Nial mason 6 months suspended prison sentence!!!!

[Mustapha-Dump]

He’s not a rapist, so why would he be persecuted as one..

A drunken fumble - according to the reports the woman said no so being drunk is no excuse..

There’s only one apology needed and that isn’t to anyone else..

Hes done just what you said - but is already a "nonce" on Pompey Forum which I think has an entirely different meaning

The Club have a very very difficult judgement / deciion to make here and I too dont envy them that decision and I will also accept whatever they decide.

Wolfie, wether we like it or not, it is what it is. He has done nothing near what you would associate that word with, however as stated above he is now a registered sex offender, which makes him:

Not
Of
Normal
Criminal
Element

It’s a dirty tag, and maybe an unfair one, but it’s only an abbreviation of something that appears accurate mate

[IDM]

Going by the popular interpretations of what that word means, and what offences it is usually applied to, it is quite wrong to aim it at Mason..

I’m not going to spell it out on here as anyone can use google..

[drfchound]

Mason hasn’t violated a child though has he.

No one's evenly remotely suggested or even raised that issue but you.

If you know the law regarding the sex offenders register and enhanced CRB checks or whatever then make an interjection...

CiM, I raised the point in response to a couple of previous posters who had suggested he might not be allowed to hold the hand of a child coming onto the pitch.

Nothing more and nothing less.

I certainly wasn’t suggesting anything untoward in Nialls behaviour where children are concerned.

There was no need to highlight my post at all.

[drfchound]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender is.

[since-1969]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

So what your saying is that a person convicted of drunk driving will reoffend as a sex offender . Freudiant ?
 





A convicted drun driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

[drfchound]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

So what your saying is that a person convicted of drunk driving will reoffend as a sex offender . Freudiant ?
 





A convicted drun driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

Only someone with a warped mind would bend my post into something like that.

Also, next time you might want to write your reply in the right order, not in the middle of two posts you were highlighting.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

It does surprise me how many in this thread almost feel it's a minor offence. It isn't at all and is not in any way acceptable.

[bobjimwilly]

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

You forgot to add "FACT".

BTW you're talking out of your arse

[ChrisBx]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

I'm talking about those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving rather than those with drink driving convictions. The rate at which those with death by dangerous driving convictions commit serious further offences is relatively low, lower than that of convicted sex offenders (although this too is lower than offenders in general) which was my original point.

I wouldn't have bothered defending my point had you not ridiculously called me a moron but there we are.

[drfchound]

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

You forgot to add "FACT".

BTW you're talking out of your arse

And why am I?

[drfchound]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

I'm talking about those convicted of causing death by dangerous driving rather than those with drink driving convictions. The rate at which those with death by dangerous driving convictions commit serious further offences is relatively low, lower than that of convicted sex offenders (although this too is lower than offenders in general) which was my original point.

I wouldn't have bothered defending my point had you not ridiculously called me a moron but there we are.

Well as it wasn’t me who called you a moron I will await your apology for that remark.
An honourable man wouldn’t hesitate.
See post number 349.

[Lytham Rover]

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender.

You forgot to add "FACT".

BTW you're talking out of your arse

Most offenders re-offend hence why they put in place for example re-education for drink drivers and courses for sex offenders punishment is rarely enough unless you change their mindset

[Donnybob]

Most re-offend? Seriously? Care to share the links to where you get this outrageous claim from? This is from the BBC web site:

"In 2015/16, 2.9% of registered sex offenders breached their notification requirements leading to caution or conviction."

"These are breaches of registration requirements, not new sexual offences."

"In the same year, 0.13% of registered sex offenders were charged with a serious further offence."

That's barely one in a thousand re-offenders. And it takes into account some seriously deranged serial offenders. Drfchound may have a point. And yes, these are FACTS and not the fictitious claims you appear more than happy to pedal.

Ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40451318

[DonnyOsmond]

Seems to be mainly older guys who think "back in my day we groped a woman for breakfast and she wouldn't say jack".

In the real world it's simple, if a woman says no then don't do it. It's wrong. Especially don't put your hand up her top.

Mason clearly has the mentality of most footballers, I'm rich and play football so every girl wants me.

[ChrisBx]

Most re-offend? Seriously? Care to share the links to where you get this outrageous claim from? This is from the BBC web site:

"In 2015/16, 2.9% of registered sex offenders breached their notification requirements leading to caution or conviction."

"These are breaches of registration requirements, not new sexual offences."

"In the same year, 0.13% of registered sex offenders were charged with a serious further offence."

That's barely one in a thousand re-offenders. And it takes into account some seriously deranged serial offenders. Drfchound may have a point. And yes, these are FACTS and not the fictitious claims you appear more than happy to pedal.

Ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40451318

Interesting article but it does raise questions about how headline recidivism statistics are presented. For instance, one study I am aware of that was carried out over three years, as opposed to the one year in that article, reported a recidivism rate of about 5% amongst sex offenders. While this still suggests the overwhelming majority of sex offenders don't reoffend, it presents a very different image of risk to the 0.13% quoted in the BBC.

This is all before we even take into account the fact that the majority of sexual offences are never even reported.

It's a very interesting topic, but this probably isn't the place for it!

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Can we put this in off topic now.

[Donnybob]

Bearing in mind the depravity of some who would be included in the statistics, even 5% falls a long, long way short of 'most re-offend'.

I for one am not defending his actions. I'm merely on the side of appropriate punishment when a crime is committed. That punishment was delivered by the courts.

Without drawing direct comparisons to the crimes, there will be folk using this forum who have criminal convictions, most likely but not restricted to their driving licenses. Should they have been punished by the courts, then hounded on social media, been sacked from their place of employment and maybe banned from driving forever?

No. Not unless they were habitual offenders and a danger to others. If there's one person in the whole of Doncaster less likely than Mason to commit the same crime I'd love to see him!

Anyway. Enough of this. The club will reach a decision this week.

[Donnywolf]

I agree with the 2 Posts above

Lets leave it for now - and await what could be a tremedously difficult decision (to make) from the Club

THEN lets support that decision whether it goes the way you think / hope it will and move on

[Lytham Rover]

Most re-offend? Seriously? Care to share the links to where you get this outrageous claim from? This is from the BBC web site:

"In 2015/16, 2.9% of registered sex offenders breached their notification requirements leading to caution or conviction."

"These are breaches of registration requirements, not new sexual offences."

"In the same year, 0.13% of registered sex offenders were charged with a serious further offence."

That's barely one in a thousand re-offenders. And it takes into account some seriously deranged serial offenders. Drfchound may have a point. And yes, these are FACTS and not the fictitious claims you appear more than happy to pedal.

Ref: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40451318

I said most offenders not most sex offenders re-offend
The reason that less sex offenders don't re-offend is due to re-education courses, supervision and MAPPA oversight

[One_Matty_Lucas]

It does surprise me how many in this thread almost feel it's a minor offence. It isn't at all and is not in any way acceptable.

That's just a reflection of society I think.

Until we start making examples of people, giving them punishments and showing that this behavior is acceptable we will always have people taking liberties.

[Bristol Red Rover]

I think the ball's in Mason's court to influence what happens from here. It's no doubt a complex issue, but given that he has pleaded guilty, it follows that he must show remorse and apologise to the victim, and he can demonstrate moves he's making to make sure he never does this again. A positive could come out of this for him and the club - he's done wrong but full heartedly takes it on and talks about the issue and how respect is important.... something like that.

If he goes quiet on the matter and it's his intention to continue in that way, whether actually guilty or not in the full context (just saying, not judging), then the club have no option but to move him on.

As for the Sex Offenders Register issue, he absolutely should be on that. However, there should be a Child Sex Offenders Register, they are two completely different crimes.

[i_ateallthepies]

As for the Sex Offenders Register issue, he absolutely should be on that. However, there should be a Child Sex Offenders Register, they are two completely different crimes.

Yes, one is committed by the depraved and the other by those without the ability to behave with decency and respect for others.

[roversdude]

Wasn’t there a meeting yesterday

[johnny rovers]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender is.

That's utter rubbish. People (me included) have done things that we are all ashamed of when we were younger, once grown up enough to realise how stupid you have been then reoffending will not happen in most cases.

[drfchound]

It depends what you define as "worse". I'd argue that Mason, a convicted sex offender and an individual who poses a safeguarding issue, poses a much greater risk of harm than someone convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

sorry - someone who's been convicted of a sexual assault poses "a much greater risk of harm" than someone who drives pissed and has killed two children - are you a moron ?

just consider the words "assault" and "death" - which one visits the gravest degree of harm on the victim and their loved ones ?

I'm talking about future harm, hence the word risk.

A convicted drunk driver is just as likely to reoffend as a convicted sex offender is.

That's utter rubbish. People (me included) have done things that we are all ashamed of when we were younger, once grown up enough to realise how stupid you have been then reoffending will not happen in most cases.

Hang on, not all drunk drivers are young people.
Also although some people learn from their errors and don’t re-offend but there are plenty of people who don’t mend their ways.
Someone very close to me is a Police Sergeant and he has to deal with serial re-offenders every day, including people who haven’t learned that they can’t drink and drive despite having been prosecuted previously for the same offence.

My original post is far from being utter rubbish.

[Danmckay456]

The most frustrating thing is I believe rovers paid villa £200000 for him and invested in potential

[drfchound]

He still has the potential.

[Lytham Rover]

He still has the potential.

To be sacked

[nortikorner]

Enough is Enough end it now

[IDM]

Folks,

Let’s wait for the club’s procedures to be concluded.??