S.o.r

Territory Hunting

Lord muck

Well-Known Member
Hello

Can some one maybe shed a little light here .Maybe your own personal views or maybe a legal know all ..

If you were approached by someone wanting shooting rights & after a few initial checks ;) ( Its a must these days) you have solid pooof they are on the S.O.R .
Would you permit them own a shotgun or firearm to shoot over your land ??

I had such request from a person. Obviously unknown to them , I have there details of where / when / what etc ... Thank you
 

Naseby

Well-Known Member
That's a tough one.

Personal View - but for mr it would depend on the severity of the offence and recency.
 

Si

Well-Known Member
That's about the only thing left these days that we are allowed to discriminate against....

I couldn't on principal
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
What does S.O.R. mean ?

I wouldn't think that you are referring to the Society of Radiographers.
 

Naseby

Well-Known Member
I think it's a subject where it's easy to fall into a Daily Mail rant of 'Hang 'em all', but as is often in life there are shades of grey, nuances and subtleties.
if one imagines a spectrum of offences then at one end there are child rapists and so on (who I would happily see hang personally), but as I understand it, at the other there are people who have been placed on the S.O.R for more minor crimes. Think of the sixteen year old boy and his fifteen year old girlfriend, if they're having sex he's guilty of statutory rape and placed on the S.O.R. There are other examples such as this.
So for the OP I would still look at severity of crime and recency.

I'm not sure on Si's point about being allowed to discriminate in this case. That is an interesting point. There are various laws preventing discrimination against people with spent convictions, but I am not a lawyer.
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
You would not be discriminating against a particular sector of the community that as far as I know is covered by law. Merely deciding that you would rather not sell to this particular individual.
 

Gandy

Well-Known Member
Having had to deal with something similar I would not:

1. Because I don't want to keep company with their kind.
2. I would not wish to have the risk of anything happening to anyone this person would gain access to should they receive the permission, my concious could not bear it.

You may wish to find other reasons for not accepting them to avoid the hassle of any repercussions or accusations of discrimination, its a strange world we live in.
 

Archer

Well-Known Member
I think it's a subject where it's easy to fall into a Daily Mail rant of 'Hang 'em all', but as is often in life there are shades of grey, nuances and subtleties.
if one imagines a spectrum of offences then at one end there are child rapists and so on (who I would happily see hang personally), but as I understand it, at the other there are people who have been placed on the S.O.R for more minor crimes. Think of the sixteen year old boy and his fifteen year old girlfriend, if they're having sex he's guilty of statutory rape and placed on the S.O.R. There are other examples such as this.
So for the OP I would still look at severity of crime and recency.

I'm not sure on Si's point about being allowed to discriminate in this case. That is an interesting point. There are various laws preventing discrimination against people with spent convictions, but I am not a lawyer.


A difficult one, but I'd agree with the highlighted part of this post that points out looking before leaping is a good move
 

Si

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure on Si's point about being allowed to discriminate in this case. That is an interesting point. There are various laws preventing discrimination against people with spent convictions, but I am not a lawyer.

Our family farm is also a riding school, with lots of young girls about the place. All employees or anyone wanting regular access needs to be CRB checked. Obviously it's not possible to check everyone who comes onto the premises but we would not knowingly allow a known sex offender access.
I'm sure there's probably some European Human rights law that protects offenders from discrimination but.... :finger:
 

User00003

Well-Known Member
I'd say 'no thanks'...if it's your land,,,it's also your choice who you want on there...it would be just as discriminatory saying no to a murderer, terrorist, neo-nazi, etc.

I think once you commit a serious crime or sexual crime, you forego your rights and societal priveledges to 'equal rights...
 

