Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:12:01 +0100
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 05:36:34 GMT, Clough <inuit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:46:34 +0100, "Reality Surgeon" <none@xxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>Not quite; a defendant under the age of 24, if he could prove on the balance
>>of probabilities, and had not been previously charged with such an offence,
>>that he reasonably believed that the "victim" was over 16, was entitled to
>>be acquitted. This is no longer the case under the new law.
>
>What if both partners were under 16 and consenting?
>
Then the punishment is lower - See section 13 of the Act.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I didn't cheat, I just changed the Rules!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Clough
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- References:
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Martin Milan
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Gaz
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Martin Milan
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Martin Milan
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Reality Surgeon
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Dissenter
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Reality Surgeon
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- From: Clough
- Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- Prev by Date: Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- Next by Date: Re: IS Speeding a Criminal Offence ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- Next by thread: Re: Sex abuse teacher goes down
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading