UK Game Stores Band Together To Ban Alleged Bully [Updated]

Below is an open letter published by a number of UK game stores which have banded together to ban an individual who they say bullies disabled gamers. If that's true - good for them! We don't need or want bullies in our hobby. Note: I removed the name of the guy.

It has come to our attention that at a recent tournament held by Groovy Frog, Yugioh player XXXX caused distress and harassment to an opponent who had learning difficulties, and had a confrontation with both his opponent’s parent and the store owners which has resulted in him being banned from the store.

Subsequently a video was made which showed XXXX and his mates joking about playing against someone with Downs Syndrome, something which was likely to cause further harassment, alarm and distress.

Under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

Because this was committed against a vulnerable person, we understand that under the law these actions are considered aggravated.

It is sometimes hard for Yugioh players to understand that the real world is not the playground. Our stores and clubs should be a refuge against bullying and discrimination in all its forms. Most players – and some store owners – will have experienced bullying at school to a lesser or greater extent. Traumatising a vulnerable player with learning difficulties, mocking him in person and then mocking him subsequently (albeit I suspect unintentionally) by talking about the incident on You Tube is the sort of behaviour we cannot countenance or condone.

It is because of this that we have decided, unilaterally to take action and ban XXXX Lennard from our stores and tournaments forthwith.

Under the law, the maximum penalty for an offence of this type against a vulnerable victim would be six months in jail. The following stores have signed up to ban XXXX for six months beginning today the 20th of August and lasting until the 20th of February, at which point we will review his conduct.

If during those six months it comes to our attention that XXXX has learned nothing from this experience, then we shall extend that ban until such time as he does. This ban and its condition should indicate how seriously we believe behaviour like this is totally unacceptable, and will run concurrent with whatever penalty Konami subsequently impose.

Yours sincerely

Acme Games
Area 51
Chimera Beeston/Cardslinger Events
Comics & Collectibles
Eclectic Games
Fan Boy Three
Gamers Nexus
Groovy Frog
Guys That Game
Highlander Games
Kids Dreams
Leisure Games
Orcs Nest
Patriot Games Sheffield
Patriot Games Leeds
Rules of Play
Scythe & Teacup
The Gamers’ Emporium
The Games Shop
The Games Store
Wayland’s Forge
Zone Out

[h=3]Update[/h]
The individual has posted the following video covering his side of the issue.

[video=youtube_share;iPGv78g7IbU]http://youtu.be/iPGv78g7IbU[/video]​

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Kick the bullies out!

 

[TrippyHippy]

Good for them. You'd think someone involved in a 'geeky' hobby, would know enough not to be a bully.

 

[frankthedm]

Heh, business quoting the law trying to act intimidating. I've seen that before :rollyeyes:

It doesn't have enough intel, but this apology issued weeks ago might be worth noting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvWWVqSu_sM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUIBtoNrWNgPp0c2WsNtGvqQ

Sounds like the mom harassed his associate over youtube comments, then harassed him in the line due to a rules issues and later he makes the insensitive comments in a train amoung his friends, not at the venue to the alleged victim. Due to the no politics rules, I'll withhold further comments

 

[Janx]

Heh, business quoting the law trying to act intimidating. I've seen that before :rollyeyes:

As opposed to them just making it up as they go along?

Of course their declaration doesn't have legal standing or support.

However, as free individuals, they have a right to decide who enters their store. They chose to identify a bad actor, and a real law that indicates the actor's behavior was bad and to ban said bad actor.

totally within their right to do so on their property.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Beware of starting something like this on the Internet. These things can turn ugly really quickly.

 

[Umbran]

Sounds like the mom harassed his associate over youtube comments, then harassed him in the line due to a rules issues and later he makes the insensitive comments in a train amoung his friends, not at the venue to the alleged victim. Due to the no politics rules, I'll withhold further comments

*shrug*. We weren't there, so to us, there's going to be some "he said, she said" to the reportage. Let's say that's what happened, for argument's sake. Mom gets on his case. So, he strikes out at the kid? I see you claim it was not at the venue, to the victim, but the OP says that the victim was present.

Do you take your anger at your neighbor out on the neighbor's kids? Sounds like seriously bad form, to me.

As for the legalisms - they don't come across to me as trying to be more intimidating. They are trying to display a justification for action. "Since the law does this, we are taking that as our guideline."

 

[Janx]

Beware of starting something like this on the Internet. These things can turn ugly really quickly.

It's certainly gets sticky by naming a person, who can then claim they were slandered or libeled or whatever it's called (do we really need 2 terms that mean the same thing but in different communication forms?)

I do see that folks DO need to start taking action like banning against these bully types.

Kind of like that high school foot ball star who recorded a youtube video where he laughed about some girl getting raped at a party he was at that he apparently witnessed.

While nobody should threaten the guy with violence, the entire village should shun that jerkhole and refuse service to him.

Remember when bad behavior got you kicked out of the club?

 

[Salamandyr]

He may be a complete prat, but publicizing his name all over the internet, to people in other countries, who have never met him and will never hear his side of the story, is also bullying.

 

[Janx]

He may be a complete prat, but publicizing his name all over the internet, to people in other countries, who have never met him and will never hear his side of the story, is also bullying.

In today's world of every idiot posting YouTubes of themselves acting like a jerk, that may be the consequence of doing so.

If you post a video of yourself doing something bad, that IS your side of the story and the internet is free to decide what to do with you.

Don't like the terms of service, don't put your name out there.

There's folks out there who are afraid of 1984-like government censorship.

The real problem is everybody is broadcasting their thoughts and information out by their own active choice and are then horrified to learn that other people don't like them anymore.