Drives me nuts
-
Uh.. no? If you buy, someone's gotta be selling. From the law "it is illegal to sell cigarettes to a person under the age of 16" it follows that "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to buy cigarettes". However, from the above statement, it is not possible to derive "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to smoke cigarettes". Is that what you meant? :~ -- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
From the law "it is illegal to sell cigarettes to a person under the age of 16" it follows that "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to buy cigarettes".
No, that is incorrect. Various agencies (like charities) often use children in sting operations to get the evidence in order to charge the shop keepers with supplying tobacco products to an under 16 year old. They couldn't do that if it was illegal for children to buy (or attempt to buy) cigarettes because then they'd get done for inciting someone to break the law.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
However, from the above statement, it is not possible to derive "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to smoke cigarettes". Is that what you meant?
That is correct. But, if they are smoking them, it naturally follows that someone supplied them. It is the supplier who gets procecuted.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
From the law "it is illegal to sell cigarettes to a person under the age of 16" it follows that "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to buy cigarettes".
No, that is incorrect. Various agencies (like charities) often use children in sting operations to get the evidence in order to charge the shop keepers with supplying tobacco products to an under 16 year old. They couldn't do that if it was illegal for children to buy (or attempt to buy) cigarettes because then they'd get done for inciting someone to break the law.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
However, from the above statement, it is not possible to derive "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to smoke cigarettes". Is that what you meant?
That is correct. But, if they are smoking them, it naturally follows that someone supplied them. It is the supplier who gets procecuted.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Sneaky law! -- 100% natural. No superstitious additives.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
From the law "it is illegal to sell cigarettes to a person under the age of 16" it follows that "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to buy cigarettes".
No, that is incorrect. Various agencies (like charities) often use children in sting operations to get the evidence in order to charge the shop keepers with supplying tobacco products to an under 16 year old. They couldn't do that if it was illegal for children to buy (or attempt to buy) cigarettes because then they'd get done for inciting someone to break the law.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
However, from the above statement, it is not possible to derive "it is illegal for a person under the age of 16 to smoke cigarettes". Is that what you meant?
That is correct. But, if they are smoking them, it naturally follows that someone supplied them. It is the supplier who gets procecuted.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
No, that is incorrect. Various agencies (like charities) often use children in sting operations to get the evidence in order to charge the shop keepers with supplying tobacco products to an under 16 year old. They couldn't do that if it was illegal for children to buy (or attempt to buy) cigarettes because then they'd get done for inciting someone to break the law.
Hmmm. Police in many cities have undercover cops selling dope on the street in sting operations. They sell the stuff and then the officers in marked vehicles and uniforms move in and arrest the buyer. Now I KNOW it is illegal to sell narcotics/grass/etc.. but the police do it all the time. Its not entrapment because the police are not encourgaging the buyers to purchase the product according to the courts. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
No, that is incorrect. Various agencies (like charities) often use children in sting operations to get the evidence in order to charge the shop keepers with supplying tobacco products to an under 16 year old. They couldn't do that if it was illegal for children to buy (or attempt to buy) cigarettes because then they'd get done for inciting someone to break the law.
Hmmm. Police in many cities have undercover cops selling dope on the street in sting operations. They sell the stuff and then the officers in marked vehicles and uniforms move in and arrest the buyer. Now I KNOW it is illegal to sell narcotics/grass/etc.. but the police do it all the time. Its not entrapment because the police are not encourgaging the buyers to purchase the product according to the courts. Richard Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain
Richard Stringer wrote:
Police in many cities have undercover cops selling dope on the street in sting operations.
That isn't permitted here because then the police officers would have to break the law in their sting operation. "The law in its great majesty permits neither the rich nor the poor to sleep under the bridges" Also, the police don't tend to go after shop keepers selling tobacco to kids. They are too busy on the easy targets like motorists. So it is usually anti-smoking groups and consumer watchdog type TV programmes that get some kids to attempt to buy cigarettes.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
Giles wrote:
Becuase she knows she can do this becuase the state will take care of all her needs giving her a house, and money etc to keep her in smokes.
BS. She is not even able to protect herself during a sex act, do you really believe she realizes what is the responsability of being a parent? She is 11 year old, she's an unconscious kid.
Giles wrote:
smokes 20 a day
Is there no law forbidding minors to buy cigarettes?
Giles wrote:
I think the parents should be fined.
I think they should be educated instead. State's coercion is not the solution to everything.
Giles wrote:
the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes.
We have a whiner here.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
BS. She is not even able to protect herself during a sex act, do you really believe she realizes what is the responsability of being a parent? She is 11 year old, she's an unconscious kid.
Yes, in certain schools you get a rash of young mothers, who encourage more to do the same, as they see the older ones (14-15) getting there own flats from the local government and cash to support the baby. They want to do the same. Its becuase of poor sex education in schools. The teachers are not allowed to just teach, but instead have constant interference from government. The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and by teenage, I mean under age.
K(arl) wrote:
Is there no law forbidding minors to buy cigarettes?
Yes. You need to be 16, and 18 for acohol, but its not enforced. :mad: The police are busy prosecuting motorists for doing 45mph in a 40mph zone. It makes more money for the chancelor. Government does not make money prosecuting kids for smoking, or make great headlines so they can get elected.
-
Besmirching the good name of my home city as well. The mother of the pregnant girl might be proud - I'm totally ashamed.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Besmirching the good name of my home city as well. The mother of the pregnant girl might be proud - I'm totally ashamed.
I know how you feel. We look like a joke in Europe, with this kind of thing. Young mothers in schools encourage more your mothers. There are like minded girls that WANT to get pregant, and boys that just want to get laid. They should prosecute the boy. 4 years at that age is huge, and should definitely know better. I've seem in a like below looks like they have. Should also be forced to make child maintenance payments when he's earning. If the child maintenence system worked there is a chance it would change the landscape, as the boys would not be so keen, or at least have protected sex. Going back to it though. A 15 year old having sex with an 11 year old is at the least taking advantage of, if not child abuse, which I think it is.
-
This is grossly unfair and reflects an extreme state of gender-bias! The boy was under-age too, so technically he was raped too. When 2 under-aged kids have sex, do they just prosecute whoever it is who's older? Or whoever it is who's male? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.There is a cut of of age of 14. It is illegal to have sex with someone who is under 16. The 14 limit used in legal cases is were you can use the defence "they looked 16". She can say "he looked 16", but he cannot use that argument with her. Anyway, one more year and he's a young man. And can work for a living. He took advantage of her. Plain an simple. 4 years difference at that age is huge.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote:
It says the girl smokes 20 cigarettes a day. If she's still smoking while pregnant, then she's a f****ing selfish bitch.
Too young and too badly brought up to have any sense or any sense of responsibility is how I would put it. It is ridiculous to be dumping all this responsibility on a child who clearly has been failed completely by her parents. There was simply no prospect of me stepping far out of line when I was 11; parental supervision and discipline made it a near impossibility. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
It is ridiculous to be dumping all this responsibility on a child who clearly has been failed completely by her parents. There was simply no prospect of me stepping far out of line when I was 11; parental supervision and discipline made it a near impossibility.
Same here. And that is exactly the problem. Personally, the 11 year old should be taken away from the parents. They are clearly not fit to be. Letting here smoke while pregnant says it all. No parental responsibility. She's damaging their grandchild and they don't care enough to stop her.
-
11 year old girl gets pregnant on night out with 15 year old boy, smokes 20 a day, and mother 34 is pround. About to become Britains youngest mother. <http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13523408,00.html[^] Thanks New Labour for funding this. Becuase she knows she can do this becuase the state will take care of all her needs giving her a house, and money etc to keep her in smokes. I think the parents should be fined. Not fit to have children if they think this is okay. People complain about imigration. I have no problem with it. Its trash like this I can't stand, and the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes. Fucked up.
