On Sat, 10 May 2008 16:28:45 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
wrote:
>On May 11, 12:13 am, Alex Heney wrote:
>> 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
>
>That's because few will define what it actually is.
>
No it isn't.
It is because that is nothing to do with the actual law, just the
claimed reason why the changes were introduced.
The law just relates to a list of specific offences for which people
can be tried in this country, having committed them abroad.
>For the record, I will make a start ...
>
>"Evidenced, serious harm".
>
Which means nothing, and is irrelevant.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Illiterate?... Write for free help.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |