|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 467,
Visits: 5.6K
|
Just to clarify, these are just proposals, yes? They're not new/current rules.
What is the name change ban? I know it's been spoken about in the past but what's the wording? Just talking about it was what made me go through with it last year thinking that a ban would probably be imminent. I'm glad I did and recommend getting on with it for those who are hampered by the Google effect.
The wording of 'five day absence' is interesting because does that mean it usurps the 7 nights at a different address?
=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+x+x+x+xSome changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report. The new clauses make the following changes: 1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address for five or more days. 2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children. 3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances, removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station. 4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first. 5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications, which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs. and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days. Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR. But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear. But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something. Hi and as always you seem to find the gems - all though balanced with some negative, bits of news. I think some of the bad points are there to just show "we will protect you" and the actual "practical working aspects" left to those who enforce. They could also be there to offset any arguments about the "good "points ie para 4. We all know about the report done last which listed recommendations but I have not been able to find any further updates. Question is have you found this info as an update to the report I mentioned and what stage is this at please. My hope this would remove the "discussions" I am / have had about when my "Relevant date" actually was and depending when/if implemented I could be off the SOR this year  No, I've not seen any direct response to the Creedon Report, although it was mentioned in passing in relation to these changes. There are a couple of things that I need to update though, as I've also looked at the actual law changes that are being proposed and they differ somewhat to the summary of what these changes suggested. The change allows the police to remove someone from the SOR, only after 15 years, but the person does not have to apply to be removed. The rules on name changes and notifying contact in advance, would only apply to certain SO, identified as posing a risk by the police. They would not apply to all SO. On the point of knowing in advance who will be at the address where they are going, I'm sure the police would expect the RSO to have disclosed their record to the people at that address. Those people can then juggle their social commitments to avoid those situations, or call at the last moment if someone unexpected turns up, so that they can stay away while the situation exists. The proposed legislation turns out to be a bit more complicated than it appears. It requires the police to issue the person with a notice first stating they have to give this information. That notice can be appealed to a magistrate and it must be reviewed by the police every 12 months, so it cannot last forever. But then the person must notify police no less than 12 hours before going to the address, or if that's not reasonably practicable, within 3 days of arriving at the address. So that would cover the unexpected child scenario. But bizarrely, if the person didn't go the address after all, then they must also notify police within 6 days, that they didn't go! The rules for being absent from your home address are also being tightened up. Now if you are away from home in the UK for more than five days, you must tell the police where you are going, the type of accommodation, how you plan to get there and what date you are going to be back. This applies to all SO and makes going away, even for a short break, or to visit family, a much more onerous process than it currently is.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+x+x+xSome changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report. The new clauses make the following changes: 1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address for five or more days. 2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children. 3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances, removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station. 4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first. 5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications, which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs. and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days. Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR. But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear. But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something. Hi and as always you seem to find the gems - all though balanced with some negative, bits of news. I think some of the bad points are there to just show "we will protect you" and the actual "practical working aspects" left to those who enforce. They could also be there to offset any arguments about the "good "points ie para 4. We all know about the report done last which listed recommendations but I have not been able to find any further updates. Question is have you found this info as an update to the report I mentioned and what stage is this at please. My hope this would remove the "discussions" I am / have had about when my "Relevant date" actually was and depending when/if implemented I could be off the SOR this year No, I've not seen any direct response to the Creedon Report, although it was mentioned in passing in relation to these changes. There are a couple of things that I need to update though, as I've also looked at the actual law changes that are being proposed and they differ somewhat to the summary of what these changes suggested. The change allows the police to remove someone from the SOR, only after 15 years, but the person does not have to apply to be removed. The rules on name changes and notifying contact in advance, would only apply to certain SO, identified as posing a risk by the police. They would not apply to all SO. Hi my concern is the removal - sorry to others but it is what I am focused on. The report said 10yrs but if they keep to the 15yrs, even though you do not have to apply - you still would have to chase them up as I cant see them being pro-active.! More importantly I am still left with the same issue of when the "Relevant Date" starts. In my case I am basically saying I come off in '26 and they say '29. Talk about a deflating moment.... Lets see what happens.
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7.4K
|
+x+x+xSome changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report. The new clauses make the following changes: 1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address for five or more days. 2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children. 3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances, removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station. 4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first. 5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications, which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs. and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days. Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR. But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear. But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something. Hi and as always you seem to find the gems - all though balanced with some negative, bits of news. I think some of the bad points are there to just show "we will protect you" and the actual "practical working aspects" left to those who enforce. They could also be there to offset any arguments about the "good "points ie para 4. We all know about the report done last which listed recommendations but I have not been able to find any further updates. Question is have you found this info as an update to the report I mentioned and what stage is this at please. My hope this would remove the "discussions" I am / have had about when my "Relevant date" actually was and depending when/if implemented I could be off the SOR this year No, I've not seen any direct response to the Creedon Report, although it was mentioned in passing in relation to these changes. There are a couple of things that I need to update though, as I've also looked at the actual law changes that are being proposed and they differ somewhat to the summary of what these changes suggested. The change allows the police to remove someone from the SOR, only after 15 years, but the person does not have to apply to be removed. The rules on name changes and notifying contact in advance, would only apply to certain SO, identified as posing a risk by the police. They would not apply to all SO. On the point of knowing in advance who will be at the address where they are going, I'm sure the police would expect the RSO to have disclosed their record to the people at that address. Those people can then juggle their social commitments to avoid those situations, or call at the last moment if someone unexpected turns up, so that they can stay away while the situation exists.
