|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729,
Visits: 5.3K
|
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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. Hi many thanks for these posts. The 2nd link offered a sensible suggestion that I believe others have also suggested: His report also recommended that the period of time before an offender can apply to have their notification requirements removed is lowered from 15 years to 10 years, .....
I mentioned to my PO when I was on licence that I could not understand how 15yrs was selected but also; and possibly more important, WHY is it the same period for a "Savill" individual as it is for someone with a (relatively) minor offence? I think in a another post I suggested that an individual having the SOR requirement should have an independent review say every 5 yrs; starting at the 5 yr point dependant on their offence and number of charges. You could also insist that the "ex-offender" pays 50% of the cost of the reviewer and remove the need for a solicitor. This is so a Judge would have to focus on the review report and not "legal" twists and turns by either sides solicitors. As I have said before If psychology is used to condemn an individual why can it not be used to free the individual
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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. 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!!
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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. 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!! 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.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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 recognize that the current system is going to be overwhelmed, unless changes are made. 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!! 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 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!!
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+x+x+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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 recognize that the current system is going to be overwhelmed, unless changes are made. 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!! 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 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!!
The one paragraph which references images offenders indirectly, is this one. "I recommend that the government commissions research into non-judicial diversion options for some online offenders." But this research has already been done. (The idea was actually piloted in Gloucestershire and Staffordshire in 2016.) and it resulted in recommendations for conditional cautions to used for image offenders. However, this has not really happened. The problem again, is the 'just in case' approach and a 'What if?' mentality towards SO, taken by the CPS and the police.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 456,
Visits: 5.5K
|
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.“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.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xI 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. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedReactive management was introduced in 2017. It means that some low risk SO do not receive regular visits. But as this latest report makes clear, police are still not making enough use of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 456,
Visits: 5.5K
|
+x+xI 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. https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/new-tailored-approach-to-managing-registered-sex-offenders-introducedReactive management was introduced in 2017. It means that some low risk SO do not receive regular visits. But as this latest report makes clear, police are still not making enough use of it. Thanks. I don't see how they can't make regular 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.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
Lineofduty
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 69,
Visits: 345
|
+xThanks. 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. Spot on. Couldn't agree more. As i've said to them on many occasions, they know nothing about my personal history/events leading up to offence/s and if they were more engaging/human then they would get to see the real person and see that the "just in case" is irrelevant for most RSO's (who in the majority in their right mind would want to re-offend and go through that sh*t-show again?). Instead they CHOOSE to be like robots: cold, according to my PPU "respectfully sceptical" (the new buzz phrase for "just in case" dear lord), defensive, overstep their authority, lie to your face and on their Notes and generally rule by fear, threat and intimidation.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+xThanks. 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. Spot on. Couldn't agree more. As i've said to them on many occasions, they know nothing about my personal history/events leading up to offence/s and if they were more engaging/human then they would get to see the real person and see that the "just in case" is irrelevant for most RSO's (who in the majority in their right mind would want to re-offend and go through that sh*t-show again?). Instead they CHOOSE to be like robots: cold, according to my PPU "respectfully sceptical" (the new buzz phrase for "just in case" dear lord), defensive, overstep their authority, lie to your face and on their Notes and generally rule by fear, threat and intimidation. I'd be the first to admit that I am one of those who thinks that these initiatives will never lead to change while governments are beholden to the media. However, the game-changer here is that the recommendations are coming from a senior police officer at the request of the Home Secretary. I still think it will take time, and certainly won't be on the timescale suggested in the review, but as it combines operational knowledge with a clear vision of what is needed and also practical. I'm not allowing myself to hope just yet, but this is the first green shoot for me. 🤞
=========================================================================================================
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+x+x+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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 recognize that the current system is going to be overwhelmed, unless changes are made. 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!! 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 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!!
The one paragraph which references images offenders indirectly, is this one. "I recommend that the government commissions research into non-judicial diversion options for some online offenders." But this research has already been done. (The idea was actually piloted in Gloucestershire and Staffordshire in 2016.) and it resulted in recommendations for conditional cautions to used for image offenders. However, this has not really happened. The problem again, is the 'just in case' approach and a 'What if?' mentality towards SO, taken by the CPS and the police. Hi I understand your point about prior research BUT as it is "new" persons in charge they will ask for "more up to date research " unfortunately. Think positively in that if it was good before it should be the same now if not better.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xI 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.“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. Hi you have answered/raised many of the points that came to my mine; thanks you. Though the "voters reactive view" will be considered I am hoping that the fiscal worries held by the Treasury, and negative view held by those same voters : need more Police, could help decissions favour us. when you think about "reactive management" think of it along the lines of you planning and organising your life e.g. direct debits to pay elec etc, giving money to your other half on the 1st of each month etc, it is thought about and "actions" completed too ensure life works. Then you suddenly find out your other half is running away with the local milkman; how do you react at that sudden change in the normal routine of life? You "react" and for instance stop giving her money on the 1st of the month! That is an example of what is called reactive managementIn context with us, they see we have a normalish life and so have a soft touch management style with us, BUT change i.e. get them suspious then they revert back to looking at us as a "need".
