nikeshoes wrote:
> "Nick" wrote in message
> news:68lsj6F2tfovgU1@mid.individual.net...
>> nikeshoes wrote:
>>> "Nick" wrote in message
>>> news:68lg5eF2tn421U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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. This
>>>>> has all been achieved through the Criminal Justice and Immigration
>>>>> Bill which received Royal Assent on Thursday 8 May.
>>>> Out of curiosity what .ual offences are illegal here with 17 year olds
>>>> but not 18 year olds. I know possessing .ual pictures of a 17 year old
>>>> is a crime but that is a crime regardless of where the picture is taken.
>>>> So what actual crimes are they talking about, someone who had pictures
>>>> abroad but didn't bring them back?
>>> You could not meet a 17yo having met them on the internet, this would be
>>> meeting a child after grooming.
>> Where is this specified. I understand that it is wrong to use the internet
>> to meet a child of 17 that you intend to abuse. But having . with a
>> child of 17 isn't abuse, is it?
>
> What is then ?
>
>
I dunno. I was asking to find out not as a debating technique. |