On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:35:13 +0100, johannes
wrote:
>
>
>Nick wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>> >
>
>We don't know yet, it depends on the details of he law. It could e.g. by
>'Statutory abuse' by definition of the age, or it could be limited to
>involvement with 'purchasing' ..
Anybody who took the trouble to check on the parliament website would
know the details of the law.
Which doesn't actually mention "abuse" at all.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Locked coathanger in car. Good thing I had a key.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |