Underage prostitute case - shrewd, calculated defence move by Subhas Anandan

[Confuseous]

The law is the law is the law. If you have paid sex with an underage girl, you break the law. It does not matter if you were tricked into believing she was not underage. Too bad, you should have been more careful.

So when some of the men charged in the underage prostitution case decided to claim trial, I thought these men were crazy. Until Subhas Anandan reportedly said that the underage girl may have to take the stand.

- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/06/underage-prostitute-case-shrewd.html

 

[Tension68]

Err.. you don't see or feel something wrong with the case?
Pros is underage.. she knows (of course), okt know.. but how will the customers know if the gal n okt dun tell?
This is different from those pedos who go to cambodia or wherever to specifically find underage girls or boys!

Don't tell me you can request to see the gal's IC? Passport? Driving licence?
You think they will show you? Even if they are of legal age to sell their services.. they probably won't show you.
Fear of revealing their real names, addresses will definitely stop them.

The worst thing that could happen is that some gals might pretend to be underage and then threaten their clients who jus had sex wif them.. and ransom them for money. What then?

Somehow the law is severely tilted towards the women.. such that men who cry "rape" will be laughed and scoffed at.
Worse is.. how long ago was it that the ger? Only now they are charged? Cos the police caught the OKT or ger? If they police or anti-vice heard from the OKT and gal that they lied to the customers.. is it still legal to prosecute the men?

Go figure.. I'm still wondering what the men did wrong. The Okt advertised, the ger willingly sold her svcs, the men paid her.. some even RTF her. Was she forced? Was she threatened? I'm still confused.

 

[newbird9403]

Err.. you don't see or feel something wrong with the case?
Pros is underage.. she knows (of course), okt know.. but how will the customers know if the gal n okt dun tell?
This is different from those pedos who go to cambodia or wherever to specifically find underage girls or boys!

Don't tell me you can request to see the gal's IC? Passport? Driving licence?
You think they will show you? Even if they are of legal age to sell their services.. they probably won't show you.
Fear of revealing their real names, addresses will definitely stop them.

The worst thing that could happen is that some gals might pretend to be underage and then threaten their clients who jus had sex wif them.. and ransom them for money. What then?

Somehow the law is severely tilted towards the women.. such that men who cry "rape" will be laughed and scoffed at.
Worse is.. how long ago was it that the ger? Only now they are charged? Cos the police caught the OKT or ger? If they police or anti-vice heard from the OKT and gal that they lied to the customers.. is it still legal to prosecute the men?

Go figure.. I'm still wondering what the men did wrong. The Okt advertised, the ger willingly sold her svcs, the men paid her.. some even RTF her. Was she forced? Was she threatened? I'm still confused.

By the way prositution is legal in Singapore. But I am not sure if it includes an age limit. Truly I sympathised with the guys. They paid a helfty sum for her services and now they are in shit. I am just as confused as you.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/06/underage-prostitute-case-shrewd.html

Looks like Subhas' PR firm at work again. Described as Singapore's "TOP DEFENCE LAWYER" ? WTF ? He is not even a SC.

Seeking to have the Prosecution's star witness to testify is what every People's Park lawyer will at least try to do. PR firm again trying to paint that as some "masterstroke" from Subhas. What a load of bullshit from the PR firm!

 

[hokkien]

This subhas must be earning big money

 

[looneytan]

Err..

Don't tell me you can request to see the gal's IC? Passport? Driving licence?
You think they will show you?

err..
next time go for something like this la, sure safe one _

 

[halsey02]

"the law is for the protection of the people" Kris Kristofferson ( abridged)

'Cause the law is for protection of the people, Rules are rules and any fool can see We don't need no hairy headed hippies Scarin' decent folks like you and me, no siree, Oh, so thank your lucky stars, you've got protection, Walk the line and never mind the cost. And don't wonder who them lawmen was protectin' When they nailed the Savior to the cross, 'Cause the law is for protection of the people Rules are rules and any fool can see .We don't need no riddle speakin' prophets Scarin' decent folks like you and me, no siree!

