firearms ban after prison

[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]

2 hours ago, clumpyedge said:

 

 

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]

6 hours ago, 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

 

6 hours ago, clumpyedge said:

 

 

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

Dont think I remember this what was it?

[AshOnSnow]

5 hours ago, Prisce said:

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.

8 hours 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.

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.

[Albiscuit]

17 hours ago, AshOnSnow said:

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.

 

I wouldnt had thought so. 

Airbourne have a young guns game day marketed at young people, therefore it makes sense they have DBS checks, and likely to be part of the insurance.

 

As for others, I doubt they need/have DBS checks as children and young people shouldnt be left unsupervised in a marshals care. Its not a game marketed for children and I would imagine due to some dubious wording and huge grey areas they can happily get by without.

 

As with everything it will only get questioned or become mandatory if it passes that some noncey marshal has a dodgy background or says/does something inappropriate and it makes it to the media where there is some outrage and airsoft policies hve to get tighter due to it etc...

 

Funny though as my daughter wants to play and the mrs is not happy about her running around woods with a bunch of older men!!

[Rogerborg]

17 hours ago, AshOnSnow said:

I imagine it's likely a requirement for the site insurance policy too.

 

8 minutes ago, Albiscuit said:

likely to be part of the insurance.

 

Is there any basis for this belief?

 

Indemnity covers specific liabilties, relevant to the insured activity.  It's not blanket cover for any and all actions and omissions that happen to occur on site.  I'm not sure that kiddie fiddling would be considered as an insured risk that needs mitigated against.

 

For one thing, I've never seen any airsoft site say that players are excluded if they have previous convictions for violent crimes, or are on mentalist mediation or have been sectioned.  Wouldn't that be a more apropos concern?

 

As always, I'm happy to be informed to the contrary.

[Albiscuit]

@Rogerborg 

As that site in particular runs and markets games at a child audience I would imagine they have to have a level of safeguarding and child protection in place, naturally a DBS check forms part of this, although as previously stated it is only a check, they are never concrete and only chow convictions never intentions.

so your likely right, maybe not an insurance specific requirement, more of a CP one (but then they may not be insured for having children on site if their CP and safeguarding procedures were not up to scratch)

[Prisce]

A DBS check isn’t just for kids, it can be tailored for whatever the requestee requires. 

 

I know this because I have 4 different DBS checks, 1 for children, 1 for the elderly, 1 for participants of all ages for a charity, and the other is an “enhanced” DBS check, requiring them to check into my background and history. 

 

Basically all my jobs and hobbies require me to be responsible. If you’d met me 10 years ago you wouldn’t imagine I could turn out the way I have.

 

A DBS check can just be procedure for the company, or an actual requirement to work in that industry.

[Tackle]

I too have a full DBS, & to be honest if I had employees nowadays (I have had previously), then I would consider making it a condition of employment, as an example, one of my previous employees, who I "inherited" when I took on an existing contract, & who was a really nice guy & a good grafter, also turned out to be a serial drink driver, banned 6 times at the last count, who knew ? lol, thankfully I never had reason to allow him use of company vehicles.

as for airsoft, it attracts young people of varying ages & gender, & it's been shown numerous times that nonces will do their best to get close to their targets, either through employment or leisure activities, so knowing your staff, paid or volunteers, is morally & ethically correct.

[Albiscuit]

1 hour ago, Prisce said:

A DBS check isn’t just for kids, it can be tailored for whatever the requestee requires. 

 

I know this all too well, just pointing out that as that particualr link posted above was for young guns, then I would expect them to have the relevant policies and due dilegence done, such as DBS as they are advertising an experience aimed at children/young people. Would be the same whatever vulnerable group they were working with.

 

But as this thread is pointing out, it may not be a bad thing for sites to have the relevant checks in place, inc an enhanced DBS for all staff. The costs are minimal and its not a huge amount of extra paperwork and (initially) would set sites apart from others saying they have had the relevant checks etc. Would be welcomed by players im sure!

No ones going to not play at a site because pervy pete isnt a marshal anymore lol

[AshOnSnow]

3 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

 

 

Is there any basis for this belief?

 

Indemnity covers specific liabilties, relevant to the insured activity.  It's not blanket cover for any and all actions and omissions that happen to occur on site.  I'm not sure that kiddie fiddling would be considered as an insured risk that needs mitigated against.

 

For one thing, I've never seen any airsoft site say that players are excluded if they have previous convictions for violent crimes, or are on mentalist mediation or have been sectioned.  Wouldn't that be a more apropos concern?

 

As always, I'm happy to be informed to the contrary.

 

Well, when I took out the insurance for my studio, one of the clauses on my policy was that "Employees, permanent and temporary, who may for the Company regularly work with children and/or vulnerable adults, shall obtain a Disclosure and Barring Service (Enhanced) check certificate prior to work commencing, and ensure such a certificate is valid and current for the duration of employment."

 

And I don't specialise in working with kids or anything like that. You are right - kiddie fiddling may not be considered as a risk that needs mitigated against, however, if something goes wrong and you get sued for negligence because you employed a sex offender to work with kids, insurance is going to want to cover their end in advance so they can argue a breach of contract.

 

The only way that I could see airsoft marshals not require DBS clearance is if they were to class themselves under the peer exemption, which would require the lead marshal or site organiser to hold a DBS. 

 

Activity by a person in a group assisting or acting on behalf of, or under direction of, another person engaging in regulated activity in relation to children. This is the “peer exemption”.

 

I should note however that if regularly working with children, it is required to have a DBS check (regularly is defined as 4 or more days in a 30 day period), and specifically required if working with children overnight (ie if a site is planning to be able to run a night game, which goes hand in hand with camping on-site before or after).

[Duff]

Most Marshalls are volunteers yet they sill require CRB checks and the like. In this day and age, it isn't hard to prove you're a decent law abiding person if you actually are one.

 

As for OP's "friend," Dude you need to re-evaluate your choice of company. I mean shit, he could be innocent? But I doubt it really, no smoke without fire and that. He's pretty blessed to have a friend sticking by him, he is one lucky guy but at the end of the day there is no smoke without fire.

 

I mean what the fuck did he think would happen the second he accepted the fact he was engaging in an online conversation with a minor? smh

[Colonel Kurtz]

My friend is a technically speaking a convicted-convicted-paedophile-phile. When a supermarket manager tried to nonse his younger sister, he kicked them again and again in the nuts until they nearly died. The manager had Windows Gary Glitter edition installed on his laptop, and was convicted of various sex offenses against minors. My friend had the charge of attempted murder reduced to a couple of others as unfortunately the alleged death threat note he left on the managers car was lost by the police. Fortunately CCTV contradicted false witness statements that the manager has simply fallen over and justice was served. One of the charges was sexual assault, as it seems pummeling someone's genitals into dysfunctional oblivion counts as this. He plays airsoft all over the country (using a two tone to ensure compliance with VCRA), and I'm pretty sure he isn't allowed near convicted paedophiles anymore. Please can you post the site name and dates your friend intends to attend, as I'd hate for my friend, or any others like him to unknowingly violate their probation.

[Samurai]

Bill Cosby playing airsoft?

[Duff]

Just now, Samurai said:

Bill Cosby playing airsoft?

 

He wouldn't be very good he's legally blind now.

[Tackle]

I always thought he was such a nice guy.......& he makes great Jello  

 

[Defender90]

On 5/5/2018 at 9:30 AM, Colonel Kurtz said:

My friend is a technically speaking a convicted-convicted-paedophile-phile. When a supermarket manager tried to nonse his younger sister, he kicked them again and again in the nuts until they nearly died. The manager had Windows Gary Glitter edition installed on his laptop, and was convicted of various sex offenses against minors. My friend had the charge of attempted murder reduced to a couple of others as unfortunately the alleged death threat note he left on the managers car was lost by the police. Fortunately CCTV contradicted false witness statements that the manager has simply fallen over and justice was served. One of the charges was sexual assault, as it seems pummeling someone's genitals into dysfunctional oblivion counts as this. He plays airsoft all over the country (using a two tone to ensure compliance with VCRA), and I'm pretty sure he isn't allowed near convicted paedophiles anymore. Please can you post the site name and dates your friend intends to attend, as I'd hate for my friend, or any others like him to unknowingly violate their probation.

I think that makes him a a peadophile-phobic. I am a fan of Spain, thus I am a Hispanophile, if I felt that way about France I'd be a Francophile. Kicking someone's bollocks into low Earth orbit is not evidence of "liking" that person, that is hatred.

On 5/3/2018 at 9:24 AM, 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.

Yes this is what I've heard too, from social workers, teachers and the brighter more thoughtful police. No doubt this "Nick" character who's caused such a shitstorm over Edward Heath, Lord Bramall, Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and I can't remember who the fcuk else inhabited his deranged mind, will prove to be one such. Yes we should feel sorry for such and yes he might well prove to be the the victim of somebody. Yes we should be watchful and vigilant in searching for hidden predators. (Part of the reason English speaking and north European countries have a higher incidence of Pedo cases is that we go looking for them.)

But, should Nick have been believed in the first place just because he claimed victim status? What does it tell us about the quality of modern British police that they swallowed such obvious shite? should he get away scot free with bringing such suffering to people lives? Especially those who had done their country some service. Bear that in mind.

You don't have to be a student of history to know that witch hunts are often orchestrated by evil people with agendas.

[simonh]

I hope to fuck none of you being so sanctimonious in this thread ever get into difficulty with the law and find yourselves on the wrong side a bad situation.

 

we know nothing about this case other than what the OP has said, and that is not very much. How many case have we seen just his year where the police and CPS have ignored messages or message threads that have later come to light and exonerated the accused? I am no fan of this "accept and believe" culture we seem to have found ourselves in.

 

all that said if this is some 40 something man getting flirty with what he thinks is a 16-17yo girl however legal is very creepy and wrong.

[clumpyedge]

1 hour ago, simonh said:

I hope to fuck none of you being so sanctimonious in this thread ever get into difficulty with the law and find yourselves on the wrong side a bad situation.

 

we know nothing about this case other than what the OP has said, and that is not very much. How many case have we seen just his year where the police and CPS have ignored messages or message threads that have later come to light and exonerated the accused? I am no fan of this "accept and believe" culture we seem to have found ourselves in.

 

all that said if this is some 40 something man getting flirty with what he thinks is a 16-17yo girl however legal is very creepy and wrong.

 

Yes you're correct a fair few cases have been dropped this year alone because of evidence that was apparently mishandled or not even declared, I don't consider those cases to be comparable to OP's though, the more the posts went on the more information came to light to suggest he groomed a young girl who may or may not have lied about her age but retrieved online conversations sealed a conviction. without further information provided by OP then people can only judge on the information he has provided (which wasn't a lot and seemed to paint his friend in a worse picture the more he posted)

 

On 5/3/2018 at 12:57 AM, AshOnSnow said:

Saw a Louis Theroux documentary recently on sex offenders in the US. One poor bloke had a piss in an alley after a night out on the lash, got picked up for exposing himself in public and is now confined to live in supervised accommodation and he’s not allowed any contact with his kids.

 

I actually was watching this episode at the weekend and I think there was more to it than you have posted here, the guy had previously been convicted of other things related to sex offenses and because he was caught with his penis out in public regardless of what the reason is he was charged further to previous convictions and placed in monitored housing because of that. That's how I interpreted what he, Louis and the other guy managing the "inmates" said, I may be wrong though. you can actually get done for indecent exposure for pissing in the street/ally/anywhere but a public/private bathroom in the UK I believe.

[simonh]

we don't know enough about the OP's situation. we don't have enough information to do anything other than jump to conclusions which people seem really happy to do and in my view that is wrong.

 

we could be talking about a 17 yo and  15 yo here or a 60 yo and a 12 yo. very different situations.

 

a very long time ago a mate of mine hooked up with a girl at a nightclub, went home with her and got up to all kinds of fun. Next day when he asked her what she did it came out she was 16 and still at school (he was just 20 at the time) she said she had been clubbing since she was 14. I was with him on that night and there is no way from her actions or how she looked I would have ever guessed she was so young.

[Duff]

7 minutes ago, simonh said:

we don't know enough about the OP's situation. we don't have enough information to do anything other than jump to conclusions which people seem really happy to do and in my view that is wrong.

 

we could be talking about a 17 yo and  15 yo here or a 60 yo and a 12 yo. very different situations.

 

a very long time ago a mate of mine hooked up with a girl at a nightclub, went home with her and got up to all kinds of fun. Next day when he asked her what she did it came out she was 16 and still at school (he was just 20 at the time) she said she had been clubbing since she was 14. I was with him on that night and there is no way from her actions or how she looked I would have ever guessed she was so young.

 

What we do know is the more he was pressed the more he gave up about his friends situation until the point where the actual story was nothing like the original. How bad must it really have been for a 3rd party who describes himself as a friend to the person found guilty is willing to lie on their behalf, chances are he is a bit of a nonce himself.

 

You can white knight all you want but you're protecting a potential pedo scum bag cunt, your choice but if you believe he is innocent with no cause for concern then I would tar ye with the same brush sir. Now let this thread die again like it did before. Everything that has needed to be said has been said, more than once.

[proffrink]

This thread has become far too off-topic to necro. Open a new one in the off-topic if you want to discuss this subject further as - let's face it - it's strayed a bit too far away from the spirit of the OP.

 

Locked.