|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+xHowever one comment I learnt from my early military days (pre mass computers) feed something crap and all you will get in return is crap
From my student days, I seem to remember that the engineering equivalent saying is: Garbage In, Garbage OutSo, if you ever see GIGO anywhere, that's what it means. Agree there is many forms of stating that; not all are polite 
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
+xIn an ideal world, there would be a simple process to clarify mis-understandings and correct inaccurate information. In the real world, it might require going back to court and getting the judge who issued the SHPO, to clarify its meaning. Mine would have been a little tricky to get the same judge to clarify it. It was his last day and after a few cases of sentencing (I wasn't his last case) he retired!
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xI have never experienced anything that you guys have and I always see advice on here regarding your PPU and being open and honest with them. Which no doubt is good advice in most situations. But if it isn't part of your SHPO why do you need to tell them anything? Isn't it always best to keep your cards close to your chest and not say anything like you would generally do with the police? I'm not advocating for someone to lie but repeatedly it has been said that the SOR is not a punishment. However all of these extra conditions that appear out of thin air and are imposed selectively surely mean that this is the case. Yes, there is no obligation to tell the PPU anything at all. The comments on another recent thread, about how the PPU want us to "get out more", but then restrict where we can go and what we can do, highlight how the risk management process is often contradicting itself. The courts in R v Smith were clear, that an SHPO should be easy for the SO to understand and easy for the police to enforce. But since each PPU can add their own interpretation, there are many grey areas, which we discuss regularly on this forum.
In an ideal world, there would be a simple process to clarify mis-understandings and correct inaccurate information. In the real world, it might require going back to court and getting the judge who issued the SHPO, to clarify its meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+xHowever one comment I learnt from my early military days (pre mass computers) feed something crap and all you will get in return is crap
From my student days, I seem to remember that the engineering equivalent saying is: Garbage In, Garbage OutSo, if you ever see GIGO anywhere, that's what it means.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
Hi Though I can quote documented acceptance of false information being held concerning me I will leave it to you to think about the following: Information and so decision making is supposed to be a "continuity" in the successful management of any offender no matter the offence; that is one supporting reason for the continued development and expenditure on the Justice System budget. However one comment I learnt from my early military days (pre mass computers) feed something crap and all you will get in return is crap
Ask how many times is the data held checked independently for accuracy? It only takes one incorrect statement to deviate the path of truth and so an individuals life prospects.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Richie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 47,
Visits: 328
|
+x+x+x+xThere are some states in the USA, where time on the SOR is decided by doing an individual risk assessment. Others have set periods, typically 10, 20 or 25 years. Much longer than the UK. The problem with the British system, is that it links time on the SOR to seriousness of the original offence, not to the risk of future offending. Effectively, time on the SOR then becomes a punishment for the original offence, when it is supposed to be a way of preventing future offending. However, when this has been questioned on appeal, the courts have always denied that the SOR is a form of punishment. So the best solution, would be to conduct a proper risk assessment at the point of sentencing and then use that to determine the amount of time that the person needs to be on the SOR for. When that period ends, then it could be reviewed and another risk assessment carried out automatically, without the need for the person to request one. From what we already know, about the way that risk reduces over time, the review periods should be a lot shorter. I would suggest 3 years, 5 years and 7 years, for those rated low risk, medium, or high risk respectively. Maybe a 10 year period, for the 2% who are rated very high risk, as well. But the biggest problem, is that there are still no risk assessment tools, that can reliably predict someone's risk of re-offending. So there would inevitably be inconsistencies and errors, which might bring the whole system into disrepute. This is indeed the flaw. I don't see that changing any time soon. There are also no objective tests at the point of sentencing. The police categorised me as high risk. Bear in mind that this was for category C images and based solely on the fact that I worked in IT and had a computer degree so according to them could be "devious" if I wanted to be. At sentencing I was in the same category as serial rapists according to them. Probation, on the other hand, had me down as low risk. It would then be down to who the judge believed. If I was to make a change, it would be to keep the sentencing periods as they are on conviction but to have a process to automatically adjust the SOR length after a review conducted either at the end of the community order or licence/supervision period. I'm all for risk assessments to be done properly, but as the early management of a case is done by probation, the police don't currently have access to those files. So, when probation/licence ends and you're being supervised by the police, your risk level will probably increase. Even then, you're at the mercy of whoever is carrying out the risk assessment and their own prejudices and risk-aversion. Because of that, different forces, and even officers, would probably assess a case differently, leading to another postcode lottery. If we can find a way through that, then we could be on to something, but for now I suspect we're in the least bad system that is currently available. Probation and police should share information, because that is what MAPPA is all about, although they don't always have access to each others computer systems, which makes it difficult. You are relying on the individuals to be pro active and to talk to each other. Some are better than others, at doing that. For me, the problem is that everytime you get a new PPU or PO, the whole risk assessment process starts again from scratch. Whatever trust you may have built up with your previous PPU or PO is forgotten and you have to 'prove' yourself all over again to the new officer. They are very reluctant to read the notes left on the computer, by the previous person and want you to explain everything again to them, from the beginning. That's frustrating. A proper handover, from one PPU to another, is vital, if the risk assessment is going to be done properly, but as with many jobs, they get moved at short notice and they don't have time to do a handover of their caseload to the new PPU. According to my PPU they couldn't agree on my risk level when I was on probation and it doesn't sound like there was much communication between the police and probation about it. My risk level when I was released from prison was initially high, then the police reduced it to medium which I was told about. Then apparently my probation officer raised it to high, even though I was nearly at the end of my probation period and had successfully completed all my courses. She didn't even tell me she had done this. The police then put my risk level down to medium once my probation period had finished. The only difference I can see between high and medium risk is that I get visited more often when I am high risk. I am not sure what else actually happens behind the scenes and what monitoring they do in-between visits, but I am guessing it is somewhere between none and very little.
|
|
|
|
|
MA1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1,
Visits: 813
|
I have never experienced anything that you guys have and I always see advice on here regarding your PPU and being open and honest with them. Which no doubt is good advice in most situations.
But if it isn't part of your SHPO why do you need to tell them anything? Isn't it always best to keep your cards close to your chest and not say anything like you would generally do with the police? I'm not advocating for someone to lie but repeatedly it has been said that the SOR is not a punishment. However all of these extra conditions that appear out of thin air and are imposed selectively surely mean that this is the case.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
+xProbation and police should share information, because that is what MAPPA is all about, although they don't always have access to each others computer systems, which makes it difficult. You are relying on the individuals to be pro active and to talk to each other. Some are better than others, at doing that. For me, the problem is that everytime you get a new PPU or PO, the whole risk assessment process starts again from scratch. Whatever trust you may have built up with your previous PPU or PO is forgotten and you have to 'prove' yourself all over again to the new officer. They are very reluctant to read the notes left on the computer, by the previous person and want you to explain everything again to them, from the beginning. That's frustrating. A proper handover, from one PPU to another, is vital, if the risk assessment is going to be done properly, but as with many jobs, they get moved at short notice and they don't have time to do a handover of their caseload to the new PPU. As a counter point, my first PPO was an absolute dickhead. My second was a former recent PCSO, so whilst "lower qualified" was pragmatic and went with the evidence. Not surprisingly I thought my second PPO was actually okay, even if I sometimes totally disagreed with her interpretations. The police and probation don't talk to each other. That much was obvious to me early on. PPO: "We need to conduct another assessment". Next meeting with PO: "But I sent them the report two months ago." I think the general point that comes out in this forum is that it's the complete unpredictability and "computer says no" attitudes that cause the most frustration. If it was a level playing field across forces and individual PPUs at least we'd know where we stood.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+xThere are some states in the USA, where time on the SOR is decided by doing an individual risk assessment. Others have set periods, typically 10, 20 or 25 years. Much longer than the UK. The problem with the British system, is that it links time on the SOR to seriousness of the original offence, not to the risk of future offending. Effectively, time on the SOR then becomes a punishment for the original offence, when it is supposed to be a way of preventing future offending. However, when this has been questioned on appeal, the courts have always denied that the SOR is a form of punishment. So the best solution, would be to conduct a proper risk assessment at the point of sentencing and then use that to determine the amount of time that the person needs to be on the SOR for. When that period ends, then it could be reviewed and another risk assessment carried out automatically, without the need for the person to request one. From what we already know, about the way that risk reduces over time, the review periods should be a lot shorter. I would suggest 3 years, 5 years and 7 years, for those rated low risk, medium, or high risk respectively. Maybe a 10 year period, for the 2% who are rated very high risk, as well. But the biggest problem, is that there are still no risk assessment tools, that can reliably predict someone's risk of re-offending. So there would inevitably be inconsistencies and errors, which might bring the whole system into disrepute. This is indeed the flaw. I don't see that changing any time soon. There are also no objective tests at the point of sentencing. The police categorised me as high risk. Bear in mind that this was for category C images and based solely on the fact that I worked in IT and had a computer degree so according to them could be "devious" if I wanted to be. At sentencing I was in the same category as serial rapists according to them. Probation, on the other hand, had me down as low risk. It would then be down to who the judge believed. If I was to make a change, it would be to keep the sentencing periods as they are on conviction but to have a process to automatically adjust the SOR length after a review conducted either at the end of the community order or licence/supervision period. I'm all for risk assessments to be done properly, but as the early management of a case is done by probation, the police don't currently have access to those files. So, when probation/licence ends and you're being supervised by the police, your risk level will probably increase. Even then, you're at the mercy of whoever is carrying out the risk assessment and their own prejudices and risk-aversion. Because of that, different forces, and even officers, would probably assess a case differently, leading to another postcode lottery. If we can find a way through that, then we could be on to something, but for now I suspect we're in the least bad system that is currently available. Probation and police should share information, because that is what MAPPA is all about, although they don't always have access to each others computer systems, which makes it difficult. You are relying on the individuals to be pro active and to talk to each other. Some are better than others, at doing that. For me, the problem is that everytime you get a new PPU or PO, the whole risk assessment process starts again from scratch. Whatever trust you may have built up with your previous PPU or PO is forgotten and you have to 'prove' yourself all over again to the new officer. They are very reluctant to read the notes left on the computer, by the previous person and want you to explain everything again to them, from the beginning. That's frustrating. A proper handover, from one PPU to another, is vital, if the risk assessment is going to be done properly, but as with many jobs, they get moved at short notice and they don't have time to do a handover of their caseload to the new PPU.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+xThere are some states in the USA, where time on the SOR is decided by doing an individual risk assessment. Others have set periods, typically 10, 20 or 25 years. Much longer than the UK. The problem with the British system, is that it links time on the SOR to seriousness of the original offence, not to the risk of future offending. Effectively, time on the SOR then becomes a punishment for the original offence, when it is supposed to be a way of preventing future offending. However, when this has been questioned on appeal, the courts have always denied that the SOR is a form of punishment. So the best solution, would be to conduct a proper risk assessment at the point of sentencing and then use that to determine the amount of time that the person needs to be on the SOR for. When that period ends, then it could be reviewed and another risk assessment carried out automatically, without the need for the person to request one. From what we already know, about the way that risk reduces over time, the review periods should be a lot shorter. I would suggest 3 years, 5 years and 7 years, for those rated low risk, medium, or high risk respectively. Maybe a 10 year period, for the 2% who are rated very high risk, as well. But the biggest problem, is that there are still no risk assessment tools, that can reliably predict someone's risk of re-offending. So there would inevitably be inconsistencies and errors, which might bring the whole system into disrepute. This is indeed the flaw. I don't see that changing any time soon. There are also no objective tests at the point of sentencing. The police categorised me as high risk. Bear in mind that this was for category C images and based solely on the fact that I worked in IT and had a computer degree so according to them could be "devious" if I wanted to be. At sentencing I was in the same category as serial rapists according to them. Probation, on the other hand, had me down as low risk. It would then be down to who the judge believed. If I was to make a change, it would be to keep the sentencing periods as they are on conviction but to have a process to automatically adjust the SOR length after a review conducted either at the end of the community order or licence/supervision period. I'm all for risk assessments to be done properly, but as the early management of a case is done by probation, the police don't currently have access to those files. So, when probation/licence ends and you're being supervised by the police, your risk level will probably increase. Even then, you're at the mercy of whoever is carrying out the risk assessment and their own prejudices and risk-aversion. Because of that, different forces, and even officers, would probably assess a case differently, leading to another postcode lottery. If we can find a way through that, then we could be on to something, but for now I suspect we're in the least bad system that is currently available.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
+xThere are some states in the USA, where time on the SOR is decided by doing an individual risk assessment. Others have set periods, typically 10, 20 or 25 years. Much longer than the UK. The problem with the British system, is that it links time on the SOR to seriousness of the original offence, not to the risk of future offending. Effectively, time on the SOR then becomes a punishment for the original offence, when it is supposed to be a way of preventing future offending. However, when this has been questioned on appeal, the courts have always denied that the SOR is a form of punishment. So the best solution, would be to conduct a proper risk assessment at the point of sentencing and then use that to determine the amount of time that the person needs to be on the SOR for. When that period ends, then it could be reviewed and another risk assessment carried out automatically, without the need for the person to request one. From what we already know, about the way that risk reduces over time, the review periods should be a lot shorter. I would suggest 3 years, 5 years and 7 years, for those rated low risk, medium, or high risk respectively. Maybe a 10 year period, for the 2% who are rated very high risk, as well. But the biggest problem, is that there are still no risk assessment tools, that can reliably predict someone's risk of re-offending. So there would inevitably be inconsistencies and errors, which might bring the whole system into disrepute. This is indeed the flaw. I don't see that changing any time soon. There are also no objective tests at the point of sentencing. The police categorised me as high risk. Bear in mind that this was for category C images and based solely on the fact that I worked in IT and had a computer degree so according to them could be "devious" if I wanted to be. At sentencing I was in the same category as serial rapists according to them. Probation, on the other hand, had me down as low risk. It would then be down to who the judge believed. If I was to make a change, it would be to keep the sentencing periods as they are on conviction but to have a process to automatically adjust the SOR length after a review conducted either at the end of the community order or licence/supervision period.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThe other day I came across some really interesting details of a plan for reactive management of SO. This idea was first presented in 2017 and it does appear to be operating in some police forces today. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedThe idea is that if an SO has been rated as low risk for 3 years, and has no SHPO, then they no longer need to have any home visits. It was introduced in the year that the number of SO passed 50,000 for the first time and it was obviously intended to reduce the workload of police forces. The number of SO right now is nearer 70k, so how many are being managed under this scheme? It really depends on the police force. Around 50% of all SO are classified as low risk, but very few are on the scheme. Just 70 out of 593 in one area. One police force uses a polygraph to assess who should be on the scheme, although that is not standard practice. One police force (Durham) sends uniformed officers round to visit SO, in a clear breach of the national policy. Lots of forces send just one PPU, when they should send teams of two. In London, the Met allows SO to be monitored by phone and even to complete their annual registration by phone or email. Many of these policies are in place, because there are too many SO and not enough officers to monitor them all. There is no consistency of approach across the country. But the most obvious problem with reactive management, is that so many SO have an SHPO. That prevents many low risk people from being managed reactively, and forces the police to visit them. With the numbers set to increase to 100k by 2030, there really ought to be an expansion of the scheme to include SO with an SHPO, so that resources are being used effectively. Hi It is a nice idea but I do have issues surrounding SOPO/SHPO as in certain circumstances they are deemed as a "default" solution when the "individual" scenario of the event/offence could suggest there is not a requirement for one. As I have published before The Justice Inspectorates stated <quote>Reoffending amongst sexual offenders is lower than that of general offenders. Indeed, those who are deemed lower risk have measured reoffending risks similar to the general population and some researchers argue that the resources to manage such cases would be better expended in primary prevention and victim support</quote> In brief, if there is a need for a SOPO/SHPO to be issued to a (or a person becomes) a "Low Risk", after a certain amount of monitoring the system should be allowed to discharge the SOPO/SHPO without the requirement and RISK (to the ex-offender) of a Court appearance. In times of overworked Courts, limited support both legal and financially to the ex-offender, surly a progressive society should be able to see the sense of a combination of the above thoughts? Totally agree, although it depends what you mean by a 'certain amount of monitoring', because many SHPO are automatically discharged after 5 or 10 years without a court appearance. Its only the lifetime ones we are talking about, so how long should they have to wait to be reviewed and would it depend on what offence they had committed, or what sentence they received, or purely on their risk level? Hi The devil is always in the detail lol No matter the offence "low risk" is the "bar", this I think we would agree on. Reason being is that is the common denominator across all offences and the system at present would not allow someone to be classed as "low risk" if "unacceptable" risks were deemed still likely. Remember we believe "rehabilitation" is a fact no matter the offence. Therefore if we could ask to focus on "lifetime" because as you say, others are automatically automatically discharged. However there could be an argument that the default period is 5 years minimum with the removal of all other terms. Then any consideration is undertaken after 5 years to all low risk ex-offenders. This does not only reduce confusion but sets "targets", and more importantly "HOPE" for the ex-offender. I understand that could suggest a style of "IPP" but as long as "low risk" status is still achievable i.e. no new barriers put in place, then the "5 year" period would be on the lines of the "15 years" used for the SOR. On that point; and what I read into your words, I have always asked the question: The "offence details and rehabilitation" of an individual is unique to the individual. So what "formula" has been used that says all individuals are only suitable to apply to discharge the SOR at 15 years? Ignore the sentencing threshold, as in my opinion and experience, other events and influences can remove sentencing "consistency" for the same offence committed by different individuals. What formula was used? Quite simply, it was the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, saying he would do the minimum possible to comply with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. Hence fifteen years. It was reassuring to see that long-standing guardian of freedoms Nick Clegg happy to agree with him (*sarcasm*). There is an explanation (of sorts) here. In the debate which took place. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-07-05/debates/12070571000298/SexualOffencesAct2003(Remedial)Order2012"The noble Baroness asked about why we had determined 15 years as an appropriate time for an offender to make an application for review. I think that I covered that carefully in my opening speech by explaining that the evidence suggests that a sex offender, if they are likely to reoffend, will do so in the first few years following their release from prison. The longer the period that has elapsed after their release is, the less likely it is that they will reoffend. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the available evidence suggests that there is no specific scientific point at which it can be absolutely guaranteed that someone will not reoffend," But the real explanation of the 15 year formula is here. