# data[].attributes.body
Mix of unreal optimism and conformity bias meant that relationships and sexual orientation were not fully discussed which could have effected a decision to recall.

# data[].attributes.body
When a PoP's move on plan was to move to the home address but his partner fell pregnant, it meant that I no longer allowed him to go home. The only ever DV incident was when she was pregnant/recently given birth and so I felt I had to be defensible, because if I allowed him to go home and something happened, I would not be able to justify that decision. Seniors agreed with my decision but I cannot help feel like we over-reacted?

# data[].attributes.body
I had a DV perpetrator that got a pet, and then seemed to show understanding of his DV behaviour in relation to his pet. e.g. if he wants to cuddle his pet and the pet doesn't want to, he would get scratched, so this taught him more about consent and how things do not have to be always on his terms. Although this was a "lightbulb moment" in terms of him recognising this behaviour in himself, this is not a skill we have seen in practice within a relationship setting, so would not reduce the risk to partners.

# data[].attributes.body
When I started this role I had a level of unreal optimism where I wanted to believe my case was changing for the better so I was more inclined to focus on the positives they presented as opposed to anything negative. Therefore, potential risk may have been minimised and less professional curiosity used.

# data[].attributes.body
I remember when I was newly qualified and I had two SFO's in quick succession, these were gang related and I felt out of my depth. At the time I was on a rota completing PSRs and I remember being asked by the Court to assess dangerousness and seeking help from my Senior because I felt like the recent experiences of the SFOs would make me "dread risk".

# data[].attributes.body
In wanting somebody to succeed, it felt like it was easier and 'nicer' to take what they said at face value, such as them making changes and them communicating difficulties with battling relapse. I had to be really conscious that I felt I wanted to avoid the more negative conversations when evidence suggested otherwise, which ultimately highlighted to me why these were the important conversations to have.

# data[].attributes.body
Taking into consideration whatever the person on probation took on face value, however finding out information that was contradictory. False compliance from the person on probation and thereafter having difficult conversations when needed as it would be argumentative.

# data[].attributes.body
Avoiding having conversation or making decisions that may cause confrontation/trigger the PoP. For example, they may shut down or get defensive anytime alcohol use or treatment is mentioned so not pursuing this treatment options. However, sometimes these difficult conversations need to be had and things need to be pushed to effectively manage this, especially is it is linked to their offending.

# data[].attributes.body
'Over perception and reaction to vivid and catastrophic risks' - initially responding to new info from police around a high risk rape case as indicating imminent risk and preparing to recall, before reflecting further, and considering more carefully what the info meant, and deciding recall was inappropriate.

# data[].attributes.body
I have valued the time to reflect upon my practice in light of perspectives/resources provided in this risk workshop. I have enjoyed listening to Hazel Kemshall's lecture on bias and error in risk decision making and the importance of personal awareness and reflective practice in order to mitigate bias in risk assessments.

# data[].attributes.body
Managing a HR child sexual offender on IPP licence. Significant number of additional licence conditions requested pre-release (and granted by Parole Board- 27 from memory!)- based on not only the nature of his offending but also his choice of voluntary/employment roles over time (all involving children). Insistent he never abused anyone else, and no evidence he did- but I found it very hard to look beyond that initial assessment of him.

# data[].attributes.body
I had a case who wanted to live with her partner. He was not on probation at the time, but had historically been on for domestic incidents. My lady had applied for council housing to live with him, and being new I did not see this as an issue. She was offered a property, however the council intervened and said that they wouldn't house them together because of his history. I then had to tell her that she is not able to live with him, and if it is found out that she is, she would be in breach. I felt guilty about this for a long time as I hadn't intervened early enough and felt like I gave her a false sense of hope.

# data[].attributes.body
I have a case who is IOM and consistently in and out of prison breaking his license conditions, every time he is and on a video link he expresses a want to change and that this time will be different. Whilst this is positive i find it hard to believe and sometime wonder if i am to harsh due to preconceptions