"Jenny6833A" <jenny6833a@aol.comClothes> wrote in message
news:20040501134220.05832.00000433@mb-m03.aol.com...
Therion Ware
says
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3675057.stm
If accurately represented by the BBC, some of the new laws are ludicrous.
For
example
"A range of new offences designed to tackle inappropriate sexual activity
with
children, including a new offence of causing a child to engage in sexual
activity which will capture behaviour such as persuading children to
undress."
So, persuading a children to take a bath (or to shuck the duds on a nude
beach)
will now be illegal?
"Updating incest offences to cover not just blood relatives but also
foster and
adoptive parents and live-in partners."
Presumably this is about sex with minors. If so, it would seem to mean
that
the Brits have no 'child sexual abuse laws.' It's hard to understand how
sex
with a minor who is not related by blood qualifies as *incest.*
"Voyeurs will face prosecution if they spy on someone else for their
sexual
gratification."
As written, it's not clear whether the sexual gratification is that of the
watcher or the watchee.
What if the watching is done openly, without spying? What if there's no
sexual
gratification? How can anyone tell?
Does this mean that gawkers at a nudist place are breaking a law?
And finally, the bit about internet 'grooming' seemed damn vague. Are we
no
longer permitted to talk to children online? If not, how on earth are we
supposed to know who is or isn't a child?
:-)
Jenny
Before emailing, remove Clothes
LOL< nice one jenny. Its amazing these laws get passed at all.
Ed
.