Hi
I have copied the actual text from the authors options (in the public viewing report) below which gives more clarity.

"30. On this basis, I have considered four potential options to address the challenge of the police-led community management of registered sex offenders in a time of continued growth:

I. Refuse to accept the continued growth in numbers as inevitable,instead altering the whole process built over the last 25 years to accommodate for this. This would include a set of current qualifying sexual offences no longer attracting notification requirements,meaning that any such convicted offender would not be subject to the RSO management processes. For several reasons, I have rejected this option, which I see as publicly unpalatable, logistically and legally complex, and operationally naïve.

II. Accept the continued growth in numbers as inevitable, continue with the current operating model and substantially increase investment in resource for sex offender management teams accordingly. I have rejected this option as this approach would be enormously costly infiscally challenging times and would arguably not represent the best use of resources against risk.

III. Accept the continued growth in numbers as inevitable, retain the same operating model and simply demand that the current sex offender management teams and resources work harder. However, there is substantial evidence seen by this review that would suggest that the current MOSOVO staff are already working to capacity, and in many places are overly stretched. I have rejected this option as I believe that such an approach would be naïve, short-sighted, and very unwelcome for staff working in this area, while also frankly bringing unnecessary risk to the public by effectively diluting the management resource and response to RSOs in their community.

IV. Accept the continued growth in numbers as inevitable and seek to work differently. This option looks to recognize that resources are 12 HM Government (2021). MAPPA Annual Report 2021.13 limited, especially in the current fiscal climate, and asking that the police service and partners should seek to make better use of them.This involves creating a new, modernised business process model that more effectively and efficiently manages risk to better protect the public, whilst still providing a clear structure with oversight and accountability.

31. Following my field work in forces, literature review and extensive stakeholder engagement, I only see one of these options as realistic and viable: option 4."

I am looking again to see your wording, could you provide the para? No offence meant as wording about "image offences" is there but mainly saying how the internet is increasing its accessability and so demand. My version of its main words on images but there is so much more to it.

One example of its depth is how it talks about the College of Policing whom I have experience of dealing with; both positive and negative. 

I would suggest individuals do read the report to gain their own understanding but importantly the list of actions the author has "actioned on the gov / Justice System" as I do feel he is being positive to all parties.
However I would idealy prefer to read what was presented to the Gov, and their take and elements they are willing to action as a matter of urgency! The reduction from 15 to 10 for applying to discharge a SOR requirement may unfortuantly not be at the top!

More views from it readers please!!

Thanks. I don't see how they can't make visits when there is such a "just in case" mentality. If they took a more supportive role, I would contact them more and any check ins could happen then, but no, as long as they're negative and punitive, then neither party are happy.

I read the report and wondered whether to post here or not. I made notes as I read it. I've had to pull back on my sarcasm but a little may creep in. #SorryNotSorry Here goes...

“In terms of managing risk and protecting communities, an unequal process, structure and investment is in place.”

I’m glad this is recognised, drug dealers who use children don’t get the same schtick that we do, even though they bring misery on their family, community and directly groom, harm and traumatise that child. I find that utterly bizarre. I’m glad this is recognised, drug dealers who use children don’t get the same schtick that we do, even though they bring misery on their family, community and directly groom, harm and traumatise that child. I find that utterly bizarre.

“In addition, working with those offenders convicted of a sexual offence should avoid an overly negative, blame-laden and punitive mindset and approach which is not only contrary to the values of this country, but also fails to recognise and support the desired and necessary path to desistance, which brings the danger of forcing offenders back to the negative place that potentially spawned their initial offending, despite the evidence that many of those convicted will not reoffend.”

I’m glad the punitive mindset has been mentioned. One of the factors in offending is feeling of disconnection, punitive measures to stop people engaging in completely legal activities needs to be addressed.

“I am also clear that, with a strategic objective of wherever possible rebuilding and rehabilitating offenders to prevent further offending, the best way to serve and protect victims is to better serve offenders.”

 This is right, you’re either taking responsibility of what happens post-sentence or you’re not, the system in my experience has certainly felt half-a-job and not because of volume. The attitude of *some* police make this a lot more difficult than it needs to be.

“Focus should be on reoffending and risk rather than technical, accidental, and/or non-risky breaches of civil orders or notification requirements. Within my full report, I set out the arguments for supporting desistance and successful reintegration into society, but this *will not be possible if offenders are unable to exist without falling foul of overly pedantic breaches*.

 ‘Overly pedantic breaches’ - music to my ears. Threats and gaslighting with no actual arrests is disgusting behvaiour. Get joining gyms guys, best thing you can do for your mind and body. On a more serious note, trying to explain the pedantry to others often means you get excluded from things, because friends and family start to think "won't invite just in case..." which in turn increases isolation. I did see a story recently about someone in court and jailed over usernames on dating sites or something, it was purely head in hands moment, when you consider the resource and cost going into that case. Interested to see what the 'full report' actually suggests here. 

