In message
,
lisabartal@hotmail.com writes
>On May 12, 3:26 pm, Cynic wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 22:46:56 +0100, Cub Reporter
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>You have seriously misread an article which was not particularly clear
>> >>anyhow, but even in its un clarity, did not suggest what you claim.
>> >"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."
>> >This means that UK laws will apply to .ual offences against a child
>> >committed abroad, not the local laws if they are less stringent.
>> >"We have also raised the age of a child for these purposes from 16 to
>> >18."
>> >If that doesn't mean that . with a 16 or 17 year old abroad could be
>> >prosecuted on the person's return to the UK, what does it mean?
>>
>> It could be prosecuted, but *only* if it was an offence in the UK. If
>> a teacher were to have . with a 17 year old student he was taking on
>> an educational trip to Spain, for example.
>>
>> --
>> Cynic
>
>Why is the reference always "he"?
>TDG
Because if it was a male 16 yo student his mates wouldn't be reporting
it they'd be patting him on the back?
--
Mike_B |