Registered Sex Offenders in the Armed Forces

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by cpunk, Apr 6, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    Interesting piece here:
    Daily Telegraph

    I wonder if this status is widely known about and what their colleagues think. The armed forces aren't really there to provide therapy for sex offenders and I would have thought that behaving in a way which got you registered as a nonce was sufficient reason for an administrative discharge, if not a disciplinary one.
  2. Before jumping on the outrage bus, take a minute to remember that it can be remarkably easy to be placed on the register. Examples include a 17 yr old sleeping with a 15 yr old - yes it is illegal as she will be 'jailbait', however it happens and these relationships are not necessarily unhealthy in any way. Secondly, it is possible to be place on the register by being cuaght 'mooning' or otherwise exposing oneself on a drunken night out. It isn't just nonces who get this label.
  3. I'm sorry if I sound conservative on this issue but is the Mod trying to Dumb Down the standards of those entering and now serving?

    I was always lead to believe it was to do with HONOUR, how can Kiddie Fidlers be honourable people and therefore serve Her Majesty?

    We all know the Mod is short of numbers of front line troops, perhaps it's time WE had a PENAL Regiment, round them ALL up and make them serve in the most dangerous of situations and prove they are worth a second chance at life after their DUTY.
  4. It is true, it isnt just perverts or kiddie fiddlers that can be put on the sex register. Ive heard of cases where women have made allegations against blokes and with not much evidence the bloke has been forced to sign the nonce book.

    I also know of an 18 year old lad who had to sign it for getting involved with a girl who was a few weeks away from 16, thought the story of what they did was unclear.

    The fact is, you will never get into a government job if youve been on the sex register ie police, ambulance, so therfore the MOD ( that is a government employer) shouldnt even look at someone whos got that against the name.

    Yes, were undermanned, but we do have to maintain standards that reach the entrance regulations.
  5. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    I'm trying to work out if the letters of support were nothing more than the required character reference that the Army will give when asked by lawyer. Trouble is the "nothing negative" writing we are asked to do will sound exactly like a thumbs up for the man.

    I think there also has to be a little care taken here in the black/white argument that will develop into a hang them high series of statements from posters (Arrse posters are, at times, as reliable as the Daily Hate for their views :D ). The reason to be appear on the Sex Offenders Register need not be great.

    I had to deal with a bloke that child services suspected and had banned from seeing their own kids. No legal case, no physical evidence, wife and children saying it was crap but based on the statement of a 12yr old friend who said that "my friends daddy ....." led to Child Services (I have never met a bigger group of harpies in my life) separating them. They didn't need evidence, they simply needed the threat to act as they did.

    Complicated by the fact the original statements were done in Cyprus and the cops there going straight to a caution (just in case) before kicking them back to the UK, it took over two years with the family going to court to eventually expunge the record and get them back together.

    Was it right for the Services not to kick him out? I think so and the Judge that eventually heard the case thought so to. As cpunk says, we aren't there to act as a rehabilitation service - something I had to explain to Child Services - but neither should we be an adjunct of their function.

    As blueygirl says it is also v easy to get put on the register as a youngster. Under age sex is the norm. The Law is set and needs to be there but common sense from us laymen has a time and place too.
  6. Are WE a Moral Society, when under age sex is the norm, yet is is still against the law of the land (UK)!

    Perhaps we need ONLY take those who are of Good Character, to do a full Police check to assess if an individual has been in REAL trouble?

    Or is the Mod seen as a good DUMPING ground for the countries DROSS?
  7. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    No I agree that those already on the register shouldn't generally be taken just as I think those who are HIV shouldn't be accepted (but that still happens).

    Did you ever have a girlfriend younger than you when you were 16? I did. Did you play? I did. According to this torygraph article 40% of girls and 35% of boys under 16 have had sex. Do they go down into the category of not having good character?

    Are we then, as you ask, a moral society? I'd suggest we still must say we aspire to be in all circumstances are but realise that we are getting quite a few things wrong if those figures are accurate. Time for a bit more common sense to be applied when it comes to the youngsters? I think so.
  8. I had a mate branded a sex offender for Urinating in a close. This was before the days of the register but it was considered public indecency in Scotland at the time.
  9. Many offences for which soldiers appear in front of OC/CO are equivalent to a magistrate's conviction. If we set bar high and insist on "good charecter" - how many would we lose?

    I am sure we would't send a sex offender to recruit or junior's training establishment but otherwise we shouldn't be too judgemental. Each case should be looked at carefully on a case by case basis by chain of command.

    Non-story really - why wasn't it in the Mail!
  10. How many people still serving have been done for ...

    Drinking and Driving?



    Getting handy with their partners , sufficient to require a hospital visit?

    How many of them are still serving and indeed promoted with no discernable blot on their service record , that would probably get them sacked in civvy street?

    As said above, I believe there is confusion between the mandatory "Must provide a positive reference" with "Oh we did this because he's a good egg really" The journos have taken their spin and applied it to beef up the story.

    I imagine the CoC are well humped with this too, and there is almost certainly more to this , as previous cases have finished with discharge and banishment one time, sometimes with a jail term to be getting on with too.
  11. Nothing new there, one of my basic trg instructors was fired from his previous job as a teacher. He was an absolute stroker!.
  12. I know of at least one soldier who NEARLY ended up onthe offender register for mooning.... in fact he may well have done, but tehnthe entry expired.

    If the offence is serious enough (ie not mooning at a passing car whilst p1ssed after a rugby match) the offender will receive jail time.... which means discharge.

    Same for recruits.... do we really want to turn away that civvie county rugger player for a drunken mooning onthe way back from a match?

    Have no fear, a nonce will not get too far in to the recruiting chain.....

    Full info on the nonce here.
  13. Having read that article, I am surprised that the Police didnt have to deal with a murder!
  14. That is a very important point PTP as I can confirm from personal observation.

    The unit is quite rightly expected to look after the welfare interests of the accused soldier, and the officer who attends court is not only there to assist the court, but is to some extent there in a quasi-representative capacity, on the side of the accused. I dont have the instructions in front of me, but I seem to recall that they do refer to 'representation' at some point.

    It can be argued that the officer should confine himself or herself to a strictly neutral role and to giving the solid facts, but most civilian accused would find it pretty oppressive to have their employers turning up in court to criticise. At least the presence of the unit officer discourages some of the more 'imaginative' pleas in mitigation by defence lawyers.

    I don't know much about the particular case but we might bear in mind that the unit concerned have very recently deployed on Op Herrick.
  15. Unless things have drastically changed, with the sheer volume of porn in Army criculation then some has got to be illegal. I remember driving a guy back from Germany to brum in the early 80s who told me later that he had a suitcase full of Amsterdam "under the counter" which he sold on to some mates. I could have been arrested for that. Be honest people, It's out there in all walks of life, the Army is no xception.