Name change
Notifications OFF
So - pressure is being put on the government to ban people on the register from changing their name.
what do you ladies think of that one?
what do you ladies think of that one?
It's their human right Surely ? My person did incase of media to protect me and the children his new name was used in court , sor etc but makess no difference. How are people going to reabilitate if they are having basic human rights removed .?it doesn't make sense .
Hi Smile x
My son wants to change his surname to my maiden name once he is released, not to hide who is is but just to try to build some sort of future, he can do it while he is inside but the governor would need to approve etc
Once he changes it he will have to let the Visor/ police know
Ultimately it's still going to link to his current surname
They have enough restrictions as it is surely it's a human right to be able to try to rebuild but I guess it's just another result of the stigma attached to this crime x
My son wants to change his surname to my maiden name once he is released, not to hide who is is but just to try to build some sort of future, he can do it while he is inside but the governor would need to approve etc
Once he changes it he will have to let the Visor/ police know
Ultimately it's still going to link to his current surname
They have enough restrictions as it is surely it's a human right to be able to try to rebuild but I guess it's just another result of the stigma attached to this crime x
I have just been discussing this with my husband my son.
As usual the media are only focusing on one aspect of this and completely ignoring the fact that many people change their names in order to protect their families from the vile media coverage which happens.
Surely you should be able to change your name with the agreement of the police as a basic human right in order to protect not only yourself but also the people around you who are impacted by this?
As usual the media are only focusing on one aspect of this and completely ignoring the fact that many people change their names in order to protect their families from the vile media coverage which happens.
Surely you should be able to change your name with the agreement of the police as a basic human right in order to protect not only yourself but also the people around you who are impacted by this?
Curious to get your views on it - to see if they matched mine. And they do!
Just feel, once again, once labelled a sex offender your labelled as a danger and are continuing to break the law. We all know some reoffend (same as any crime) - but what about those working SO hard to rebuild their life.
Not at all addressing the fact a name change can be important for rehabilitation in the community for these men. As you say surely a human right.....
Good input from Lucy Faithfull Foundation on the BBC.
Just feel, once again, once labelled a sex offender your labelled as a danger and are continuing to break the law. We all know some reoffend (same as any crime) - but what about those working SO hard to rebuild their life.
Not at all addressing the fact a name change can be important for rehabilitation in the community for these men. As you say surely a human right.....
Good input from Lucy Faithfull Foundation on the BBC.
Human rights seem to be totally ignored by the powers that be and they continue to label everyone in the same way.
I can't understand how someone who knocks down and seriously injures another person is allowed to continue working and living their life as normal but someone who makes one stupid mistake is branded for the rest of their life along with their family.
I can't understand how someone who knocks down and seriously injures another person is allowed to continue working and living their life as normal but someone who makes one stupid mistake is branded for the rest of their life along with their family.
Post deleted
Perhaps if there was less salacious and misrepresentated cases reported in the media and by online vigilantes, name changes would not be necessary.
The LFF made the point on BBC that offenders need to be able to rebuild their lives, as you said.
It does seem against the ethos of rehabilitation.
It does seem against the ethos of rehabilitation.
I've been thinking about asking my husband if he has considered changing his name. There are so many misconceptions about people committing these types of crimes and particularly if it was in the media, it just follows them around. If they can change their name, it gives them some comfort that they can live their lives without the constant worry someone will find out. There was an article in the Times a while ago about campaigning for not allowing the name change, and reading the circumstances in the report, I got where they were coming from - If I remember correctly, the man was a committed sex offender, had physically abused children but had changed his name. She trusted him, he was treated like a member of the family, and she had 3 young boys who he went on to abuse. But also, I think if she didn't have any concerns about him, she wouldn't have looked him up anyway, so the name change was irrelevant.
And actually the problem doesn't seem to be with sex offenders changing their names, but that the process isn't robust enough as they can change their names and get around the system, whereas I'm sure most of our persons would be doing it for genuine reasons and would report the change.
And actually the problem doesn't seem to be with sex offenders changing their names, but that the process isn't robust enough as they can change their names and get around the system, whereas I'm sure most of our persons would be doing it for genuine reasons and would report the change.
I just read about this too. When any proposed law is named after a person, it should ring alarm bells. They are usually bad laws, based on emotion as opposed to rationality. Brought forward because of an unrepresentative edge case, without seriously looking at the harm.
My partner changed his name, he had an unusual name, and the case was reported in the media. I didn't see that he had any choice but to change it. I certainly wasn't comfortable with him keeping his old name linked to where we lived. People google names all the time. Although I would hope the risk was slim, I regarded it as a danger that his name was linked with my address. Especially factoring in how sensationalised the media report was.
It's a nonsensical campaign. They have to notify a change of name anyway, and checks take place when a person changes their passport etc that is fed back. So cutting off a legal route to change a persons name, isn't going to do what they claim it will do.
It's the few not notifying that are the issue. If someone is hiding their identity to commit something like child abuse, they are not going to suddenly be deterred from using an alias because it is not legal to do so. I would assume it would make things worst for the police to track people, as it would force people to go underground, so to speak.
My partner changed his name, he had an unusual name, and the case was reported in the media. I didn't see that he had any choice but to change it. I certainly wasn't comfortable with him keeping his old name linked to where we lived. People google names all the time. Although I would hope the risk was slim, I regarded it as a danger that his name was linked with my address. Especially factoring in how sensationalised the media report was.
It's a nonsensical campaign. They have to notify a change of name anyway, and checks take place when a person changes their passport etc that is fed back. So cutting off a legal route to change a persons name, isn't going to do what they claim it will do.
It's the few not notifying that are the issue. If someone is hiding their identity to commit something like child abuse, they are not going to suddenly be deterred from using an alias because it is not legal to do so. I would assume it would make things worst for the police to track people, as it would force people to go underground, so to speak.
The article is here. It is good that the Lucy Faithfull Foundation contributed.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64624921
Slightly irritated about the end bit:
"There had been more than 5,500 offences committed by sex offenders of failing to comply with notification requirements such as not telling police they were living in a household with a child. Thirty-two police forces provided that data."
If you look at the spreadsheet, the column for "RSOs who failed to notify the force they were living in a household with a child under the age of 18". The number comes up to 15, not 5500.
It may be they don't dsaggregate the data for all forces, and they don't know exactly what the failure to notify was about. However, as notification requirements cover notifying details of a passport, a new bank card, and other things. They could have picked one of those examples instead.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64624921
Slightly irritated about the end bit:
"There had been more than 5,500 offences committed by sex offenders of failing to comply with notification requirements such as not telling police they were living in a household with a child. Thirty-two police forces provided that data."
If you look at the spreadsheet, the column for "RSOs who failed to notify the force they were living in a household with a child under the age of 18". The number comes up to 15, not 5500.
It may be they don't dsaggregate the data for all forces, and they don't know exactly what the failure to notify was about. However, as notification requirements cover notifying details of a passport, a new bank card, and other things. They could have picked one of those examples instead.
We have an usual surname and my OH was going to change his name after probation. He might have to do it sooner. Like you all have said if people want to 'disappear' they will. As the police have all the old name and new name details it wouls not change the monitoring.
on this forum all i hear is the majority just want to be left alone to get on with their lives as they have receive their punishment from the courts. But the media just want them to be punished forever. How will this stop re offending?
The problem is that they mention the most severe cases as examples.
on this forum all i hear is the majority just want to be left alone to get on with their lives as they have receive their punishment from the courts. But the media just want them to be punished forever. How will this stop re offending?
The problem is that they mention the most severe cases as examples.
As we've said SO many times sex offenders are all lumped under one umbrella and treated exactly the same (especially by the public/media) whether its a glimpse at an image or assault. With our favourite P word copiously used
I agree to change a name when an offender is focussed on committing more crime - should be explored.
By what I've read on this forum being out 'on license' is pretty strict and heavily monitored as it stands.
I agree to change a name when an offender is focussed on committing more crime - should be explored.
By what I've read on this forum being out 'on license' is pretty strict and heavily monitored as it stands.
This was in the news a couple of months ago, I immediately think - Gosh we need to rush his name change through. As someone has said, the details of the case that seems to have triggered this aren't straight forward.
I wonder how long these laws actually take to go through the system though and become in place, hopefully quite a long time!
To me it just highlights the system isn't working if being able to change your name results in issues. Changing your name shouldn't mean it will be at the detriment of public safety - if that is the concern, in the same way moving address isn't.
Perhaps they need to take a look at these offences, how they are dealt with, how the media rile everyone up, the lack of prevention measures and the lack of rehabilition options (for those where it's needed) and come up with a holistic approach and review instead of picking at name changes as some kind of scapegoat. Bloody idiots!
Perhaps they need to take a look at these offences, how they are dealt with, how the media rile everyone up, the lack of prevention measures and the lack of rehabilition options (for those where it's needed) and come up with a holistic approach and review instead of picking at name changes as some kind of scapegoat. Bloody idiots!
Baffled,
Clearly those who comply with the SOR regime are not the problem, it is the very small minority that don't who are the problem. So the fundamental problem is the SOR is not working as a means of preventing reoffending. And by reoffending I mean re committing the original or similar offence against a child, not forgetting to comply with one or more of the random requirements of the SOR.
Would be interesting to find out how the original requirements of the SOR were thought up, what things were considered and how they were thought to protect children and prevent further offending. Are they based on facts and logic, or irrational and emotional thinking?
If the consequences of being convicting individuals for these offences were less stigmatising, then less former offenders would want /need to change their name in the first place.
Clearly those who comply with the SOR regime are not the problem, it is the very small minority that don't who are the problem. So the fundamental problem is the SOR is not working as a means of preventing reoffending. And by reoffending I mean re committing the original or similar offence against a child, not forgetting to comply with one or more of the random requirements of the SOR.
Would be interesting to find out how the original requirements of the SOR were thought up, what things were considered and how they were thought to protect children and prevent further offending. Are they based on facts and logic, or irrational and emotional thinking?
If the consequences of being convicting individuals for these offences were less stigmatising, then less former offenders would want /need to change their name in the first place.
I agree. I think there should be levels to the SOR and I think it should only be for physical cases personally. There should be something else for these other crimes and there should be some kind of monitoring which isn't so oppresive for a first offence. It's all so new with the internet only being so widely used in the last 15 years, I feel like it'll be a good few years before they start looking at alternative ways of dealing with all of this.
I agree there should be different levels or categories of the SOR. My person has the same amount of time (indefinite) as someone that has physically acted (my person had one conversation with a decoy, not even arrangements to meet and no pictures) in fact I read a news article the other day about an offender that had raped a child, had under double the length of sentence as my person and only 10 years on SOR. It's applied and implemented so inconsistently up and down the country.