis that it is likely more than 7 days will be spent at the partners home. What about normal friendships, What authority do police have asking me to provide personal details of those I am friends with? with or with-out their consent? Am I correct in saying police only have rights to obtain personal details of those they suspect of committing a crime? And as such, suspect those I am friends with because of association?

I have looked but again, I am not able to find anything specifically relating to these topics. Most likely I am not choosing my words correctly so if there is any legislation could someone post it?

Don't forget to factor in the public attitude towards people convicted of sexual offences. It wouldn't happen to any other category of offender, because they generally aren't supervised by the police. As I said before, it comes down to an evaluation of the police's duty of public protection against the rights of the individual. Don't forget their urge to cover themselves in case anything goes wrong. Even though it wouldn't....

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

xDanx

It's my understanding that a meeting with a PPO is not under caution. You can refuse to answer a question, or even lie. It might harm what level category they put you in but it is not against the law.

If they intend to disclose to someone, the police have to demonstrate that there is a risk of harm and say who is at risk. If they can establish that there is an under 18 somewhere, then they will argue that child is at risk, simply by them being a child. Since some offenders do abuse kids who are the children of friends, then arguably any friend, or anyone you have any contact with at all, who has kids, is at risk. Of course the police would also want to look at what access you have to the friend's kids. Do you ever visit the friend's house for example, or is just a friend that you meet at the local pub for a drink occasionally.

How far the police would go, in practice, to establish this depends on what the police already know about you and what they can find out. If they have already seized your mobile, then they could go through and identify all your contacts, then check to see if they had kids or not. But rather than take the time to do that they will most probably ask you first to provide details of your friends.

If you then choose not to disclose those details, which is your right, then the police would have to decide whether the risk you pose justifies further investigation. In an extreme case, if they thought your risk was really high, they could place you under covert surveillance, to see where you go and who you mix with. We've seen some people on this forum talk about being followed around by the police, so it does happen.

So knowing that the police have this power, you have to make a judgement call yourself. Do I tell the police about my friends and hope they don't disclose to those friends or do I keep the friends details to myself and hope the police don't find out about them.

Generally the last thing a PPO wants to do is to start telling everyone about the offender, it makes their job harder if lots of people in a community know the details. They generally want an easy life. As for an employer, even if he was told, your employer would have to tread carefully, they have a duty of care to you and they have to legally respect data protection - they can't without good reason start telling colleagues or patients. I'd imagine they would have to do a risk assessment, unless you have patients come to your home, or keep records at home I can't see how it is at all relevant what your partner has done. If I was you, I would speak to the PPU directly and ask why he wants your employer to know, and see if he is misunderstanding things on how your work and personal life interact. It may just be that he wants reassurance that patients do not come to your home, a you do not share patients records with your partner. And that you agree to ensure that never happens.