=========================================================================================================
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)
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
+x+xSome changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report. The new clauses make the following changes: 1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address for five or more days. 2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children. 3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances, removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station. 4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first. 5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications, which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs. and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days. Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR. But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear. But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something. Hi and as always you seem to find the gems - all though balanced with some negative, bits of news. I think some of the bad points are there to just show "we will protect you" and the actual "practical working aspects" left to those who enforce. They could also be there to offset any arguments about the "good "points ie para 4. We all know about the report done last which listed recommendations but I have not been able to find any further updates. Question is have you found this info as an update to the report I mentioned and what stage is this at please. My hope this would remove the "discussions" I am / have had about when my "Relevant date" actually was and depending when/if implemented I could be off the SOR this year No, I've not seen any direct response to the Creedon Report, although it was mentioned in passing in relation to these changes. There are a couple of things that I need to update though, as I've also looked at the actual law changes that are being proposed and they differ somewhat to the summary of what these changes suggested. The change allows the police to remove someone from the SOR, only after 15 years, but the person does not have to apply to be removed. The rules on name changes and notifying contact in advance, would only apply to certain SO, identified as posing a risk by the police. They would not apply to all SO.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 1.7K
|
+xSome changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report. The new clauses make the following changes: 1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address for five or more days. 2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children. 3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances, removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station. 4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first. 5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications, which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs. and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days. Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR. But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear. But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something. Hi and as always you seem to find the gems - all though balanced with some negative, bits of news. I think some of the bad points are there to just show "we will protect you" and the actual "practical working aspects" left to those who enforce. They could also be there to offset any arguments about the "good "points ie para 4. We all know about the report done last which listed recommendations but I have not been able to find any further updates. Question is have you found this info as an update to the report I mentioned and what stage is this at please. My hope this would remove the "discussions" I am / have had about when my "Relevant date" actually was and depending when/if implemented I could be off the SOR this year
Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------
This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 775,
Visits: 5.8K
|
Some changes to the SOR notification rules have been proposed for the new criminal justice bill. The restrictions on SO changing their names has made the headlines, but there are other changes too, in response to the Creedon report.
The new clauses make the following changes:
1. Require RSOs to notify police in advance where they will be absent from their notified home address
for five or more days.
2. Create a new requirement to provide advance notification of contact with children for those RSOs
who have convictions of sexual offences against a child, and RSOs without child sex offence
convictions where police have intelligence suggesting they may pose a risk to children.
3. Give the police the power to receive notification from RSOs virtually in specified circumstances,
removing the need for an RSO to be physically present at a police station.
4. Provide the police the power to review and discharge those RSOs who – due to the severity of their
original sentence – are indefinitely subject to the notification requirements. If the police are satisfied
the offender is low risk, this change would allow the police to discharge the offender from their
notification requirements without the RSO having to apply first.
5. Lower the authorising rank from superintendent to inspector for section 96B warrant applications,
which allows the police to conduct a home visit on RSOs.
and then there is the name change ban, which allows police to stop someone from changing their name and requires 7 days notice of a name change, not three days.
Number 4 is probably the most significant, because it appears to get rid of the 15 year fixed limit, before someone can be removed from the register. What it does not say is what the minimum period is, before someone can be removed, but potentially, it could see a lot of people taken off the SOR.
But number 2 is perhaps the most restrictive and again requires more detail. It doesn't say what 'contact' means, which is arguably a good opportunity to put that into law, because at the moment, the meaning of the word 'contact' in SHPOs is also unclear.
But lets assume it only means going to a house where a child lives and not any contact with a child anywhere at all, because that would be unworkable. It still creates an almost impossible situation, because how does the person know that the child is going to be there in advance? The current rules require you to notify the police after being in a house with a child for more than 12 hours. The new rules require you to guess where a child is going to be, so what if you get it wrong? Say you arrive at a friends house and there is a child there, that you weren't expecting. Are you now in breach, because you didn't inform the police in advance? That would be crazy. So the only way the law could work, is if you can correctly predict that there will be a child at a particular house, at a particular time. But of course, peoples plans change, so you might be wrong and you have then informed the police for nothing. But at least you can now inform them virtually without going to a police station, so that is something.
|
|
|
|