A few questions I have.
1, does it work.
2, how many on it now.
3, what can it do.
4, is it for all sexual offences.
5. 3, 5, 7, 10 and life ( is it fair you have an unspent conviction for life?)

1, not really as if you going to reoffend you will.
2, I think its 60k + now
3, pay lip service to the public and media, it is worthless really.
4, yes it is, but not sure if indecent assult or flashing carries the SOR.
5, should be delt with on a case by case but PPU officers are scared to put forward to a judge to let someone come off it.

so 60,000 + on it, those just out of prison on licence can expect monthly visits, after licence end they must visit tge offender at least 2 times per 12 months.
now look at the man/womenpower being used up to keep an eye on these eggs.
Sex offence reoffending in real terms as low as 2%, but they also count in that breach of SOR/licence conditions which may amount to being in a resricted area so infact no further sexual offence taken place.

there will be a big review of this box of eggs within 5 years.



Your thoughts please.

I've never had anything to hide and am personally happy to comply although I agree with you, it's a ridiculous waste of time and hinders rather than helps investigations - occupying police with thousands of stupid interviews when they could be chasing real offenders. PS - the police agree with us too.

yes I know an ex-cop who administered one and he said..a total waste of time when those on it already have record.

some US states now thinking of dismantling theres

MWTWATCHER wrote:

4, is it for all sexual offences.

4, yes it is



DLT wasn't put on it.

Indecent assualt and most indecent exposure does not require the SOR, sexual assualt does. also length of sentence contributed to no SOR for DLT

DLT was not asked to sign the SOR as his crime was committed in 1995 - before the register was introduced.

Wrong SP17 - my crimes were NOT committed at all but all were claimed to be in the 1980s. And I was placed on the SOR.

www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-2770701

Fair enough JK - but here is my source.

SP178 wrote:
www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-2770701

Fair enough JK - but here is my source.



I actually know someone on the infamous register it is false statements on his profile, he never did anything sexual.

SP17 wrote:
www.dailymail.co.UK/news/article-2770701

Fair enough JK - but here is my source.




The bit about DLT not signing the SOR is in the penultimate paragraph of the Mail's article on him - in the link. I, for one, am totally confused.

I suspect, as usual, they are just wrong.

A man who lives near me who went nutty and ran around naked was put on the register even though it wasn't sexual.
Who decides who goes on and not?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
A man who lives near me who went nutty and ran around naked was put on the register even though it wasn't sexual.
Who decides who goes on and not?

I think a court has to order it & may have the option not to.


the schitzophrenic thinking behind a register : to somehow know where everyone is but then the claim repeatedly made that offenders cannot be cured and could act spontaneously so what is the point ?

another ludicrous idea adopted from the USA which Britain now follows so slavishly yet some US communities have successfully challenged the idea that permanent punishment is unconstitutional.

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
A man who lives near me who went nutty and ran around naked was put on the register even though it wasn't sexual.
Who decides who goes on and not?

I think a court has to order it & may have the option not to.


the schitzophrenic thinking behind a register : to somehow know where everyone is but then the claim repeatedly made that offenders cannot be cured and could act spontaneously so what is the point ?

another ludicrous idea adopted from the USA which Britain now follows so slavishly yet some US communities have successfully challenged the idea that permanent punishment is unconstitutional.

If people are such a danger, don't let them loose at all. Otherwise, let them live in peace.