 

[Tension68]

err..
next time go for something like this la, sure safe one _

My housemate long ago once tricked me to watch "gangbang Granny".. I lost appetite for 4 days...
No thanks.. geylang still legal.. and the PRCs there r definitely over 21!

 

[halsey02]

My housemate long ago once tricked me to watch "gangbang Granny".. I lost appetite for 4 days...
No thanks.. geylang still legal.. and the PRCs there r definitely over 21!

Your "dinosaur" went into shock & needed therapy!...if granny is bad, wait till the good people here will show you the ultimate picture with one finger erect...you will not only loose your appetite, may even become instantly infertile...that's the 'whities' secret weapon.

 

[Khun Ying Pojaman]

Subhas is going for the Prosecution's weakest spot. That is their star witness' resilience (or is it lack of resilience?) to face the Court and possibly the media and public.

- http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.sg/2012/06/underage-prostitute-case-shrewd.html

So what's Subhas going to ask the star witness if she takes the stand ?

(1) Confirm that she is underage at the time of offence ?
(2) That she did have sex with the Subhas' clients ?
(3) That she didn't make it known to Subhas' clients that she was underage at the time of offence ?

Those were questions of fact and uncontested by Subhas' clients. So what is the purpose of summoning the star witness ? Just to "break her resilience" ? And in order to achieve that, to shame her in public media ?

If Subhas wants to offer his jurisprudential point of view on how the law should apply, getting the star witness to take the stand is not necessary. Subhas is clutching at straws if his intention is to shame her.

 

[scroobal]

This is classic Subhas - publicity for him but nothing material for his client. He will never be considered for SC. The girl is no wallflower. She is a prostitute. She is not going to wilt. She testfying in court is given from day 1.

 

[Ash007]

I'm not lawyer, but in Australia, as long as the girl told you she is not underage you are good to go.

 

[Brightkid]

Your "dinosaur" went into shock & needed therapy!...if granny is bad, wait till the good people here will show you the ultimate picture with one finger erect...you will not only loose your appetite, may even become instantly infertile...that's the 'whities' secret weapon.

Wa!!!! I scared scared now to open any threads that have slightest chance of that one-finger erected picture, least my dinosaur go into shock and require shock therapy!

Any kind soul here please add a warning to title that such pictures may be present ok ? Thank you in advance hor!

 

[Froggy]

Err.. you don't see or feel something wrong with the case?
Pros is underage.. she knows (of course), okt know.. but how will the customers know if the gal n okt dun tell?
This is different from those pedos who go to cambodia or wherever to specifically find underage girls or boys!

Don't tell me you can request to see the gal's IC? Passport? Driving licence?
You think they will show you? Even if they are of legal age to sell their services.. they probably won't show you.
Fear of revealing their real names, addresses will definitely stop them.

The worst thing that could happen is that some gals might pretend to be underage and then threaten their clients who jus had sex wif them.. and ransom them for money. What then?

Somehow the law is severely tilted towards the women.. such that men who cry "rape" will be laughed and scoffed at.
Worse is.. how long ago was it that the ger? Only now they are charged? Cos the police caught the OKT or ger? If they police or anti-vice heard from the OKT and gal that they lied to the customers.. is it still legal to prosecute the men?

Go figure.. I'm still wondering what the men did wrong. The Okt advertised, the ger willingly sold her svcs, the men paid her.. some even RTF her. Was she forced? Was she threatened? I'm still confused.

Errrr bro don't mind I say something about your argument ha. First of all I must say this is a stupid law - can fuck young girl but cannot pay young girl. Ok come back to your post: I think as a business transaction we customer or seller can request for ID. In States if a young waitress ask me a 50 year old man to show ID before she want to serve me drinks I lan lan also must show. My point is those men had the right and even the opportunity to clarify her age but they did not. Ok say she don't want to show then don't buy la simple as that. Your other argument that some girls might pretend to be underage to threaten clients this makes it even more important for clients to check.

The rest I 100% agree with you. Yes the law is unfair. knn rich man pay $1000 for lying to police normal people must go jail. PAP :oIo::oIo::oIo:

 

[streetsmart73]

Your "dinosaur" went into shock & needed therapy!...if granny is bad, wait till the good people here will show you the ultimate picture with one finger erect...you will not only loose your appetite, may even become instantly infertile...that's the 'whities' secret weapon.

hi there


1. hahaha!
2. its 2nd weapon : butchsaw.
3. of course, sbf only weapon: sammy seatless bike!

 

[tonychat]

I'm not lawyer, but in Australia, as long as the girl told you she is not underage you are good to go.

That is because Australia is a real first world country that respect human beings.

sinkieland is a 3rd world cesspool that rot in the pit while trying to behave first world but failed miserably. The govt just do not respect human beings, they see law like a robot, not human.

 

[Nice-Gook]

I'm not lawyer, but in Australia, as long as the girl told you she is not underage you are good to go.

I agree with you on this.

I think that basically is what Subhas wants to highlight .Though I am not impressed by Subhas overblown stature.

Once that is done than it becomes the technicality of the law that would be challenged....a case within a case.That whether our law provides adequately if some one deliberately lies about her age.Than that would lead to how can one ascertain her age given the circumstances. Which is next to impossible except to rely on her words.

You see,this is not a clear cut case.Where an underage 13 old girl is quite obvious physically.....and the fact that the client had done their due diligence by enquiry both with the girlie and pimp is overwhelmingly against the prosecution.Now,let say if she produces a fake birth certificate than what?

I gist will revolve around reasonableness.By which did the client took all the reasonable efforts not to screw an underage girl.....this is what Subhas gonna ask her.And prove that his client took all reasonable steps not screw an underage girl.

The burden is very heavy on the prosecution.In any free and fair judiciary ,the case will be thrown out.But knowing Singapore's beholden judiciary---the verdict most likely be politically right.

 

[Nice-Gook]

In States if a young waitress ask me a 50 year old man to show ID before she want to serve me drinks I lan lan also must show. My point is those men had the right and even the opportunity to clarify her age but they did not. Ok say she don't want to show then don't buy la simple as that.

The comparison is a bad one.Agreed,the seller has the right to withhold even if the man/woman is 70 yrs of age physically without an ID as a proof.

But in prostitution the onus is more on the person who sells the product.Just like the seller cannot sell you a defective or an expired product.That is the reasonableness I am talking about.

Yes,you can go one step further and demand proof.Like say you don't believe the beer is original and ask for certificate of origin.But suppose you don't or the supplier refuses and still you buy a fake beer than the transactions is not complete on that basis alone.It's not like you also at fault what since you have a choice not to buy ,sort of reasoning.

The point I am mooting is reasonableness.And also what a man on the street will do under similar circumstances.And the motive and intent of the client also matters.

You see my point?

 

[red amoeba]

i tend to agree with Suhbas. firstly,calling chicken is not illegal in Singapore, except if its an underaged chicken.

now, if you know she is underaged and you still use her service, then you ought to get slapped.

however, if you are deceived or can prove that you exercise reasonable care to ensure its not underaged, then you have a case to fight.

its the same logic as you purchase something online, do you check if the seller have rightful ownership of the goods - becos buying stolen goods is illegal. but do you verify that seller is not selling stolen goods?

Likewise, who go geylang and check IC / passport of the chicken before using their service? Or is the responsibility on the OKT to ensure the chickens are of age?

the same logic shld be applied here. and if Subhas can prove that the chicken is out to con, then these men are victims of a scam.

 

[Froggy]

The comparison is a bad one.Agreed,the seller has the right to withhold even if the man/woman is 70 yrs of age physically without an ID as a proof.

But in prostitution the onus is more on the person who sells the product.Just like the seller cannot sell you a defective or an expired product.That is the reasonableness I am talking about.

Yes,you can go one step further and demand proof.Like say you don't believe the beer is original and ask for certificate of origin.But suppose you don't or the supplier refuses and still you buy a fake beer than the transactions is not complete on that basis alone.It's not like you also at fault what since you have a choice not to buy ,sort of reasoning.

The point I am mooting is reasonableness.And also what a man on the street will do under similar circumstances.And the motive and intent of the client also matters.

You see my point?

Got your point