On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:59:03 +0100, Nick
wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 16:25:25 +0100, Nick
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:02:12 +0100, Nick
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes thanks I found a ref. Apparently it is also illegal to pay someone
>>>>> under 18 for ..
>>>> "I'd love to take you out for a fancy meal and then treat you to the
>>>> movies, but I'm afraid that it would be illegal until you are 18.
>>>>
>>> Well Alex is convinced that the law is always precise
>>
>> Utter rubbish.
>>
>
>It was your comment "the law always is precise" in this thread that lead
>me to this view.
>
>Out of curiosity what did this comment mean?
I was responding specifically to the comment about the definition of a
"child".
Sorry if that was not clear.
What I meant was that every law that refers to a "child" specifies
precisely the age that is meant by that law.
And I suppose it is possible there may be some that don't, so what I
really meant is that every law I know of that refers to children
specifies very precisely what is meant by the term.
>
>> the law is *frequently*& nowhere near precise enough.
>>
>> the law we are talking about here *is* precise, but that is nowhere
>> *near* true of all law.
>>
>
>Of course its not precise. It may be precise in one small aspect, the
>age 16 but that does not mean the law as a whole is precise.
No, but it is.
Many laws are not very precise at all, but this one is very specific
regarding exactly which laws it applies to, and in what circumstances.
Although even then, it is liable to catch some circumstances that I
don't believe were thought of by the legislators.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Not many people realize just how well known I am.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |