firearms ban after prison

[Jez_Armstrong]

And used google images of sick people as his profile picture passing it off as himself

 

[clumpyedge]

Was it both him and his mrs that walted or just the mrs?

 

[newsh]

Seeing as OP has had his question answered i'm surprised this is still going and not locked

Speaking as a Dad, I'd be pissed off if a convicted paedophile turned up at my local site. Plenty of kids play airsoft, so its proper dodgy ground IMO - they shouldn't be near kids.

OP - If you and your mate are going to play airsoft again, you might want to check with your local site that you intend to play at and maybe let them know he has a conviction.

 

[Tommikka]

On this I wonder how many airsoft site staff are CRB checked or whatever the acronym is now.... I was on the understanding anyone working with children (not sure on age range that is defined by that) has to have a CRB check.

CRB / DBS checks have been abused by companies knowingly and unknowingly, by requiring checks on people who don’t need them, and also possibly using it to offload part of their duty of care by showing that they have checked and nothing came up

Its for people who may be in a position of ‘power’ / authority and with direct and sole access to children 

A marshal could be telling kids what to do, but is not required to be cleared

There is someone in my area & in Paintball that in recent years was convicted, and is on the register.  Not kid related and his version of events given in the lead up differed to what came out in court

He hasn’t been banned from sites to my knowledge, but with the national media everyone knows

 

[clumpyedge]

Seeing as OP has had his question answered i'm surprised this is still going and not locked

Speaking as a Dad, I'd be pissed off if a convicted paedophile turned up at my local site. Plenty of kids play airsoft, so its proper dodgy ground IMO - they shouldn't be near kids.

OP - If you and your mate are going to play airsoft again, you might want to check with your local site that you intend to play at and maybe let them know he has a conviction.

I think the continuing discussion is a valid one to be having off the back of OP's post, safe guarding players after all should be a priority to the running of a site.

 

[newsh]

I think the continuing discussion is a valid one to be having off the back of OP's post, safe guarding players after all should be a priority to the running of a site.

I agree wholeheartedly, was just surprised to see it wasn't locked.

Glad to see the discussion still going

 

[clumpyedge]

CRB / DBS checks have been abused by companies knowingly and unknowingly, by requiring checks on people who don’t need them, and also possibly using it to offload part of their duty of care by showing that they have checked and nothing came up

Its for people who may be in a position of ‘power’ / authority and with direct and sole access to children 

A marshal could be telling kids what to do, but is not required to be cleared

There is someone in my area & in Paintball that in recent years was convicted, and is on the register.  Not kid related and his version of events given in the lead up differed to what came out in court

He hasn’t been banned from sites to my knowledge, but with the national media everyone knows

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. 

Would an employer not still be under a duty of care to perform those checks to show they are covering their bases should anything arise at a later date?

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

I think the continuing discussion is a valid one to be having off the back of OP's post, safe guarding players after all should be a priority to the running of a site.

Agreed.

I think the  original question itself went out the window once the nature of the crime was known.  I would assume that a convicted paedophile would have have  an order to stay away from anywhere that minors frequent and that would be an airsoft site.

 

[clumpyedge]

Agreed.

I think the  original question itself went out the window once the nature of the crime was known.  I would assume that a convicted paedophile would have have  an order to stay away from anywhere that minors frequent and that would be an airsoft site.

Would actually depend.. for instance MOD sites that the majority of milsim providers use (not sure if its MOD or the game providers that dictate this) that games are over for 18's only (although i know of at least one provider that skirted this as the games were only 8 hour games), so you could still play with someone with a conviction on these sites but a game site where under 18's can play I would assume (hopefully) that it would be restricted for them to play as the sites allow players under the age of consent (12 upwards in some cases) 

 

[Immortal]

IMHO he shouldn't be allowed to play Airsoft; kids and women often attend.

He claims he didn't know the age of the victim however the sexual predator mentality is still wrong regardless of age. A lack of knowledge is no defence. He's actively groomed someone, that's just plain wrong at any age.

He doesn't sound innocent, he just sounds like he doesn't like the fact he got caught. Paedo's have a known trait of proclaimed innocence and denial of wrong doing. They see no wrong in their actions and that's why they can do it, a normal person can not.

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

Simply put he lost the right to breathe let alone anything else.

 

[clumpyedge]

IMHO he shouldn't be allowed to play Airsoft; kids and women often attend.

He claims he didn't know the age of the victim however the sexual predator mentality is still wrong regardless of age. A lack of knowledge is no defence. He's actively groomed someone, that's just plain wrong at any age.

He doesn't sound innocent, he just sounds like he doesn't like the fact he got caught. Paedo's have a known trait of proclaimed innocence and denial of wrong doing. They see no wrong in their actions and that's why they can do it, a normal person can not.

Agreed. If you are convicted of a sexual act that should mean you shouldn't be able to take part in activities that also include persons that are deemed vulnerable to that person regardless of the type of sexual conviction.

 

[EDcase]

While not directly linked to this thread I will tell you what happened to me as an example of how weird things can happen.

A few years ago an officer came to my house asking if I knew a particular girl about 14 years old.

I did not know her and the background was that she had problems at home and had run away.

Her link to me....

She had apparently seen me out with my family and followed us back to our car.

When she was found several days later the police recovered a diary she kept.  In there was my car license plate number with hearts drawn around it...

She later said that she had seen our family and been envious of our (apparent) happyness together.

So it all ended fine in the end...

BUT

Imagine if something had happened to her and that diary was found with her body.

It would have been a very difficult situation for me to explain even though I had no knowledge of her existence...

 

[Rogerborg]

Would an employer not still be under a duty of care to perform those checks to show they are covering their bases should anything arise at a later date?

Most employers not involved in education or child care are not required to by law.  Some do it anyway out of an abundance of caution.  However, by doing so, they are creating a duty of care where none existed, which is making a rod for their own backs when they fail to spot a nonce.

He claims he didn't know the age of the victim however the sexual predator mentality is still wrong regardless of age. A lack of knowledge is no defence. He's actively groomed someone, that's just plain wrong at any age.

Not necessarily.  As I noted above, it's a strict liability offence if one party is 18+ and the other is under 16.  The CPS love on-line paedobear cases, as all the evidence they need is captured for them. It's an easy slam-dunk.  It doesn't matter to your defence if you can show that the younger party consented to or even initiated or carried out the majority of the conduct.  You can receive 99 unsolicited sexts from a 15 year old, but if you send one back, that's sufficient for conviction.  The only defence is a reasonable belief that the younger party was at least 16.  Whether the court puts the onus on the defendant to show that, or the prosecution to refute it, is where it comes down to the judge and/or jury and the quality of your legal representation.

If you want an example of the perversity of some sexual offence verdicts, consider the Ched Evans / Clayton McDonald rape case.  The original jury heard consistent testimony from two men who claimed active invitation, versus testimony from one woman that she could not remember anything that happened, but (despite contradictory CCTV evidence and witness testimony) had been too drunk to consent to either, therefore rape.  The jury convicted Evans, while acquitting McDonald, based on dismissing their consistent testimony and instead imagining a story about what might have happened behind a closed door.  That made no sense at all, and was finally overturned on appeal because Evans had the resources to not let it drop.  It later came out that the complainant had form for initiating casual (but enthusiastic) sex and then using the same "soooo drunk, don't remember being such a slag" line the next morning.

Maybe best not to fetch the torches and pitchforks until all appeals are exhausted.

But, not near my kids.

 

[Prisce]

I actually had a rare brain wave earlier and remembered that Tony from RIFT Airsoft said he  permanently banned a player from Airsoft after he didn’t inform him that he was a convicted pedo, apparently it’s part of the sex offenders list to inform anyone, be that a prospective partner, a work colleague or client who could leave kids in his care to inform them of his conviction. 

His best legal bet would be to ask the head Marshall before turning up.

