Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: Dissenter <me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 19:52:20 +0100
On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:02:25 +0100, "Harry the Horse"
<HarryAtTheStable@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"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?
I imagine he means that it locks up "wrong 'uns" who would otherwise
walk free.
--
Dissenter
.
- 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
- Re: Naked children indecent - official
- From: Harry the Horse
- Naked children indecent - official
- Prev by Date: Re: Job offer, given to someone else before I could accept
- Next by Date: Re: The Right To Remain Silent (as was) question.......
- Previous by thread: Re: Naked children indecent - official
- Next by thread: Re: Naked children indecent - official
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|