On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:45:46 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>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.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> "I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
>>
>> 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????
>>
>Which would you rather, face prosecution in that country having been
>sent back to it - or face prosecution here?
>
>If you go abroad and break laws in a foreign country, you should expect
>to suffer the consequences - whether they be imposed via that country's
>legal system or your own.
>
The logical outcome of the arguments is British courts should be
prosecuting British citizens for calling their Teddy "Mohamend",
drinking beer under the age of 21, and criticising Robert Mugabe. |