Same reason if your were you punch a bloke out in France you would be tried there.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:35, Reply)
Surely websites can be operated and maintained anywhere.
As far as I can tell, .com (commercial) doesn't even mean the company is American any more since the rules don't seem to be enforced.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:37, Reply)
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf
'TVShack.net and TVShack.cc “earning approximately £15,000 per month” from online advertisements'
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:44, Reply)
"However, wise though such entreaties plainly are, Parliament has made conduct found to be contrary to S.107 (2A) criminal. No court can change the statutory offence. The issue is whether the conduct actually alleged falls foul of S.107 (2A) not, as I fear Mr Cooper was urging, that no offence in law actually exists. It does exist unless or until S.107 (2A) is amended or repealed."
tl;dr This does look like a criminal offence under UK law, whatever people are saying in the press.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:17, Reply)
its like madeline mccann all over again.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:35, Reply)
not ball-gagged, sodomised & left chained up in Pissflaps' basement.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 11:36, Reply)
Others here can explain it better.
.cc and .ru are safe apparently.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 9:45, Reply)
And for it to be granted a whole other set of things have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Or it's arranged behind closed doors and then the facts are set posteriori.
EDIT: Scratch that about the request, seems like they can request one for any old bollocks.
(, Wed 14 Mar 2012, 10:29, Reply)