“The notification scheme has now grown to such an extent that the opportunity cost of maintaining its bureaucracy set against the reality of the benefit is too great.”

 True, over the phone works fine. It should be the same for changes, a new username or bank account or whatever. My nearest station is 15 min drive.

“The post-conviction and post-sentence experience should be one of reform, rehabilitation, and mending”

Should be, but it isn’t, so how?

Out of nowhere, the recommendation of audio/video recording visits appears without any explanation or consideration for consent. 

Can anyone here explain what reactive management means? I've not come across that term.

I recommend that all forces should review and where necessary seek to amend or discharge remaining Sexual Harm Prevention Orders to ensure they remain necessary, enforceable and compliant with relevant case law, including ensuring they align with and do not exceed notification periods. This process should start with all those in place for offenders subject to reactive management.

 My interest was piqued here. Many of us would be spent by now, but these orders keep us unspent for arbitrary lengths, why does an employer today need to know I got the knock 7 years ago?! A decade of this constant second-guessing is too much.

Overall, without seeing the 'full' report, I can't see much changing in the immediate future and with a potential change in government, we have a sitting duck govt who can't take the credit for anything good. I'd imagine Patel wanted quick fix and big headlines to spout off about, wherever she is now, but she hasn't got anything here.

In the report, he says there are 4 options for the govt.

1. Remove the requirement for some offences to go on the register - this would be my preferred option, as removing all image offenders would reduce the register by around 60% straight away. But he says this option is not publically acceptable.

2. Keep the existing system and throw more money at it - he says this would be expensive and would mean money being wasted on managing low risk people.

3. Keep the existing system, but not throw more money at it - this would result in the increased burnout of mosovo officers, who are already overworked.

4. Tweak the existing system, to make it more efficient and to reduce the numbers on the register. This is the option he proposes. It would lead to many people spending less time on the register and to some not going on the register at all. There would also be fewer SHPOs and a review of all existing indefinite SHPOs and indefinite notifications, to see if they are really necessary.

Getting rid of SHPOs for low risk people and doing a proper risk assessment, before giving somone an SHPO is a great idea. But it will only work if the police abandon their 'just in case' approach to risk.

That's why a big culture change is required. When it comes to things like disclosure, for example. The current disclosure powers are already being seriously over-used and widely mis-used, to prevent SO from being rehabilitated and living normal lives, free of state supervision and control, often using the 'just in case' argument as an excuse. The culture of mosovo needs to change, to one that genuinely believes in rehabilitation, before disclosure powers are increased, or else they will become a new kind of civil order. He doesn't seem to realise that the police are using disclosure as a way of controlling, threatening and intimidating SO. Nor does he seem to understand how the police are using their own interpretation of peoples SHPOs, to go much further than the courts intended them to go, in terms of limiting SOs opportunities for improving their lives and reintegrating back into society.

Hi

I have just read through the full report for the first of many times I am sure so I can fully understand it.

First look could suggest it has an underlying agenda of pushing for both financial and physical resources to be allotted to the Police. This may be required but the more I read I do think the author is not suggesting that as the solution but, is actually using the review to highlight the inappropriate mindset and inefficiency of current processes towards the ex-offender by the authorities. It shows the current beliefs and focus are not the way forward.

I will not just quote the favorable passages as Punter99 rightly said, everyone should read it.
I will say that it does give comfort that the author is open in their words in regard "default" emotions towards SO but also in their willingness to express confusion on why the focus on SO's is not replicated towards other non sexual type of offenders who are evidentially more dangerous.

Please read and let us hope his recommended "actions" are implemented!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-management

Following on from my previous post, about the 'independent' review into policing SO, by a former Chief Constable. I have now read the whole report.

Although the opening paragraphs give the impression that it is the usual SO hating nonsense, this is not a report that the govt wanted to hear. Priti Patel originally asked for it and I think she was hoping it would recommend more punitive restrictions on SO, such as mandatory tagging and polygraph testing of all SO.

But it didn't do that. This report is truly ground breaking and forward thinking, in its suggestions for reform of the SOR.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/derbyshire-government-b2328265.html

Over the next few days, I will go through some of it in more detail, particularly the author's comments about the culture of MOSOVO units. But in the meantime, I would advise everybody on the SOR to read this report. It is only an executive summary, not the whole thing. The full report has been held back. Nevertheless, if the govt were to implement 50% of the recommended changes to the SOR, it would be life changing for many of us.

Now, I know that many people on this forum, will throw up their hands in despair and say that the govt will never change anything, because the haters at the Daily Mail and the Sun will not allow change and the politicians will always listen to them first. I don't believe that.

Reform won't happen, because politicians suddenly begin to care about the welfare of SO, but it could happen, if they recognise that the current system is going to be overwhelmed, unless changes are made.