egafd.com

I think its something they will dish out if the person knowingly passed it on to be vicious. This is after all, tantamount to murder....

Mind you that could stiff us in the adult industry. Imagine so and so doing time for giving so and so herpes on a shoot! Then everyone being hauled into court as witnesses....Nah I cant see it happening. This is probably more incendiary than that race thread I think.

Do you know what people are like when someone has just got chlamydia....!

Hooo-weee!

NP - but I sent you some homework......

"What a dumb article."

What's dumb about it? It's just a dispassionate report of some proposed new guidelines and criteria for prosecution by the CPS. The proposals themselves may (or may not) be dumb. The CPS may be dumb. NuLab may be dumb. But the article is just that, an article, a news report - not an editorial opinion.



Officer Dibble

Thanks Officer!

It was just a personification Mr Dibble, nothing more....

'but not a criminal unless the disease you pick up is HIV or Syphilis'

syphilis is easily cured

herpes and HIV aren't - if someone deliberately set out to give you a disease that will stay with you and affect the rest of your life it should most definately be a criminal offence, that is the point of this law

There's no cure for Herpes as far as I'm aware. Like coldsores, it lays dormant until either the immune system is low, or a slight infection -due to broken skin maybe?- makes the virus become active again.

I only mentioned Syphilis as certain types of this disease can infect the blood vessels and heart, which can become fatal. Other forms of the disease affect the nervous system which can lead to paralysis and insanity. (These days, most people are treated well before these stages occur, though time limits vary from person to person.)

As for HIV, I thought it was already illegal to have unprotected sex with someone if you know you have HIV? I'm sure one or two people have been convicted of this? This law is sensible if already in operation, and I have no quarrel with it.

the convictions the people got for passing on HIV were, I believe based on assault, there isn't a specific law for passing on a disease intentionally, thats what this sets out to address as it can be much harder to prove the assault charge, especially if it was for something like herpes.

Ah I see. It's a difficult one really that needs more thought.

Raping someone when you have HIV is akin to giving them a poison. (albeit a slow working one) This instance should have a law that not only prosecutes for rape, but another offence besides. The problem is which offence?

Assault isn't enough as you've stated. Not for HIV anyway, but murder/manslaughter? I don't think you can convict anyone of murder/manslaughter when the victim is still walking & talking. So it's only really assault until the person you infected dies, to which it becomes either murder, or manslaughter.

Herpes, gonorrhoea, chlamydia, genital warts etc are but minor infections compared to the common cold. We all pass on colds to other people, even when we know we have the virus. Chlamydia and gonorrhoea aren't as life threatening as a common cold is. The common cold virus kills millions every year, so where do we go with this?

The only difference really is that you have to perform a sexual(not always though) act to pass on chlamydia & the like. While other diseases are airborne (mainly) and it would be harder to pin down the perpetrator!

There are other things to think about. What if you had 2 sexual partners in the space of a few days? Both partners as well as yourself have the disease, but medical opinion cannot determine who contracted the disease first. A good immune system in one person may take a week longer to show symptoms than another person, meaning the last person in the trio to have caught something may have more symptoms than the first person has, and thus, looks like the culprit.

It's not like stabbing someone where the coroner can estimate the time of death. You just wouldn't get a conviction in 90% of cases. A victim would have to prove that they've only slept with one person during a 3-6 month period. Then there's the proof that the perpetrator knew they had the disease, and the proof that the sexual act took place when the victim said it did.

Too many possibilities and variables I should think, to get a prosecution.

If I have sex with an unknown girl tonight, it's my responsibility to assess the risks. It would be polite for her to refuse sex if she has an STD, and though she's morally obliged to tell me, I don't think forcing information out of her through law is right. It's her personal business who she tells, and my personal business who I choose to screw.

If I get herpes, then tough for me. No one made me do it. (even though she'd be a bit of a bitch to keep it from me, I accept.)

Do you think they put "CRACKdown" in the sentence on purpose ? !laugh!