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+xThanks. 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. Spot on. Couldn't agree more. As i've said to them on many occasions, they know nothing about my personal history/events leading up to offence/s and if they were more engaging/human then they would get to see the real person and see that the "just in case" is irrelevant for most RSO's (who in the majority in their right mind would want to re-offend and go through that sh*t-show again?). Instead they CHOOSE to be like robots: cold, according to my PPU "respectfully sceptical" (the new buzz phrase for "just in case" dear lord), defensive, overstep their authority, lie to your face and on their Notes and generally rule by fear, threat and intimidation. I'd be the first to admit that I am one of those who thinks that these initiatives will never lead to change while governments are beholden to the media. However, the game-changer here is that the recommendations are coming from a senior police officer at the request of the Home Secretary. I still think it will take time, and certainly won't be on the timescale suggested in the review, but as it combines operational knowledge with a clear vision of what is needed and also practical. I'm not allowing myself to hope just yet, but this is the first green shoot for me. 🤞 Fully agree with your words.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
sainted
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 20,
Visits: 75
|
"Those who have not reoffended and are consistently assessed as low risk for at least three years will be considered for reactive management where they do not receive home visits."
So that'll be another excuse to bang on an SHPO and let the software do the monitoring. ;(
Whatever "reactiive whatever" brings, it won't be to our benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x"Those who have not reoffended and are consistently assessed as low risk for at least three years will be considered for reactive management where they do not receive home visits." So that'll be another excuse to bang on an SHPO and let the software do the monitoring. ;( Whatever "reactiive whatever" brings, it won't be to our benefit. Even if they use monitoring software, that is still a drain on their resources. The software tends to produce lots of false positives, which then have to assessed by a person to see if there is a real risk. The biggest problem is getting them to agree to reactive management in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x"Those who have not reoffended and are consistently assessed as low risk for at least three years will be considered for reactive management where they do not receive home visits." So that'll be another excuse to bang on an SHPO and let the software do the monitoring. ;( Whatever "reactiive whatever" brings, it won't be to our benefit. Even if they use monitoring software, that is still a drain on their resources. The software tends to produce lots of false positives, which then have to assessed by a person to see if there is a real risk. The biggest problem is getting them to agree to reactive management in the first place. For the time being, reactive management is subject to local policy. If they don't feel over-stretched then why would they change? Also, if there are officers in those areas who see it as a quiet life and much easier than dealing with organised crime, etc. then they might want to make themselves look busy. Others might have that negative attitude where they are happy to make things difficult for you, even though it makes things difficult for themselves at the same time. Too many variables, so a standard approach like that in the Creedon report would help all round.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Steadfast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 53,
Visits: 1.4K
|
I don't understand how the SOR has moved so far from managing risk, to being a punishment in itself.
I remember sitting down with my first allocated Police visitor (who was equally lovely, but terrifying - you would not want to cross her), and she said I can usually tell who will reoffend - I'm pretty close to 100% right. She did say that she would put money on me not doing so and I was to not prove her wrong. She frequently stated that it was a waste of time coming to see me because there were others that "needed watching".
I honestly feel the issue is with basic psychology. people who commit a SO are seen as depraved and un-rehabilitative because that suits the narrative that they are better than them. Look, I know I was in a bad place when I done what I done and I am deeply ashamed of it, and pretty sickened by myself. I watched an ex US prisoner on the internet rant about SO's for quite some time - I felt a huge amount of anger and rage, but realised what he was really doing was trying to say 'I done some pretty terrible things, but at least I am not a SO'.
I am rambling, but what I am trying to say is that the issue is society, we have got away from managing risk because things have become to emotive. We need to manage emotion and deal with real risk to protect those who we need to protect. There are people that no doubt need a weekly (or even a daily) police visit. There are those who need intense psychological support. But equally there are those who don't. My opinion is we need to risk assess, manage resources and keep people safe where needed and get ex-offenders contributing to society again.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 729,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+xI don't understand how the SOR has moved so far from managing risk, to being a punishment in itself. I remember sitting down with my first allocated Police visitor (who was equally lovely, but terrifying - you would not want to cross her), and she said I can usually tell who will reoffend - I'm pretty close to 100% right. She did say that she would put money on me not doing so and I was to not prove her wrong. She frequently stated that it was a waste of time coming to see me because there were others that "needed watching". I honestly feel the issue is with basic psychology. people who commit a SO are seen as depraved and un-rehabilitative because that suits the narrative that they are better than them. Look, I know I was in a bad place when I done what I done and I am deeply ashamed of it, and pretty sickened by myself. I watched an ex US prisoner on the internet rant about SO's for quite some time - I felt a huge amount of anger and rage, but realised what he was really doing was trying to say 'I done some pretty terrible things, but at least I am not a SO'. I am rambling, but what I am trying to say is that the issue is society, we have got away from managing risk because things have become to emotive. We need to manage emotion and deal with real risk to protect those who we need to protect. There are people that no doubt need a weekly (or even a daily) police visit. There are those who need intense psychological support. But equally there are those who don't. My opinion is we need to risk assess, manage resources and keep people safe where needed and get ex-offenders contributing to society again. What has changed is the internet. In the early days of the SOR, there were relatively few people on it and you could argue they were more dangerous than most of the people on the SOR today, as most would be contact offenders. But the internet both facilitated and in many cases created, a whole new breed of non contact offenders. These are people who would never do anything in 'real life', but who would offend online, because of the anonymity that the internet provides. The mentality of the public and the police doesn't recognise any distinction between contact and non contact offenders. Despite the PPU repeatedly saying to me that they are not here to police my thoughts, that is exactly what they are doing.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-police-led-sex-offender-managementFollowing 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.htmlOver 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. Hi As you started this post I was wondering if you have found / read any updates on the "recommendations"? I was thinking of trying to contact the author but thought ask you first. Again thanks for finding this.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|