On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:00:20 +0100, Nick
wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:55:28 +0100, "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.
>>>
>>
>> No it wouldn't.
>>
>> .ual grooming offences require the victim to be under 16 (17 in NI).
>
>I get awfully confused by all this.
>
>I saw a site that defined .ual grooming as "to befriend a child on the
>internet or by other means and to meet or intend to meet the child with
>the intention of abusing them". AIUI the definition of child was now
>below 18.
>
>However when I look at the actual act it does specify 16. This moveable
>definition of child is most confusing I do wish they would be more
>precise or stop using the term altogether.
the law always is precise, but it does vary from law to law, and even
within one law.
Media reports and "soundbite" quotes are far too often totally
imprecise, leading to exactly the type of confusion evidenced in this
thread.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If winning isn't important then why keep score?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |