Shonu wrote:Lisa wrote:You are wrong in your supposition. It is a criminal offence in the UK to
commit a sex act against a minor in a foreign country. The jurisdiction of
the said act is deemed to run globally. There is no escape.
And yet, I dont read of many being prosecuted for such acts in those countries. Pray explain. I've heard of being being prosecuted and jailed for drug related crimes, but not the former.
OT: but here is the ECPAT 2011 finding on this, and Lisa ji is correct - the law exists, but on the other hand is usually not implemented [out of necessity and perhaps something more].
http://www.ecpat.org.uk
Off the Radar: Protecting Children from British Sex Offenders who Travel
Extra-territorial legislation allows the UK to prosecute individuals even when the offence is not committed on home territory and allows perpetrators who return to the UK to be charged when there has been no arrest by other jurisdictions. Prosecution and investigation in countries where the offence occurs often fail to take place because of an inability or unwillingness by local authorities to follow up cases involving foreigners. Extra-territorial legislation should serve to deter individuals who travel overseas with the intention to sexually abuse children, as they effectively face the threat of prosecution in the destination country or in the UK. However, this type of prosecution is rare and lessons from individual cases are not readily shared between statutory agencies or used as material for prevention and awareness raising activities. The UK government is not even able to put a figure on the number of prosecutions under extra-territorial legislation when asked by parliament. 21
Prosecuting offenders who have committed crimes abroad requires effective co-operation between authorities from different jurisdictions. Differing resources, languages and investigative methods frequently hinder co-operation and more informal routes often open up better co-operation than formal mutual legal assistance processes that can be hindered by bureaucratic obstacles. Investigators need to acquire evidence from the foreign jurisdiction that can stand up to UK court standards and the international success stories show that part of that success comes from understanding the local context, including the key role of non-government organisations (NGOs) who fill the vacuum in investigations and victim support when poor, corrupt or fractured governments do not. This can be a challenge for British authorities who are used to dealing with government rather than non-government agencies but it is now common practice for governments including the USA, Sweden and Australia to work closely alongside specialist NGOs, including exchanging intelligence and surveillance to support an extra-territorial investigation. This is especially true when obtaining evidence from child witnesses who should always receive the same considerations for protection as they would in the UK even if the local authority structures are weak.
Note the possible dependence on NGO's who themselves might be beneficiaries of charities from the west. This in itself will be a loophole to allow safe escapes - if it can happen with blood money for Italians in India, it will be even easier through NGO's in say Thailand or Cambodia.
PS: Important to note the frank admission that NGO's in foreign countries are used for "British" needed intel and surveillance. In this case it is a holy cause so no issues in stating it boldly. But this is another route for the Brits to be rather well aware of what goes on in Pakiland, and what their own Paki origin or Paki sympathetic citizens are up to in Pakiland. Every funding gathered for Paki's or islamists in general in UKstan, every national getting trained in jihad against India on visits to Pakiland - are essentially then probably doing so with nearly full knowledge of Brit admin. If it is being allowed - it simply means a two pronged "national interest" policy, one to keep out damages from home-soil - and two, an effective destructive and anguish causing agent to be maintained relatively cheaply on the subcontinent for manipulation as and when necessary for "national interest onlee". After all as per the PM's claim, the Brits have always pulled above their actual weight.
We repeatedly thrash the Americans for their role in sustaining Pakiland, but we devote far less time and effort in uncovering how effectively and slyly, and relatively cheaply - the Brits have been holding up Pakiland - especially its India-specific jihadi component from even before independence.
) program at a panel in Switzerland recently. 
