On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:16:05 -0700 (PDT), lisabartal@hotmail.com
wrote:
>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.
>>
>
>Why is the reference always "he"?
Because the legislators (quite reasonably) don't want to have to say
"he or she" every single time, so they included in the Interpretation
Act a definition that references to the male gender always include the
female and vice versa unless that is not possible, or is actively
specified not to be the case.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |