Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 18:02:25 +0100
"Alex Heney" <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cner72h1g80r4lor711jd85d9kl47adkao@xxxxxxxxxx
There is the same lack of defintion with respect to an 'antique' firearm.
The problem there (if it is a problem) is that the law does not define
"indecent", that is left to the opinion of the jury (or magistrate).
It is left to a jury to decide. It proved so difficult that the Home Office
was obliged to publish guidelines of what might be considered an antique
firearm. Perhaps that approach could be considered here as well.
And I must admit that personally, my sympathies lie with the way itWhat do you think the law is achieving now that would not achieve if it were
works in practice, rather than what may be technically correct.
applied correctly?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: Dissenter
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- References:
- Naked children indecent - official
- From: NewsHound
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: The Todal
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: Harry the Horse
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: Alex Heney
- Naked children indecent - official
- Prev by Date: Re: Naked children indecent - official
- Next by Date: Re: Cohabitees Rights
- Previous by thread: Re: Naked children indecent - official
- Next by thread: Re: Naked children indecent - official
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|