Confused about SOR restrictions
Notifications OFF
Hello, I wondered if anyone had had a similar experience to this.
Essentially, my oh was able to have the SHPO amended by the court at the time of his sentencing to remove anything about not being able to spend time with kids without disclosure. All signed off by the judge as his was not a contact crime. Obviously we knew the SOR rules would be in place still limiting him to up to 12 hours, but that was fine we could live with that, it's not often we hang out with our friends with kids for more than a couple of hours anyway, and it's usually just at a restaurant etc.
anyway, we spoke to the offender manager yesterday who dropped the bomb that the police district we are under doesn't follow the same sor rules and that if we were to spend ANY time with our friends and their families we'd either need to disclose or he would do it.
we've had none of this is writing at all, it's all just been verbal and I'm confused. I feel like they've snuck this rule in through the back door because they weren't happy that he managed to get the SHPO amended. I even wonder if it's actually allowed. Surely we should have this in writing?
Essentially, my oh was able to have the SHPO amended by the court at the time of his sentencing to remove anything about not being able to spend time with kids without disclosure. All signed off by the judge as his was not a contact crime. Obviously we knew the SOR rules would be in place still limiting him to up to 12 hours, but that was fine we could live with that, it's not often we hang out with our friends with kids for more than a couple of hours anyway, and it's usually just at a restaurant etc.
anyway, we spoke to the offender manager yesterday who dropped the bomb that the police district we are under doesn't follow the same sor rules and that if we were to spend ANY time with our friends and their families we'd either need to disclose or he would do it.
we've had none of this is writing at all, it's all just been verbal and I'm confused. I feel like they've snuck this rule in through the back door because they weren't happy that he managed to get the SHPO amended. I even wonder if it's actually allowed. Surely we should have this in writing?
Blueshoes
This inconsistent approach across the country has never seemed right to me. Wherever the offender lives in the UK the same rules should surely apply. However it appears that some of the individuals managing sex offenders seem to have their own rules that aren't necessarily consistent with others in the same area (@seaside I'm thinking of you here). To secure the highest level of compliance rules should be sensible, easy to understand and above all consistent. Maybe the inconsistency is aimed at justifying the jobs of those who manage offenders, as the "breaches" you uncover, the easier it is to make your job seem essential.
In terms of checking this out and also getting something in writing, could you email the offender managers boss outlining what you have been told and asking him/her to confirm that this is indeed the case and if so why locally they are taking a different approach? If they reply, you will hopefully get confirmation one way or the other and a reason. If they do confirm its correct that they work differently then you can choose if you want to escalate this, which I think I would do in your situation
This inconsistent approach across the country has never seemed right to me. Wherever the offender lives in the UK the same rules should surely apply. However it appears that some of the individuals managing sex offenders seem to have their own rules that aren't necessarily consistent with others in the same area (@seaside I'm thinking of you here). To secure the highest level of compliance rules should be sensible, easy to understand and above all consistent. Maybe the inconsistency is aimed at justifying the jobs of those who manage offenders, as the "breaches" you uncover, the easier it is to make your job seem essential.
In terms of checking this out and also getting something in writing, could you email the offender managers boss outlining what you have been told and asking him/her to confirm that this is indeed the case and if so why locally they are taking a different approach? If they reply, you will hopefully get confirmation one way or the other and a reason. If they do confirm its correct that they work differently then you can choose if you want to escalate this, which I think I would do in your situation
Blue shoes I have also had experience of this happening-please feel free to message me.
Ut would be interesting to know if we are in the same area or whether this is something that is happening in specific areas-either way its not acceptable and there should be consistency.
Ut would be interesting to know if we are in the same area or whether this is something that is happening in specific areas-either way its not acceptable and there should be consistency.
The problem is that the police have powers of disclosure that are seperate from the SHPO.
Even if the SHPO has no restrictions on contact with children, the police can still disclose, or ask them to disclose to people. It doesn't stop them from having contact but what it does do, is to act as a massive deterrent to going anywhere where they might have to disclose.
It therefore becomes a no contact restriction, by default. Because hardly anyone wants to do something that would require disclosure, they just avoid doing those things instead.
Even if the SHPO has no restrictions on contact with children, the police can still disclose, or ask them to disclose to people. It doesn't stop them from having contact but what it does do, is to act as a massive deterrent to going anywhere where they might have to disclose.
It therefore becomes a no contact restriction, by default. Because hardly anyone wants to do something that would require disclosure, they just avoid doing those things instead.
Google "college of policing disclosure visor" for the guidelines considered good practice around what is proportionate in disclosures and what the officer should record around why they are disclosing
Same here. No SHPO restrictions, the 12hr thing on the SOR yes, but offender manager said no contact with any children other than our own, without prior disclosure to parents, then a phone call from them to parents to ensure he has told them correct info!!
This even occurs if going out for a meal or to visit friends for an afternoon. Feel free to DM me x
This even occurs if going out for a meal or to visit friends for an afternoon. Feel free to DM me x
That sounds crazy. I thought the restrictions the judge set were followed in the community/police.
why bother setting them in the first place? Excuse my ignorance on this one, not impacting us for a while yet but I'm always interested.
why bother setting them in the first place? Excuse my ignorance on this one, not impacting us for a while yet but I'm always interested.
That sounds crazy. I thought the restrictions the judge set were followed in the community/police.
why bother setting the rules in the first place? Excuse my ignorance on this one, not impacting us for a while yet but I'm always interested and want to learn.
why bother setting the rules in the first place? Excuse my ignorance on this one, not impacting us for a while yet but I'm always interested and want to learn.
This is exactly the problem I'm having. Nothing in his SHPO about contact with kids but PO saying no contact with kids without disclosure. So we told them which family members they were (parents already knew) and guess what 6 weeks later no one has rang the parents to check. It's just a joke. I thought what was written in the SHPO is what we had to follow, if it's not then we could be breaching without knowing
So going out for a restaurant meal in a public place but with children in the group warrants the potential problems of disclosure? What happens if you bump into friends in the park? Do you have to make an excuse not to stand and have a chat or join them in their picnic if invited in case anyone sees you? Smacking my head with the unfairness and never ending implications of this.....
Why don't they just make our loved ones wear an arm band and that way everyone knows?!!!!!!!!
Why don't they just make our loved ones wear an arm band and that way everyone knows?!!!!!!!!
Mandy - different circumstances but our son's OIC threatened us with our local police doing random bail checks (because our son dared to ask if his bail conditions meant just inside our house for no overnights or whether he could camp out in our garden shed to save money when his children visit. Crazy idea but he was worried about finances) His bail papers make no mention of 'overnight'. She claimed he was obviously going to breach his conditions. That was in May and not a peep from anyone so far so it was all bluster and an attempt to stop him bothering her.
I'm sure the 'authorities' use this as a way to control things with minimum input from them as they know how scared everyone is of breaching any rules. The stakes are way too high so nobody dares try to call their bluff. They are bullies.
I'm sure the 'authorities' use this as a way to control things with minimum input from them as they know how scared everyone is of breaching any rules. The stakes are way too high so nobody dares try to call their bluff. They are bullies.