On May 11, 2:00 am, Alex Heney wrote:
> 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. W=
e 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 Immigrati=
on
> >> >> >>> Bill which received Royal Assent on Thursday 8 May.
> >> >> >> Out of curiosity what .ual offences are illegal here with 17 ye=
ar olds
> >> >> >> but not 18 year olds. I know possessing .ual pictures of a 17 y=
ear 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 pic=
tures
> >> >> >> abroad but didn't bring them back?
>
> >> >> > You could not meet a 17yo having met them on the internet, this wo=
uld 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
I will decide its relevance.
Why does it mean 'nothing'? It clearly means something.
Judge Atherton knows the score:
*****
"Girl of 11 molested but perv goes free
By BEN ASHFORD
Published: 09 May 2008
rigTeaserImage
A PAEDOPHILE who groomed a girl of 11 on the internet before abusing
her during a school lunch break walked free from court yesterday.
Jon Dixon, 20, admitted .ually assaulting and attempting to . the
youngster.
But a judge refused to jail him because the girl at first pretended to
be 20 and sent explicit texts which "would make many twice her age
blush."
The girl=92s mum cried and her dad said he was "not happy" as they left
Manchester Crown Court.
Dixon pursued the girl even after she said she was 12 and asked her
for .ographic pictures. They had met on a chat website in February
last year.
He was assessed as "manipulative and predatory" and a "high risk" to
children. But Judge Robert Atherton rejected the probation service
assessment and said the girl "welcomed" .ual activity.
Passing a three-year community order, he referred to a psychologist=92s
report which said Dixon was NOT a risk to girls but was immature and
needed help.
Dixon, of Eccles, was put on the . offenders register for five
years."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1144630.ece
*****
WM
|