From the Daily Mail:
Five-year jail sentence for passing on sexually transmitted disease
Last updated at 22:00 22 January 2007
People who recklessly infect their partner with a sexually transmitted disease could soon be jailed for up to five years.
Those who do not warn their lover they have chlamydia, syphilis or herpes will be targeted under proposals from the Crown Prosecution Service.
The crack down, due to be unveiled by Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Ken Macdonald next month, will also focus on hepatitis, gonorrhea and other sexual infections, in addition to those who transmit the HIV/Aids virus.
....
But the CPS, in a consulation document published last year, said action was needed against people who fail to give a proper warning of their condition before having sex.
It will significantly increase the numbers charged with the offence of reclessly transmitting a sexual disease, as the CPS currently concentrates on bringing cases against those who pass on HIV/Aids.
Before a prosecution is mounted, the CPS will have to assess whether a person knew about their infection, their knowledge about its potential impact and whether they told their lover.
Cases where a person knows of their infection but fails to reveal it, leading to their partner contracting the disease, are likely to be classed as examples of "reckless" transmission that can be prosecuted.
The charge in these cases will be one of inflicting grievous bodily harm - an offence which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail
for each person infected.
In more serious cases, where there is clear evidence that transmission was intentional, a more severe charge carrying a maximum life sentence could be brought.
But the difficulty of legally proving deliberate transmission means that most offenders are likely to be prosecuted on the lesser charge.
It will not be a defence to argue that a victim who has unprotected sex should have been aware of the risk of infection.
Instead, the onus will be on the infected person to make clear the danger before sex occurs.
A person will not be exempt from prosecution if they wear a condom but do not inform their partner they have an infection - particularly if it was not used properly throughout the sexual encounter.
However, proper use of a condom will be a factor in deciding the seriousness of the offence and whether to bring a case.
Offenders will also be brought to trial even when their victim declines to testify, as long as it is judged to be in the public interest by preventing any future lovers being infected.
All that will be required in such cases will be medical evidence that the infection has been passed on, and proof that the accused person recklessly or deliberately failed to tell their partner about it.
.....
No wonder Colin wanted to shut down lil_fruhling trying to warn his 'birds' about his superstrain. Looks like all of the victims concerned should contact the English police and tell them a crime has been commited. Because the victims do not have to be publickly identified, according to this Daily Mail article. And who wouldn't want to be anonymous in a case where you are admiting you've got an incurable disease from Millennial Woes. From the sounds of things it could be a global case - as Colin has been infecting Europe and the New World with his bath-house blight. Five years per victim, you say? This could get very interesting.
Reminder that when Colin described lil_fruhling in his carefully constructed "deny and deflect" script, this is what he said about her:
Two years ago a friend of mine was flirting with a young woman, who later turned out to be deranged and vengeful. In an effort to impress this woman my friend told her various things about the private life of the “e-celeb” Millennial Woes.
I don’t know whether he distorted the things he told her, or whether she misunderstood them. But by the time she decided to repeat them publicly, they had become barely recognizable. Most of what she said was simply pulled out of thin air. She claimed, for example, that I have various dark sexual interests, including wanting to enslave women, and taking pleasure in spreading STDs.
this then implies that he did not know her directly, when her texts allege that she knows all of this information about him because he was communicating with her directly, sending her photoshop pictures of his genitals, and talking about her to third parties. So one of the two is lying. Given that Colin's testimony here makes no sense in the context of what LF says in her texts, it looks like Colin is lying, and is counting on his fanbase being too dumb to leave the YouTube plantation to look for more information.. He is counting on his audience being naive and low-info, and to emotionally manipulate them with clever framing and wordplay. In that sense he is no different than the New York Times or CNN. But he obviously thinks he is now safe from the women calling the police.
Here's hoping some justice comes to the Jim Carrey of the Ethnostate.