Win Mod 70

Well-Known Member
A private individual or company cannot breach European Human Rights law. It relates to the activities of the state be it directly via the police, armed forces, local goverment or parties acting on thier behalf such as a security firm with a government contract (G4S for example).
NASEBY is correct that there is a scale that includes what some might concider minor to the most vile thing you can image (and some that you would rather not).
As for the origional question. If we asume that they have been granted a shotgun / firearms certificate, then the risk they pose to the public (the primary reason for refusing a certificate) must have been deamed to be low.
Then its a case of how the nature of thier offence sits with you and how thier presence on your land might be viewed by others that work on or use the same land.
I think the dirrect approach is often the best. Discuse it with the person in question. Tell them that you beleive that they are a RSO and without the graphics get thier side of the story and go from there.
A RSO will have a nominated probation / police officer. You could ask if they would mined if you spoke to them before making your decission. But if it at all feels uncomfortable just say "no sorry not at the momment". At the end of the day the relationship between the landowner of those shooting on the land must be based on trust.
 

Virbius

Well-Known Member
This thread raises some interesting points.
As a slight aside, if you run a commercial shoot is it incumbent on the holder of the sporting rights to a) be CRB checked along with any employees if minors attend and b) background checks on paying clients?
Once again a holder of a SGC or FAC who shoots will have been deemed fit, what about novices who shoot who have no certificate - should they be checked or at least sign a disclaimer stating that they are not excluded from possessing a firearm (on the clear understanding that they would have a SGC/FAC holder with them at all times)?
 

Naseby

Well-Known Member
Virbius
I think CRB checks (now renamed as DBS checks) need to take place where an adult is in sole control of a child or children or vulnerable adults(s). My knowledge is secondhand through a friend who is involved with the Scout movement and another who ran the Juniors Section of a local Golf Club, so things may have moved on.
The following may help with your questions :Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks (previously CRB checks) - GOV.UK
I suspect (although I do not know) that practicality would come into play especially with paying clients on a commercial shoot.
 

Virbius

Well-Known Member
Virbius
I think CRB checks (now renamed as DBS checks) need to take place where an adult is in sole control of a child or children or vulnerable adults(s). My knowledge is secondhand through a friend who is involved with the Scout movement and another who ran the Juniors Section of a local Golf Club, so things may have moved on.
The following may help with your questions :Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks (previously CRB checks) - GOV.UK
I suspect (although I do not know) that practicality would come into play especially with paying clients on a commercial shoot.

Thanks Naseby
 

8x57

Distinguished Member
This thread raises some interesting points.
As a slight aside, if you run a commercial shoot is it incumbent on the holder of the sporting rights to a) be CRB checked along with any employees if minors attend and b) background checks on paying clients?
Once again a holder of a SGC or FAC who shoots will have been deemed fit, what about novices who shoot who have no certificate - should they be checked or at least sign a disclaimer stating that they are not excluded from possessing a firearm (on the clear understanding that they would have a SGC/FAC holder with them at all times)?

Virbius if you are running a commercial shoot and employing young persons (even in the loosest meaning of the word) then really you should have a suitable policy in place for the protection of young persons and vulnerable adults. There are all sorts of ways that a suitable policy can be adopted without the need for CRB checks but it's something that you have to seriously consider. Your point about getting non certificate holders who wish to shoot to sign the necessary declaration that they are not legally prevented from possessing firearms and ammunition is another sensible safeguard. Your insurers would probably have views on both matters and may possibly be able to offer advise.
 
Last edited:

Naseby

Well-Known Member
8x57 raises some good points.
As a further aside I have never attended a Commercial Shoot where I was asked for either my SGC or proof of insurance.
Now I think about it, it's pretty ludicrous!
 

al4x1

Well-Known Member
odds are they would have insurance in place that would cover you, as for the shotgun then that is slightly more tricky but ultimately you would be the one in illegal possession if you didn't have a cert and facing 5 years. Or two weeks in Spain full board of you are in the SAS
 

Naseby

Well-Known Member
odds are they would have insurance in place that would cover you

al4x1
With the larger more prestigious shoots I would think you are right, I'd be far less sure about the 50-80 bird day around someone's Farm though.
​naseby
 

al4x1

Well-Known Member
Indeed the only thing with those shoots is people generally know each other and that weeds out anyone in illegal posession, but the insurance side is I am sure often overlooked. Ours we all have cover and proof is a condition of an invite I'm sure many don't bother though
 
Leica Amplus 6
Top