FWIW I don't think she fucked a guy because she knows the state will take care of her.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
FWIW I don't think she fucked a guy because she knows the state will take care of her.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
No she fucked a guy, becuase in her twisted little mind, she wanted a baby like some of the older girls at school. Older still being under age.
The why blame someone else?
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
K(arl) wrote:
BS. She is not even able to protect herself during a sex act,
Fer fucks sake Karl, the skank would not only have known what she could get as an unmarried single mother, she knew how to get it. This meant at 11, she knew all about having sex without a condom to get pregnant. If you think otherwise your naive. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
K(arl) wrote:
BS. She is not even able to protect herself during a sex act, do you really believe she realizes what is the responsability of being a parent? She is 11 year old, she's an unconscious kid.
Yes, in certain schools you get a rash of young mothers, who encourage more to do the same, as they see the older ones (14-15) getting there own flats from the local government and cash to support the baby. They want to do the same. Its becuase of poor sex education in schools. The teachers are not allowed to just teach, but instead have constant interference from government. The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, and by teenage, I mean under age.
K(arl) wrote:
Is there no law forbidding minors to buy cigarettes?
Yes. You need to be 16, and 18 for acohol, but its not enforced. :mad: The police are busy prosecuting motorists for doing 45mph in a 40mph zone. It makes more money for the chancelor. Government does not make money prosecuting kids for smoking, or make great headlines so they can get elected.
Giles wrote:
but instead have constant interference from government.
Say government_s_ and I'll agree.
Giles wrote:
The police are busy prosecuting motorists for doing 45mph in a 40mph zone
Same problem here. I suppose persecuting drivers is easier, more lucrative and more popular.
Turn off your TV, Can you say "brainwashing"?
-
Giles wrote:
Becuase she knows she can do this becuase the state will take care of all her needs giving her a house, and money etc to keep her in smokes.
BS. She is not even able to protect herself during a sex act, do you really believe she realizes what is the responsability of being a parent? She is 11 year old, she's an unconscious kid.
Giles wrote:
smokes 20 a day
Is there no law forbidding minors to buy cigarettes?
Giles wrote:
I think the parents should be fined.
I think they should be educated instead. State's coercion is not the solution to everything.
Giles wrote:
the fact I'll be paying for it with record taxes.
We have a whiner here.
Pull the tapeworm out of your ass Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
She is 11 year old, she's an unconscious kid.
You do know what that word means? Because the kid knows what they are doing. Kids learn about sex earlier and eariler thanks to human stupidity, and yet we complain about it. Jeremy Falcon
-
It is obscene for a parent to permit their 11 year old daughter to behave in that whollu inappropriate way. Don't parents understand the need to ensure that their off-spring are brought up in a correct and proper way in a SAFE environment. Smoking as well, probably the parent doesn't send the girl to school either. What a waste of a young life, and you can't always blame political parties for the parent's failings. And oh-boy, what a failing. And what of the 15 year old father, perhaps he should be given one of those "always crying always needing attention- mechanical babies" and told to "satisfy" that mechanical babies needs for a whole sixth months (perhaps longer) with that mechanical baby programmed so that it specializes in waking several times during the night and damned awkward to pacify. Maybe that 15 year old will learn to keep his zip firmly closed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Abbottra wrote:
Don't parents understand the need to ensure that their off-spring are brought up in a correct and proper way in a SAFE environment.
Aparently, not all of them. Jeremy Falcon
-
This is grossly unfair and reflects an extreme state of gender-bias! The boy was under-age too, so technically he was raped too. When 2 under-aged kids have sex, do they just prosecute whoever it is who's older? Or whoever it is who's male? Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Or whoever it is who's male?
I don't know about Britian, but down in south Louisian it's just who's male. I've known someone who went to jail over this crap despite the fact the chick lied to him about her age. She testified in court that she lied, and he still went to jail anyway. I agree, it's a stupid, messed up system that somehow thinks women are infaliable. Nonsense. Jeremy Falcon