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/200/20002.htm24. This approach accords with the scheme of notification requirements in the 2003 Act[11] in which there are prescribed periods of time for which an offender is subject to notification requirements depending on the sentence imposed and the age of the offender on conviction. The maximum prescribed finite period (for offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 6 months but less than 30 months) is 10 years. Therefore we think that for those offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 30 months (who were at least 18 years of age on conviction)—and therefore subject to indefinite notification requirements—a minimum period of 15 years is proportionate (the period is 8 years for those who were under 18 on that date). Why these dates are supported by the evidence produced on risk of reoffending; 25. The decision as to when an offender will be eligible for a review of lifetime notification requirements is based on existing evidence on changes in the risk of re-offending among convicted sex offenders. 26. Three studies[Cann et al. (2004), Ackerley et al. (1998), and Prentky et al. (1997).] have been considered, all of which analyse reconviction rates of convicted sex offenders over a follow-up period of 20-25 years. Approximately a quarter of the previously convicted offenders were reconvicted for a sexual offence within this time period. The available evidence suggests that re-offending rates are highest in the early follow up period following release from custody and that this rate decreases over time. 27. There is no evidence that a point can be reached at which a sex offender presents no risk. All three studies suggest that the risk of reconviction for a sexual offence persists throughout the follow-up period. 28. The evidence identified a number of issues relevant to determining appropriate review periods: The risk of re-offending decreases over time but never falls to zero so any limited registration period will involve a balance of risk against registration and individual privacy considerations; A constant or slowly falling risk does not in itself indicate an appropriate retention period, which is a function of additional factors already mentioned; The expected degree of residual risk is a function of the size of the risk and the harms associated with associated offending. The benefits of a limited registration period are the savings in terms of registration costs (including offender management activities) and improved individual privacy; 29. A Working Group, which included representation from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), was established to take forward the development of the review mechanism and reached a collective decision on the appropriate review periods to set, based on the available evidence and expertise from practitioners' experience of managing offenders in the community. Whilst we recognise that the risk of sexual re-offending persists for a period of time, it is our view that the review periods adopted in these proposals strike an appropriate balance between this evidence and human rights considerations. Why the Government considers that it is appropriate for any second review to be on a similarly long time-scale; 30. The period of time which must elapse before an offender can apply for a second or subsequent review is ordinarily 8 years, or a little over half the period which must elapse before an offender who was an adult on conviction can apply. Therefore, the second review is not ordinarily on a similarly long time-scale. 31. We believe that, if a person is assessed still to be a risk 15 years after the commencement of the notification period, it would be proportionate to ordinarily make the offender continue to be subject to the notification requirements for a further 8 years before a further review is possible (representing just over 50% of the period that has already been subject to notification requirements and which has not succeeded in eliminating the risk). We also believe that a period of less than 8 years will be of little value to offenders in relation to whom a realistic period of time should elapse following a decision to continue their notification requirements to ensure that they have a prospect of demonstrating that the level of risk they pose has diminished. side note : the Ackerley study mentioned above, states "This article tentatively suggests that a 10 year period without a conviction will be sufficient to define desistence for most sexual offenders" Hi Thank you for your research as it is very informative. - as an individual I committed an offence;
- as an individual I have sought forgiveness by seeking to show those who "judge" me, I have repented and worked hard to show I have recovered my "moral" standards thus proving "rehabilitation" is a fact not a statistic.
Yet I am always judged by the actions of "others" that: - reoffended for whatever reason or circumstance;
- have their own "political" ambitions or discriminatory reasons as individuals.
History shows that an "individual" can change the "masses" beliefs; maybe our "modern society's shame has left that belief residing in history. There are some states in the USA, where time on the SOR is decided by doing an individual risk assessment. Others have set periods, typically 10, 20 or 25 years. Much longer than the UK. The problem with the British system, is that it links time on the SOR to seriousness of the original offence, not to the risk of future offending. Effectively, time on the SOR then becomes a punishment for the original offence, when it is supposed to be a way of preventing future offending. However, when this has been questioned on appeal, the courts have always denied that the SOR is a form of punishment. So the best solution, would be to conduct a proper risk assessment at the point of sentencing and then use that to determine the amount of time that the person needs to be on the SOR for. When that period ends, then it could be reviewed and another risk assessment carried out automatically, without the need for the person to request one. From what we already know, about the way that risk reduces over time, the review periods should be a lot shorter. I would suggest 3 years, 5 years and 7 years, for those rated low risk, medium, or high risk respectively. Maybe a 10 year period, for the 2% who are rated very high risk, as well. But the biggest problem, is that there are still no risk assessment tools, that can reliably predict someone's risk of re-offending. So there would inevitably be inconsistencies and errors, which might bring the whole system into disrepute.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xThe other day I came across some really interesting details of a plan for reactive management of SO. This idea was first presented in 2017 and it does appear to be operating in some police forces today. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedThe idea is that if an SO has been rated as low risk for 3 years, and has no SHPO, then they no longer need to have any home visits. It was introduced in the year that the number of SO passed 50,000 for the first time and it was obviously intended to reduce the workload of police forces. The number of SO right now is nearer 70k, so how many are being managed under this scheme? It really depends on the police force. Around 50% of all SO are classified as low risk, but very few are on the scheme. Just 70 out of 593 in one area. One police force uses a polygraph to assess who should be on the scheme, although that is not standard practice. One police force (Durham) sends uniformed officers round to visit SO, in a clear breach of the national policy. Lots of forces send just one PPU, when they should send teams of two. In London, the Met allows SO to be monitored by phone and even to complete their annual registration by phone or email. Many of these policies are in place, because there are too many SO and not enough officers to monitor them all. There is no consistency of approach across the country. But the most obvious problem with reactive management, is that so many SO have an SHPO. That prevents many low risk people from being managed reactively, and forces the police to visit them. With the numbers set to increase to 100k by 2030, there really ought to be an expansion of the scheme to include SO with an SHPO, so that resources are being used effectively. Hi It is a nice idea but I do have issues surrounding SOPO/SHPO as in certain circumstances they are deemed as a "default" solution when the "individual" scenario of the event/offence could suggest there is not a requirement for one. As I have published before The Justice Inspectorates stated <quote>Reoffending amongst sexual offenders is lower than that of general