What he should do however is try and clear his name before even contemplating playing. Unless it’s a private game I doubt anyone will want to play with him, more people are likely to respond like the others above than anything else.

 

[Robert James]

Adam Johnson coming to play airsoft?

I think you should tell the site though in all honesty. 

 

[Duff]

If I were OP I'd realise my mistake, request my account be deleted and then go and stab my "mate" as many times as my arms can muster before tiring.

I like how this thread shows the forum comunity members have such a zero tolerance for obvious bollocks, bullshittery and general breaking of the life rule "Don't be a cnut."

 

[Tommikka]

Interesting, thanks for the clarification. 

Would an employer not still be under a duty of care to perform those checks to show they are covering their bases should anything arise at a later date?

@Rogerborg has covered some of this in his response

The duty of care remains for employers to ensure staff (and volunteers etc) have appropriate access.  Having everyone being checked may give a false sense of security, it’s only that the individual hasn’t been caught to date with any offences applicable to the role stated in the request.

CRB/DBS is not a vetting process other than in certain roles with access to children/vunerable

adults etc 

Some places require checks on sub contracted staff etc, such as an electrician doing some work in a school.  That is not a requirement but contractors will comply rather than lose business.

The checks are only valid for the job that the check was raised for, so an electrician could pass without having been fully checked for a school environment and an electrician working in a school for a day should not have free access to kids.

A school may have all those checks in place for staff, volunteers and may also require contractors to do checks.  But as a single guy who is not a parent of anyone I’ve been given access to schools and do not have a CRB/DBS check on me (I have had good reason to be there and to take away certain kids !)

I have even been the named person under an NHS mental health patient ‘contracts’ with no background check on me.

Purely as friend of an individual I was in her contract agreement that she could leave the site if I was with her, others had to have staff until

they brought it up in group discussions and they obtained permission to go off site with me ...... because I’m a fine upstanding and respectable member of the community!!!!!!!

On the matter of an adult and the inability of a child to grant consent, it all lies with the adult to err on the side of caution.

There have been cases where the adult has been saved by it being ‘reasonable to assume’ age, such as meeting a girl in a nightclub where she should be 21, but could have got in underage.  There are 5 years of safety net there, but you can’t be totally certain

In my much younger days I’ve had a couple of near scares with girls under age in places they shouldn’t really be and a man ‘should’ be safe to assume they are legal.  You cannot assume that 

Being an old git now I’m perfectly safe as I think everyone is a kid

 

[ImTriggerHappy]

i remember the one that had all the evidence thrown at him online, messages shown of grooming and even a penis pic

not that long ago either, and he was defended and it died off

Was that a certain person who was involved with Marie or whatever her name was

Dont think I remember this what was it?

 

[AshOnSnow]

I actually had a rare brain wave earlier and remembered that Tony from RIFT Airsoft said he  permanently banned a player from Airsoft after he didn’t inform him that he was a convicted pedo, apparently it’s part of the sex offenders list to inform anyone, be that a prospective partner, a work colleague or client who could leave kids in his care to inform them of his conviction. 

His best legal bet would be to ask the head Marshall before turning up.

What he should do however is try and clear his name before even contemplating playing. Unless it’s a private game I doubt anyone will want to play with him, more people are likely to respond like the others above than anything else.

On this I wonder how many airsoft site staff are CRB checked or whatever the acronym is now.... I was on the understanding anyone working with children (not sure on age range that is defined by that) has to have a CRB check.

It's DBS now, I don't believe it's a requirement however there are umbrella organisations that act as agencies for adventure sport and children's activities leaders to obtain an enhanced DBS check.

I heard that about Tony too, and I believe it was mentioned in passing at some point that they do have DBS checks since they frequently work with children.

And this place specifically states that their staff hold DBS clearances.

http://www.airborne-airsoft.co.uk/young-guns-2/

As does this as well

https://lincolnshireairsoftclub.co.uk/aboutus.html

So I think it's safe to assume that it's common practice for airsoft site staff to hold those clearances - and I imagine it's likely a requirement for the site insurance policy too.