Richardson groomer arrested

SupamanDatHo said :

Before Australia became a nation of wowser bogans, it was called Mentoring.

No, it was called Catholicism.

SupamanDatHo said :

Before Australia became a nation of wowser bogans, it was called Mentoring.

Are you a troll or just a paedophile sympathiser (or worse)?

Before Australia became a nation of wowser bogans, it was called Mentoring.

Loquaciousness said :

RuffnReady said :

I bet if it was done through the post there would be an applicable postal law, and if done face-to-face, possibly soliciting or suborning? I doubt that the grooming law is restricted to e-media only.

Ah yeah, good point. Maybe someone familiar with the law could clue me in a bit here? My curiosity is getting the better of me … 😛

L

http://www.austlii.edu.au

RuffnReady said :

I bet if it was done through the post there would be an applicable postal law, and if done face-to-face, possibly soliciting or suborning? I doubt that the grooming law is restricted to e-media only.

Ah yeah, good point. Maybe someone familiar with the law could clue me in a bit here? My curiosity is getting the better of me … 😛

L

I bet if it was done through the post there would be an applicable postal law, and if done face-to-face, possibly soliciting or suborning? I doubt that the grooming law is restricted to e-media only.

RuffnReady said :

But he hadn’t done anything to her yet. I think it’s a good thing that we have laws like this one which allow the police to charge this sick f#cker BEFORE he does anything to her or anyone else. Obviously the law is designed to catch internet predators in the process leading up to the physical criminal act, and that can only be a good thing.

Indeed. But what if he was living next door to her, or was her pen-pal (remember them, pen-pals? Wow, I feel old all of a sudden) … then he can do whatever he wants as far as grooming, and isn’t committing an illegal act until he actually *touches* her.

While I agree that the law is good, I think it’s sort of a strange distinction to make.

L

Aurelius said :

So the charge wouldn’t carry any weight if he’d done it without using his phone/net connection. It’s rather poor that we’re still relying on this kind of thing being a crime against the phone network, rather than for what he’d done to the kid.

But he hadn’t done anything to her yet. I think it’s a good thing that we have laws like this one which allow the police to charge this sick f#cker BEFORE he does anything to her or anyone else. Obviously the law is designed to catch internet predators in the process leading up to the physical criminal act, and that can only be a good thing.

Aurelius said :

So the charge wouldn’t carry any weight if he’d done it without using his phone/net connection. It’s rather poor that we’re still relying on this kind of thing being a crime against the phone network, rather than for what he’d done to the kid.

Actually, when you put it like that, the whole thing is rather disturbing. I didn’t read the charge that way, but I guess it’s a reasonable interpretation.

Ick.

L

Deano said :

Actually I’m wasn’t quite correct there. From the Telecommunications Act, “carriage service” means a service for carrying communications by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy.

So (excuse my ignorance), that means that telephone and email/IM are considered a “carriage service” but post isn’t (unless Posties are considered electromagnetic, I guess)?

L