offenders. Indeed, those who are deemed lower risk have measured reoffending risks similar to the general population and some researchers argue that the resources to manage such cases would be better expended in primary prevention and victim support</quote> In brief, if there is a need for a SOPO/SHPO to be issued to a (or a person becomes) a "Low Risk", after a certain amount of monitoring the system should be allowed to discharge the SOPO/SHPO without the requirement and RISK (to the ex-offender) of a Court appearance. In times of overworked Courts, limited support both legal and financially to the ex-offender, surly a progressive society should be able to see the sense of a combination of the above thoughts? Totally agree, although it depends what you mean by a 'certain amount of monitoring', because many SHPO are automatically discharged after 5 or 10 years without a court appearance. Its only the lifetime ones we are talking about, so how long should they have to wait to be reviewed and would it depend on what offence they had committed, or what sentence they received, or purely on their risk level? Hi The devil is always in the detail lol No matter the offence "low risk" is the "bar", this I think we would agree on. Reason being is that is the common denominator across all offences and the system at present would not allow someone to be classed as "low risk" if "unacceptable" risks were deemed still likely. Remember we believe "rehabilitation" is a fact no matter the offence. Therefore if we could ask to focus on "lifetime" because as you say, others are automatically automatically discharged. However there could be an argument that the default period is 5 years minimum with the removal of all other terms. Then any consideration is undertaken after 5 years to all low risk ex-offenders. This does not only reduce confusion but sets "targets", and more importantly "HOPE" for the ex-offender. I understand that could suggest a style of "IPP" but as long as "low risk" status is still achievable i.e. no new barriers put in place, then the "5 year" period would be on the lines of the "15 years" used for the SOR. On that point; and what I read into your words, I have always asked the question: The "offence details and rehabilitation" of an individual is unique to the individual. So what "formula" has been used that says all individuals are only suitable to apply to discharge the SOR at 15 years? Ignore the sentencing threshold, as in my opinion and experience, other events and influences can remove sentencing "consistency" for the same offence committed by different individuals. What formula was used? Quite simply, it was the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, saying he would do the minimum possible to comply with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. Hence fifteen years. It was reassuring to see that long-standing guardian of freedoms Nick Clegg happy to agree with him (*sarcasm*). There is an explanation (of sorts) here. In the debate which took place. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-07-05/debates/12070571000298/SexualOffencesAct2003(Remedial)Order2012"The noble Baroness asked about why we had determined 15 years as an appropriate time for an offender to make an application for review. I think that I covered that carefully in my opening speech by explaining that the evidence suggests that a sex offender, if they are likely to reoffend, will do so in the first few years following their release from prison. The longer the period that has elapsed after their release is, the less likely it is that they will reoffend. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the available evidence suggests that there is no specific scientific point at which it can be absolutely guaranteed that someone will not reoffend," But the real explanation of the 15 year formula is here. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/200/20002.htm24. This approach accords with the scheme of notification requirements in the 2003 Act[11] in which there are prescribed periods of time for which an offender is subject to notification requirements depending on the sentence imposed and the age of the offender on conviction. The maximum prescribed finite period (for offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 6 months but less than 30 months) is 10 years. Therefore we think that for those offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 30 months (who were at least 18 years of age on conviction)—and therefore subject to indefinite notification requirements—a minimum period of 15 years is proportionate (the period is 8 years for those who were under 18 on that date). Why these dates are supported by the evidence produced on risk of reoffending; 25. The decision as to when an offender will be eligible for a review of lifetime notification requirements is based on existing evidence on changes in the risk of re-offending among convicted sex offenders. 26. Three studies[Cann et al. (2004), Ackerley et al. (1998), and Prentky et al. (1997).] have been considered, all of which analyse reconviction rates of convicted sex offenders over a follow-up period of 20-25 years. Approximately a quarter of the previously convicted offenders were reconvicted for a sexual offence within this time period. The available evidence suggests that re-offending rates are highest in the early follow up period following release from custody and that this rate decreases over time. 27. There is no evidence that a point can be reached at which a sex offender presents no risk. All three studies suggest that the risk of reconviction for a sexual offence persists throughout the follow-up period. 28. The evidence identified a number of issues relevant to determining appropriate review periods: The risk of re-offending decreases over time but never falls to zero so any limited registration period will involve a balance of risk against registration and individual privacy considerations; A constant or slowly falling risk does not in itself indicate an appropriate retention period, which is a function of additional factors already mentioned; The expected degree of residual risk is a function of the size of the risk and the harms associated with associated offending. The benefits of a limited registration period are the savings in terms of registration costs (including offender management activities) and improved individual privacy; 29. A Working Group, which included representation from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), was established to take forward the development of the review mechanism and reached a collective decision on the appropriate review periods to set, based on the available evidence and expertise from practitioners' experience of managing offenders in the community. Whilst we recognise that the risk of sexual re-offending persists for a period of time, it is our view that the review periods adopted in these proposals strike an appropriate balance between this evidence and human rights considerations. Why the Government considers that it is appropriate for any second review to be on a similarly long time-scale; 30. The period of time which must elapse before an offender can apply for a second or subsequent review is ordinarily 8 years, or a little over half the period which must elapse before an offender who was an adult on conviction can apply. Therefore, the second review is not ordinarily on a similarly long time-scale. 31. We believe that, if a person is assessed still to be a risk 15 years after the commencement of the notification period, it would be proportionate to ordinarily make the offender continue to be subject to the notification requirements for a further 8 years before a further review is possible (representing just over 50% of the period that has already been subject to notification requirements and which has not succeeded in eliminating the risk). We also believe that a period of less than 8 years will be of little value to offenders in relation to whom a realistic period of time should elapse following a decision to continue their notification requirements to ensure that they have a prospect of demonstrating that the level of risk they pose has diminished. side note : the Ackerley study mentioned above, states "This article tentatively suggests that a 10 year period without a conviction will be sufficient to define desistence for most sexual offenders" Hi Thank you for your research as it is very informative. My issue has always been that: - as an individual I committed an offence;
- as an individual I have sought forgiveness by seeking to show those who "judge" me, I have repented and worked hard to show I have recovered my "moral" standards thus proving "rehabilitation" is a fact not a statistic.
