Passports: HOME | EUROPE | AMERICAS, AUSTRALIA and OCEANIA | ASIA | AFRICA | OTHER DOCUMENTS
National Anthems:[ www.national-anthems.net ] ++
Travel:[ Europe ] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ more ]
[ Australia legal ] [ U.K. legal ] [ U.S. visa ] [ Immigration ] [ Marriage based U.S visa ]



Subject: Re: Illegal to have ... with a 16-year-old abroad... Posted on: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:50:49 +0100

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:31:36 +0100, "Gaz" wrote:

>"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
>news:g03l3k$4p9$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Cub Reporter" wrote in message
>> news:ifg924589lgkranqctfa3o92eu9ptfdrhq@4ax.com...
>>> ...but OK at home. Regardless of the laws and customs of the foreign
>>> country (and whether you took the 16-year-old with you presumably).
>>>
>>> News article:
>>> =========================================
>>> We will now be able to prosecute UK nationals here for a .ual
>>> offence committed against a child anywhere in the world, so long as
>>> the act committed would be a relevant offence in this country. We have
>>> also raised the age of a child for these purposes from 16 to 18.
>>
>> Yes?
>>
>> What's the problem?
>>
>> Lots of things are illegal in some countries and not others so it's common
>> sense that the local laws should apply.
>>
>> If it's illegal to have . with a 16 year old in that country then you
>> could be prosecuted for doing so.
>> If it's not illegal then you haven't done anything wrong.

>Unless i am reading the article incorrectly though, doesnt it mean, that if
>you go to a country where the AOC is 18, have ., you can face prosecution
>back here in the UK, for something that isnt a criminal offence here????

What's more to the point, if you go to a country with the *same* AOC
as here (16), have . with a 16-year-old, you could be prosecuted
when you come home.

Presumably this would also apply if you took your 16-year-old
girlfriend. If you were also 16, she could be prosecuted too. This
might happen to married 16-year-olds unless there is a 'marriage
exception' to the law.

I'm surprised that contributors to this thread are failing to see the
implications.

--
Cub Reporter