Teenspeak test in net sex case (1 Viewer)

[ari89]

DO today's 13-year-old girls use words like ``spaz'' and ``vegin'' or speak of having a ``spare day'' from school?
A Brisbane District Court jury has been told vocabulary will be one of the main issues in the trial against a Calamvale man charged with having a sexually-explicit conversation in an internet chat room with a young teenager.

Darrell Francis Kevin Plumridge, 42, today pleaded not guilty to using the internet to procure a child under 16 years to engage in a sex act, arising from a Brisbane Local chat site exchange that took place on December 6, 2006.

Crown Prosecutor John Copley yesterday said Plumridge was recorded having a three-and-a-half hour conversation with a male detective, purporting to be 13-year-old ``Erin'', in which he asked her what she was wearing, if she touched herself and then gave her instructions on how to masturbate herself.

The court heard Plumridge asked Erin if she liked older men, and if she had pubic hair and breasts. On receiving a photo, he said: ``Cute pic, redhead, nice, I always liked redheads. Pity I'm not 25 years younger.''

After providing graphic instructions on how to masturbate, he apologised for telling her ``bad things, but I'm feeling horny''.

Earlier in the chatroom conversation, he warned her: ``You should be careful in these rooms, lots of wankers. I'm no angel but you're only 13.'' He also asked for her phone number, but she declined to give him one.

Defence barrister Catherine Cuthbert said Plumridge would testify the conversation did take place and that he was a regular at chatsites, but that he never believed the person he was speaking to was 13 years old.

``The truth of chatrooms is that you never believe what the person you're talking to says they are,'' Ms Cuthbert said.

``Young female teenagers are always trying to pass themselves off as older than they are.''

Ms Cuthbert said Plumridge had become adept at interpreting conversation markers and knew he was not talking to a teenager.

She said terms like ``spaz'' and ``vegin'', and ``spare day off from school'' were not used by a modern teenagers.

The 10-man, two-woman jury will view the internet conversation, recorded in full by police, during the three-day trial before Judge Michael Shanahan.

SOURCE!!!! : http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21735130-952,00.htm

Which bos regular is it?
It was a pretty good set up...but the thing is...for someone to get caught in a set up, how often does it happen to real young people?

 

[Serius]

link plz

It happens to real people heaps, but if this was america he couldnt be charged with anything for the exact reason he is using in his defence. They actually had to prove he intended to do something about his supposed desires by making him come to a set up house thinking he is going to have sex[like they did on that tv show with about 50 dirty old men] Theres groups and communities out there who specifically do this and then send the chat logs to police. They have some pretty sophisticated hardware and software which makes it upholdable evidence in court, and some communities have over 100 people chatting at any one time. Compared to those, that was a pretty piss poor setup.

Why would telling someone how to masturbate be illegal? why would asking simple [yet rude] questions be illegal? well thats because it isnt. I am curious as to what he is being charged with, and i agree he probably didnt think the user was 13, probably more like 20 if they say spaz and more like my dads age if they say spare day from school haha.

 

[WWJD_2005]

Hmmm... where's the link to the current EU case reguarding the game "second life" and people creating naked children characters and whether that's counted as child pornography or something like that?

 

[ur_inner_child]

Don't be lazy and link your articles!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21735130-952,00.html

 

[ari89]

Don't be lazy and link your articles!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21735130-952,00.html

oops thanks!
I usually link my articles...right?

 

[jimmayyy]

why is the girl sending photos of herself out over the internet and telling people she doesnt know personal things?

where are the parents at?

 

[Serius]

umm it wasnt a 13year old.... it was a trap. middle aged detective poses as a young girl, tries to trap the dude into some sort of statutory law and there ya go. Personally i dont understand how it works, because if it ends up the person they are talking to is over age anyway then why would it matter?[clarification mathmite?]

 

[ari89]

why is the girl sending photos of herself out over the internet and telling people she doesnt know personal things?

where are the parents at?

 

[Serius]

What i've never understood is how they can be charged when they weren't actually speaking to a 13 year old.

Unless they have a provision like the NSW anti-drugs legislation, in which supplying a prohibited drug is taken to include:

Selling, distributing, agreeing or offering to supply, forwarding, delivering, receiving for onsupply, authorising, directing, suffering, permitting or attempting any of the above.

So, to be convicted of supplying drugs you dont even need to actually have any drugs.

Wow i didnt know the law was like that. A couple of times ive been confronted by some people clearly tripping who wanted me to go get them drugs, and i just agreed and walk off[easier than starting a fight]. So under the law i could be prosecuted for that? What if i was just bullshiting with some mates or trying to impress the ladies saying i could snag some drugs, i could me prosecuted for that aswell? crazy.