So what you are saying is that I was right?
That the sexual offences act 2003 does state that "(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales] of that sexual offence.

A funny bunch the french (they harboured Polanski for a long while too) and they obviously don't see the inherent issues with a sexual predator grooming a child and coming to their country to avoid paying the appropriate price in their own country. I find it disturbing that you seem to think its big and clever to circumvent laws in the UK which are designed to protect children from being abused and cite a case involving a teacher and a pupil in your defense.

It wouldn't surprise me if you were in the legal trade....paedophiles always seem to get ridiculously lenient sentences so I imagine you're a judge.
(Squidlipps Anyway, so how's your sex life on, Tue 1 Oct 2013, 14:51, 1 reply)

Yes, that's the bit I was referring to...
HOWEVER:

Human Rights Act 1998, article 7, paragraph 1:

"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."

Because the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998, and the Sexual Offences Act in 2003, under the ultra vires principle the existing law takes precedent over the newer law, unless the older law is explicitly repealed. Which, of course, it wasn't.

My point about the Forrest case was that they could only extradite him for child abduction (which is an offence under French law), not underage sex, because she was 15 (which is legal in France), and they couldn't use the "position of responsibility" argument as he'd ceased to be in a position of responsibility the moment he walked out of his teaching job and ran away to France with someone half his age.

Of course, it later transpired that he'd "sexually touched" her whilst in the UK, and thus was also charged under SoA 2003 s.9(1).

I cited that case as it was an excellent example of how that provision of the SoA 2003 is incompatible with the HRA 1998.

(Forrest still got 5 1/2 years, if you remember? So he didn't exactly "get away with it".)
(RabidRodent I'm the person your mother warned you about, Tue 1 Oct 2013, 15:45, closed)

So you got all this law knowledge from fixing a computer in a solicitor's office.
Wow.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 1 Oct 2013, 16:57, closed)

Not "fixing"...
Installing and maintaining a server suite, network, a number of workstations, offsite backups etc etc.

It's funny just how much you learn about your client's field of expertise, which in this case happens to be law.
(RabidRodent I'm the person your mother warned you about, Tue 1 Oct 2013, 17:21, closed)

So what you're saying here is that you're a nosy cunt who can't be trusted around data that isn't yours?

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Tue 1 Oct 2013, 20:19, closed)

Again, not at all...
I wouldn't share it around, but some of the things clients say... for your own amusement... ;-)
(RabidRodent I'm the person your mother warned you about, Tue 1 Oct 2013, 20:44, closed)