Yet I am always judged by the actions of "others" that: - reoffended for whatever reason or circumstance;
- have their own "political" ambitions or discriminatory reasons as individuals.
History shows that an "individual" can change the "masses" beliefs; maybe our "modern society's shame has left that belief residing in history.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe other day I came across some really interesting details of a plan for reactive management of SO. This idea was first presented in 2017 and it does appear to be operating in some police forces today. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedThe idea is that if an SO has been rated as low risk for 3 years, and has no SHPO, then they no longer need to have any home visits. It was introduced in the year that the number of SO passed 50,000 for the first time and it was obviously intended to reduce the workload of police forces. The number of SO right now is nearer 70k, so how many are being managed under this scheme? It really depends on the police force. Around 50% of all SO are classified as low risk, but very few are on the scheme. Just 70 out of 593 in one area. One police force uses a polygraph to assess who should be on the scheme, although that is not standard practice. One police force (Durham) sends uniformed officers round to visit SO, in a clear breach of the national policy. Lots of forces send just one PPU, when they should send teams of two. In London, the Met allows SO to be monitored by phone and even to complete their annual registration by phone or email. Many of these policies are in place, because there are too many SO and not enough officers to monitor them all. There is no consistency of approach across the country. But the most obvious problem with reactive management, is that so many SO have an SHPO. That prevents many low risk people from being managed reactively, and forces the police to visit them. With the numbers set to increase to 100k by 2030, there really ought to be an expansion of the scheme to include SO with an SHPO, so that resources are being used effectively. Hi It is a nice idea but I do have issues surrounding SOPO/SHPO as in certain circumstances they are deemed as a "default" solution when the "individual" scenario of the event/offence could suggest there is not a requirement for one. As I have published before The Justice Inspectorates stated <quote>Reoffending amongst sexual offenders is lower than that of general offenders. Indeed, those who are deemed lower risk have measured reoffending risks similar to the general population and some researchers argue that the resources to manage such cases would be better expended in primary prevention and victim support</quote> In brief, if there is a need for a SOPO/SHPO to be issued to a (or a person becomes) a "Low Risk", after a certain amount of monitoring the system should be allowed to discharge the SOPO/SHPO without the requirement and RISK (to the ex-offender) of a Court appearance. In times of overworked Courts, limited support both legal and financially to the ex-offender, surly a progressive society should be able to see the sense of a combination of the above thoughts? Totally agree, although it depends what you mean by a 'certain amount of monitoring', because many SHPO are automatically discharged after 5 or 10 years without a court appearance. Its only the lifetime ones we are talking about, so how long should they have to wait to be reviewed and would it depend on what offence they had committed, or what sentence they received, or purely on their risk level? Hi The devil is always in the detail lol No matter the offence "low risk" is the "bar", this I think we would agree on. Reason being is that is the common denominator across all offences and the system at present would not allow someone to be classed as "low risk" if "unacceptable" risks were deemed still likely. Remember we believe "rehabilitation" is a fact no matter the offence. Therefore if we could ask to focus on "lifetime" because as you say, others are automatically automatically discharged. However there could be an argument that the default period is 5 years minimum with the removal of all other terms. Then any consideration is undertaken after 5 years to all low risk ex-offenders. This does not only reduce confusion but sets "targets", and more importantly "HOPE" for the ex-offender. I understand that could suggest a style of "IPP" but as long as "low risk" status is still achievable i.e. no new barriers put in place, then the "5 year" period would be on the lines of the "15 years" used for the SOR. On that point; and what I read into your words, I have always asked the question: The "offence details and rehabilitation" of an individual is unique to the individual. So what "formula" has been used that says all individuals are only suitable to apply to discharge the SOR at 15 years? Ignore the sentencing threshold, as in my opinion and experience, other events and influences can remove sentencing "consistency" for the same offence committed by different individuals. What formula was used? Quite simply, it was the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, saying he would do the minimum possible to comply with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. Hence fifteen years. It was reassuring to see that long-standing guardian of freedoms Nick Clegg happy to agree with him (*sarcasm*). There is an explanation (of sorts) here. In the debate which took place. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2012-07-05/debates/12070571000298/SexualOffencesAct2003(Remedial)Order2012"The noble Baroness asked about why we had determined 15 years as an appropriate time for an offender to make an application for review. I think that I covered that carefully in my opening speech by explaining that the evidence suggests that a sex offender, if they are likely to reoffend, will do so in the first few years following their release from prison. The longer the period that has elapsed after their release is, the less likely it is that they will reoffend. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the available evidence suggests that there is no specific scientific point at which it can be absolutely guaranteed that someone will not reoffend," But the real explanation of the 15 year formula is here. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/200/20002.htm24. This approach accords with the scheme of notification requirements in the 2003 Act[11] in which there are prescribed periods of time for which an offender is subject to notification requirements depending on the sentence imposed and the age of the offender on conviction. The maximum prescribed finite period (for offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 6 months but less than 30 months) is 10 years. Therefore we think that for those offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment greater than 30 months (who were at least 18 years of age on conviction)—and therefore subject to indefinite notification requirements—a minimum period of 15 years is proportionate (the period is 8 years for those who were under 18 on that date). Why these dates are supported by the evidence produced on risk of reoffending; 25. The decision as to when an offender will be eligible for a review of lifetime notification requirements is based on existing evidence on changes in the risk of re-offending among convicted sex offenders. 26. Three studies[Cann et al. (2004), Ackerley et al. (1998), and Prentky et al. (1997).] have been considered, all of which analyse reconviction rates of convicted sex offenders over a follow-up period of 20-25 years. Approximately a quarter of the previously convicted offenders were reconvicted for a sexual offence within this time period. The available evidence suggests that re-offending rates are highest in the early follow up period following release from custody and that this rate decreases over time. 27. There is no evidence that a point can be reached at which a sex offender presents no risk. All three studies suggest that the risk of reconviction for a sexual offence persists throughout the follow-up period. 28. The evidence identified a number of issues relevant to determining appropriate review periods: The risk of re-offending decreases over time but never falls to zero so any limited registration period will involve a balance of risk against registration and individual privacy considerations; A constant or slowly falling risk does not in itself indicate an appropriate retention period, which is a function of additional factors already mentioned; The expected degree of residual risk is a function of the size of the risk and the harms associated with associated offending. The benefits of a limited registration period are the savings in terms of registration costs (including offender management activities) and improved individual privacy; 29. A Working Group, which included representation from the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), was established to take forward the development of the review mechanism and reached a collective decision on the appropriate review periods to set, based on the available evidence and expertise from practitioners' experience of managing offenders in the community. Whilst we recognise that the risk of sexual re-offending persists for a period of time, it is our view that the review periods adopted in these proposals strike an appropriate balance between this evidence and human rights considerations. Why the Government considers that it is appropriate for any second review to be on a similarly long time-scale; 30. The period of time which must elapse before an offender can apply for a second or subsequent review is ordinarily 8 years, or a little over half the period which must elapse before an offender who was an adult on conviction can apply. Therefore, the second review is not ordinarily on a similarly long time-scale. 31. We believe that, if a person is assessed still to be a risk 15 years after the commencement of the notification period, it would be proportionate to ordinarily make the offender continue to be subject to the notification requirements for a further 8 years before a further review is possible (representing just over 50% of the period that has already been subject to notification requirements and which has not succeeded in eliminating the risk). We also believe that a period of less than 8 years will be of little value to offenders in relation to whom a realistic period of time should elapse following a decision to continue their notification requirements to ensure that they have a prospect of demonstrating that the level of risk they pose has diminished. side note : the Ackerley study mentioned above, states "This article tentatively suggests that a 10 year period without a conviction will be sufficient to define desistence for most sexual offenders"
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+xThe other day I came across some really interesting details of a plan for reactive management of SO. This idea was first presented in 2017 and it does appear to be operating in some police forces today. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedThe idea is that if an SO has been rated as low risk for 3 years, and has no SHPO, then they no longer need to have any home visits. It was introduced in the year that the number of SO passed 50,000 for the first time and it was obviously intended to reduce the workload of police forces. The number of SO right now is nearer 70k, so how many are being managed under this scheme? It really depends on the police force. Around 50% of all SO are classified as low risk, but very few are on the scheme. Just 70 out of 593 in one area. One police force uses a polygraph to assess who should be on the scheme, although that is not standard practice. One police force (Durham) sends uniformed officers round to visit SO, in a clear breach of the national policy. Lots of forces send just one PPU, when they should send teams of two. In London, the Met allows SO to be monitored by phone and even to complete their annual registration by phone or email. Many of these policies are in place, because there are too many SO and not enough officers to monitor them all. There is no consistency of approach across the country. But the most obvious problem with reactive management, is that so many SO have an SHPO. That prevents many low risk people from being managed reactively, and forces the police to visit them. With the numbers set to increase to 100k by 2030, there really ought to be an expansion of the scheme to include SO with an SHPO, so that resources are being used effectively. Hi It is a nice idea but I do have issues surrounding SOPO/SHPO as in certain circumstances they are deemed as a "default" solution when the "individual" scenario of the event/offence could suggest there is not a requirement for one. As I have published before The Justice Inspectorates stated <quote>Reoffending amongst sexual offenders is lower than that of general offenders. Indeed, those who are deemed lower risk have measured reoffending risks similar to the general population and some researchers argue that the resources to manage such cases would be better expended in primary prevention and victim support</quote> In brief, if there is a need for a SOPO/SHPO to be issued to a (or a person becomes) a "Low Risk", after a certain amount of monitoring the system should be allowed to discharge the SOPO/SHPO without the requirement and RISK (to the ex-offender) of a Court appearance. In times of overworked Courts, limited support both legal and financially to the ex-offender, surly a progressive society should be able to see the sense of a combination of the above thoughts? Totally agree, although it depends what you mean by a 'certain amount of monitoring', because many SHPO are automatically discharged after 5 or 10 years without a court appearance. Its only the lifetime ones we are talking about, so how long should they have to wait to be reviewed and would it depend on what offence they had committed, or what sentence they received, or purely on their risk level? Hi The devil is always in the detail lol No matter the offence "low risk" is the "bar", this I think we would agree on. Reason being is that is the common denominator across all offences and the system at present would not allow someone to be classed as "low risk" if "unacceptable" risks were deemed still likely. Remember we believe "rehabilitation" is a fact no matter the offence. Therefore if we could ask to focus on "lifetime" because as you say, others are automatically automatically discharged. However there could be an argument that the default period is 5 years minimum with the removal of all other terms. Then any consideration is undertaken after 5 years to all low risk ex-offenders. This does not only reduce confusion but sets "targets", and more importantly "HOPE" for the ex-offender. I understand that could suggest a style of "IPP" but as long as "low risk" status is still achievable i.e. no new barriers put in place, then the "5 year" period would be on the lines of the "15 years" used for the SOR. On that point; and what I read into your words, I have always asked the question: The "offence details and rehabilitation" of an individual is unique to the individual. So what "formula" has been used that says all individuals are only suitable to apply to discharge the SOR at 15 years? Ignore the sentencing threshold, as in my opinion and experience, other events and influences can remove sentencing "consistency" for the same offence committed by different individuals. What formula was used? Quite simply, it was the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, saying he would do the minimum possible to comply with a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. Hence fifteen years. It was reassuring to see that long-standing guardian of freedoms Nick Clegg happy to agree with him (*sarcasm*).
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+xThe other day I came across some really interesting details of a plan for reactive management of SO. This idea was first presented in 2017 and it does appear to be operating in some police forces today. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedThe idea is that if an SO has been rated as low risk for 3 years, and has no SHPO, then they no longer need to have any home visits. It was introduced in the year that the number of SO passed 50,000 for the first time and it was obviously intended to reduce the workload of police forces. The number of SO right now is nearer 70k, so how many are being managed under this scheme? It really depends on the police force. Around 50% of all SO are classified as low risk, but very few are on the scheme. Just 70 out of 593 in one area. One police force uses a polygraph to assess who should be on the scheme, although that is not standard practice. One police force (Durham) sends uniformed officers round to visit SO, in a clear breach of the national policy. Lots of forces send just one PPU, when they should send teams of two. In London, the Met allows SO to be monitored by phone and even to complete their annual registration by phone or email. Many of these policies are in place, because there are too many SO and not enough officers to monitor them all. There is no consistency of approach across the country. But the most obvious problem with reactive management, is that so many SO have an SHPO. That prevents many low risk people from being managed reactively, and forces the police to visit them. With the numbers set to increase to 100k by 2030, there really ought to be an expansion of the scheme to include SO with an SHPO, so that resources are being used effectively. Hi It is a nice idea but I do have issues surrounding SOPO/SHPO as in certain circumstances they are deemed as a "default" solution when the "individual" scenario of the event/offence could suggest there is not a requirement for one. As I have published before The Justice Inspectorates stated <quote>Reoffending amongst sexual offenders is lower than that of general offenders. Indeed, those who are deemed lower risk have measured reoffending risks similar to the general population and some researchers argue that the resources to manage such cases would be better expended in primary prevention and victim support</quote> In brief, if there is a need for a SOPO/SHPO to be issued to a (or a person becomes) a "Low Risk", after a certain amount of monitoring the system should be allowed to discharge the SOPO/SHPO without the requirement and RISK (to the ex-offender) of a Court appearance. In times of overworked Courts, limited support both legal and financially to the ex-offender, surly a progressive society should be able to see the sense of a combination of the above thoughts? Totally agree, although it depends what you mean by a 'certain amount of monitoring', because many SHPO are automatically discharged after 5 or 10 years without a court appearance. Its only the lifetime ones we are talking about, so how long should they have to wait to be reviewed and would it depend on what offence they had committed, or what sentence they received, or purely on their risk level? Hi The devil is always in the detail lol No matter the offence "low risk" is the "bar", this I think we would agree on. Reason being is that is the common denominator across all offences and the system at present would not allow someone to be classed as "low risk" if "unacceptable" risks were deemed still likely. Remember we believe "rehabilitation" is a fact no matter the offence. Therefore if we could ask to focus on "lifetime" because as you say, others are automatically automatically discharged. However there could be an argument that the default period is 5 years minimum with the removal of all other terms. Then any consideration is undertaken after 5 years to all low risk ex-offenders. This does not only reduce confusion but sets "targets", and more importantly "HOPE" for the ex-offender. I understand that could suggest a style of "IPP" but as long as "low risk" status is still achievable i.e. no new barriers put in place, then the "5 year" period would be on the lines of the "15 years" used for the SOR. On that point; and what I read into your words, I have always asked the question: The "offence details and rehabilitation" of an individual is unique to the individual. So what "formula" has been used that says all individuals are only suitable to apply to discharge the SOR at 15 years? Ignore the sentencing threshold, as in my opinion and experience, other events and influences can remove sentencing "consistency" for the same offence committed by different individuals.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
+xI thought that was the case. To be honest over the last few years it has happened, it doesn’t help the situation, as I have neighbours that often ask why they were there and I have to come up with some sort of story each time which isn’t great. Plus it adds to the fact that if any neighbour wanted to start doing more digging they could discover my past, which compromises my safety. This also adds to the anxiety of someone finding out. I don’t think any of that was considered when they made their decision and it would have been down to budget cuts and resources. Still I only have 8.5 months left now so I am always worried to rock the boat so to speak. I should be due a visit around November and then there would be one due about the time my SHPO/SOR ends. Obviously, forces are different, but they just didn't bother with the last visit for me. There was no "Thank you for being a valued customer" hand off, and unless I'd contacted them to remove the monitoring software they wouldn't have even though, as I discovered, it can be removed remotely without a visit. I'd also contact your PPU about the uniformed visits. Even if the visits are being done by the neighbour teams, the PPU is still responsible for the management of the risk register and offenders. College of Policing Logistics of home visits
Individual officers should not conduct home visits on their own. This ensures officer and staff safety and supports the quality of home visits, either sole or joint agency. Visits should generally be unannounced. Visits should be conducted by officers in plain clothes using unmarked police vehicles (not private vehicles) to avoid accidentally revealing the offender’s circumstances. Home visits | College of Policing(My underlining.)
|
|
|
|
|
Mark15788
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 293,
Visits: 4.7K
|
I thought that was the case. To be honest over the last few years it has happened, it doesn’t help the situation, as I have neighbours that often ask why they were there and I have to come up with some sort of story each time which isn’t great. Plus it adds to the fact that if any neighbour wanted to start doing more digging they could discover my past, which compromises my safety. This also adds to the anxiety of someone finding out. I don’t think any of that was considered when they made their decision and it would have been down to budget cuts and resources.
Still I only have 8.5 months left now so I am always worried to rock the boat so to speak.
I should be due a visit around November and then there would be one due about the time my SHPO/SOR ends.
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 355,
Visits: 10K
|
+xOne thing I always wondered but never challenged was, my force introduced a while back that low and medium risk offenders were managed by their local neighbourhood team and only high risk by the actual PPU. I am under the local neighbourhood team so my visits are always quite spread in terms of days, evenings, weekends, etc because obviously the neighbourhood team have their usual day to day responsibilities too, but what I never understood is, they still arrive in uniform and their patrol car, is that not supposed to happen? Based on information I have read, No they are not supposed to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark15788
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 293,
Visits: 4.7K
|
One thing I always wondered but never challenged was, my force introduced a while back that low and medium risk offenders were managed by their local neighbourhood team and only high risk by the actual PPU.
I am under the local neighbourhood team so my visits are always quite spread in terms of days, evenings, weekends, etc because obviously the neighbourhood team have their usual day to day responsibilities too, but what I never understood is, they still arrive in uniform and their patrol car, is that not supposed to happen?
|
|
|
|