firearms ban after prison

[ImTriggerHappy]

20 minutes ago, Seany.exe said:

Lol, the mob mentality here is fucking retarded. You don't know the details of the case, answer the question and jog on because it doesn't concern you.

 

Sex offender could mean anything from child molester to forgetting your zip is open and hanging free in front of the wrong people. This is an airsoft forum, i've never once seen airsofters acting like such wankers when i'm out playing. So without knowing specifics, keep it zipped.

 

You spread hate you only create hate

 

This happens over here too, literally seen it happen lol. though he got let off for some reason, he was close to being on the register for a minimum of a year because of a drunken need to pee

Read the thread guy was in prison for grooming an under age girl. He is a convicted paedophile so no I won't jog on and I wouldn't in person either. People like that should never be back in society and certainly not playing airsoft with kids around.

 

Paedophiles concern everybody and are the main reason the death penalty should be bought back.

 

Seriously doubt you have ever been out playing with a known paedo in your midst so to say you have never seen airsofters acting like this is irrelevant to this situation. 

 

Anyone who tries to stick up for a paedo really needs to look at themselves as somethings have no defence.

[Jez_Armstrong]

If he is a convicted sex offender, is he allowed to be at places where children might be

 

like an airsoft site?

[Fizzy]

12 minutes ago, Jez_Armstrong said:

If he is a convicted sex offender, is he allowed to be at places where children might be

 

like an airsoft site?

 

A good point well made!

14 hours ago, L3wisD said:

I asked my policeman friend:

 

No. They would be banned from holding a firearms certificate, required for all licensable weapons. You don't need a license to have a toy gun.

 

So, turns out it should be fine to give an ex-con a replica weapon... Who knew!

 

You might want to mention to your 'policeman friend' that Realistic Imitation Firearms aren't classed as toys...

[clumpyedge]

16 minutes ago, Jez_Armstrong said:

If he is a convicted sex offender, is he allowed to be at places where children might be

 

like an airsoft site?

 

 

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.

[Fizzy]

10 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

With a maximum sentence of 10 years, a 3 year term for a first offence suggests there may have been aggravating factors.

 

Aggravating factors that might put restrictions on your release perhaps?

[Rogerborg]

5 minutes ago, clumpyedge said:

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.

 

DBS check.  I don't believe so. Running or marshalling a site where children are present only incidentally doesn't fall under Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups 2006 or Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2013.

 

That said, I don't want OP's friend near my kids.

 

That said, I can attest from personal knowledge that there are precocious, predatory teens who set out to actively entrap naive, horny boys and men for their own agendas.  But the back-story behind my own brush with that turned out to be a Shakespearean tragedy of abuse, loss, suffering and desperation where the villains were also victims.

 

It's a messed up world with a lot of unhappy stories in it, and the CPS is interested in telling at most half of them in order to hit their conviction targets.  I wouldn't be too quick to judge even those who have been judged.

 

 

But... not near my kids.

[clumpyedge]

8 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

DBS check.  I don't believe so. Running or marshalling a site where children are present only incidentally doesn't fall under Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups 2006 or Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2013.

 

That said, I don't want OP's friend near my kids.

 

That said, I can attest from personal knowledge that there are precocious, predatory teens who set out to actively entrap naive, horny boys and men for their own agendas.  But the back-story behind my own brush with that turned out to be a Shakespearean tragedy of abuse, loss, suffering and desperation where the villains were also victims.

 

It's a messed up world with a lot of unhappy stories in it, and the CPS is interested in telling at most half of them in order to hit their conviction targets.  I wouldn't be too quick to judge even those who have been judged.

 

 

But... not near my kids.

 

 

Interesting, coincidentally I'm check due to the nature of my work so are my bosses. obviously a check only shows if you have been arrested/convicted? of something so that's only shown if you've been caught so you could still be a wrong'un and it not show on a check.

 

Does make you wonder how many people in our community have similar offences and still play skirting any restrictions that may have?

[Jez_Armstrong]

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

[clumpyedge]

Just now, Jez_Armstrong said:

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

[Fizzy]

Yes, and the guy who only had 12 months to live, about 5 years ago

[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]

1 hour ago, clumpyedge said:

 

 

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]

Just now, newsh said:

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]

Just now, clumpyedge said:

 

 

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]

Just now, Tommikka said:

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]

1 minute ago, clumpyedge said:

 

 

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]

Just now, ImTriggerHappy said:

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]

2 minutes ago, Immortal said:

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]

1 hour ago, clumpyedge said:

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.

 

 

1 hour ago, Immortal said:

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.