Post by Cynic Post by Alex Heney Post by Cynic
If the goal is to prosecute as many
shopkeepers as possible to make the officer look good, the best would
be to use a child who looks a lot older than they are.
The *stated* goal is to deter shopkeepers from doing it in future.
But even if the individual TS man has an internal goal such as that,
it will be to *convict* a many as possible, and they won't do that by
using children who are not *obviously* under-age.
I don't see why not.
First, it would be against TS guidelines.
There is a more recent version on the LACORS website, but you need a
user name and password to access that, and I doubt it has changed
significantly in this area.
Second, if the shopkeeper was claiming the defence that the child
appeared over the age of 18, the court would undoubtedly want to see
photographs of the child as they were dressed at the time.
Post by Cynic
The child enters the shop dressed to the 9's and
heavily made-up. Later in court, the child giving evidence has
pigtails and is wearing a school uniform. That's if the child even
needs to attend court - if not, the court will know only the child's
actual age and the fact that the defendent sold cigarettes to her
claiming that he thought she was 18 or older.
The fact that the court would undoubtedly want to see evidence of how
the child looked when making the purchase would mitigate against that.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Go shopping. Buy Stuff. Sweat in it. Return it the next day.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom