Brisbane dad hired underage girl for son in Thailand

[Eloelo]

Oh my god you have all gone mad

There was no under age girl in this, she is a figment of all your wild minds ( except a few who still have working brains )

in posting 93 a correction was made on this web site from the report on Sky News Australia that threw this OP Posting out the window

Lets go again

The so called crime happened in 2012

The compaint was made by husbands wifes solicitor early this year

a full hearing was set for April 24th ( this month)

The defendant on solicitors advice decided to pleaded guilty for a lessor charge

The case went back to court early as the case was no longer contested

At no time during the court case was the girls age questioned or given, as the charge was on allowing and abetting an under age male to have sex, not haveing sex with an under age girl

As the case had very little to do with the act he was charged under, even the judge said this was a bizzare case, but as he pleaded guilty he got a good behaviour bond

All this about under age sex with a Thai girl, I can only imagine was to stir up the BxxS,,,, origional press editorial

Their are those here who could see this was impossible, as there is no way the girls age could be varified, so their was no case

The case was in Australia, so all this BS that Thai police had any thing to do with it is pure BS at best

He is on a $2000 dollar good behaviour bond, so if he breaks the bond he will have to pay the $2000, he did not and will not go to jail no matter how much you may want him to

Conclusion

If I said that the world is not round but flat, the reason we not fall off

there would be those who agree and those that are against

some people just do not know when they are being set up here on TVF

You really seem to be justifying this guy. He was charged under a piece of legislation designed in Australia to stop Australians going to places like S/E Asia and in this case Thailand and procuring young children for the purpose of sex. The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex with his son thus contributing to the child sex slavery industry which this very same piece of legislation was designed to help fight.

Had the son done it himself then maybe just maybe there would not be this problem. The offence is that dad bought a child to feed to his son.

Many are talking about Thai law and this has absolutely nothing to do with Thai law or the age for prostitution in Thailand or the age of consent in Thailand. It is 100% about Australian law and if an Australian procures a person under the age of 16 for sex either for yourself or another then you can and will be charged under Australian law. Regardless of what country you do it in.

The laws were designed by politicians in Australia so they could control the fine upstanding members of the judiciary system whom the pollies know like to play with boys and men!

[cpofc]

Father and Son Bonding in the 21st Century. Bit different to my day.

Wouldn't matter whether the girl was under age or not. (don't take that the wrong way please) Although how they knew her real age, would be open for debate, unless either the Father, or the Son mentioned it in their statements to the police. But then how would either the father or the son be sure of how old the girl was. or maybe the acrimonious divorce has something to do with this?

Whether or not teenagers are sexually active is no excuse. Being drunk is no excuse. Personally I believe the father probably had it all figured before they went drinking and whoring. He was on a mission.

The man is supposed to be a responsible parent and guardian! These are not the actions of one. There is a legal age of consent and prior to reaching that legal age of consent the father, in this case, was the person in charge. He was the (less than) responsible adult in charge. He failed miserably. Teaching your CHILD the facts of life should not involve practical lessons with prostitutes. It is both illegal and immoral. Would he have done the same thing in Australia? No. Why? Because it would be illegal. And it would be very much illegal for the hired sex worker too.

He obviously left his brains, and his morals behind when he stepped on board the plane in Brisbane. Couldn't wait another 5 years or so, he wanted a 'blokey', 'mates', relationship with his 13 YO son now. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. This is the wrong way. Probably couldn't wait to get back to the CFMEU Crib Room to brag to all the mates about it.

Whatever happened to the father and son activities such as fishing, camping, Go karting etc.?

If a mother had done the same thing with her under age daughter there would be people screaming from the rooftops!

I remember the bloke (Australian) who owned the 21 Club (Bar) in Mabini Street, Ermita, Manila, in the late 70s. His son, a very big lad, like his father, who looked much older than 14, came to stay with him for the XMAS Holidays. The kid ran 'amok' for over a month, he wasn't paying though. There were no shortage of Filippina 'cougars' who wanted to accommodate him.

Father and Son Bonding? How many can say they have a photo of their first beer in a pub with their old man. The Whistle Stop Bar, Perth, W.A.

March 1969, 15 Years Old. (dad died in 79)

12 months to the day almost, later, Mar 1970. I was set loose, unsupervised, in the flesh pots of SE East Asia, starting with Subic Bay, PI. It all went downhill from there. without any assistance from my father whatsoever.

[3NUMBAS]

if a thai did this upcountry for his boy they wouldn't bat an eyelid as up in issan its no big deal ,and he wouldnt be bothered by anyone

in fact i know of a head teacher of a school who runs a Isaan brothel/bar staffed by underage jailbait and he hasnt been busted yet,very strange business going on

Edited April 15, 2014 by 3NUMBAS

[tezzainoz]

sex with a girl under 21 is illegal only if she is getting paid for it

so with this fact she could have been 20 years old

we have no idea of the truth or any facts

Underage = 21 to have sex for money

The defensible part is the "underage girl".

Absolutely no evidence of her age at all, nor can I see any way of finding her age.

Seems unlikely she was under the age of 16 (Australian law).

But may have been she was under the age of 20 (Thai law for prostitution).

But I guess the story sounds worse if they say "underage girl".

Not that it affects this case, but the age of consent for prostitution in Thailand is 18 not 21.

I looked back on my posting to see I wrote 21

Sorry Brewster is right the age is 18 not 21

as I was writing in 2 posts at the same time I put the wrong figure dow

Thank you Brewster for correcting me

[Showbags]

if a thai did this upcountry for his boy they wouldn't bat an eyelid as up in issan its no big deal ,and he wouldnt be bothered by anyone

in fact i know of a head teacher of a school who runs a Isaan brothel/bar staffed by underage jailbait and he hasnt been busted yet,very strange business going on

and you standby and what ?.....approve ?

[mrtoad]

It seems those that a number of posters have spent time out in Isan seem to think its acceptable. This thread has slid into the sewer.

[tezzainoz]

Oh my god you have all gone mad

There was no under age girl in this, she is a figment of all your wild minds ( except a few who still have working brains )

in posting 93 a correction was made on this web site from the report on Sky News Australia that threw this OP Posting out the window

Lets go again

The so called crime happened in 2012

The compaint was made by husbands wifes solicitor early this year

a full hearing was set for April 24th ( this month)

The defendant on solicitors advice decided to pleaded guilty for a lessor charge

The case went back to court early as the case was no longer contested

At no time during the court case was the girls age questioned or given, as the charge was on allowing and abetting an under age male to have sex, not haveing sex with an under age girl

As the case had very little to do with the act he was charged under, even the judge said this was a bizzare case, but as he pleaded guilty he got a good behaviour bond

All this about under age sex with a Thai girl, I can only imagine was to stir up the BxxS,,,, origional press editorial

Their are those here who could see this was impossible, as there is no way the girls age could be varified, so their was no case

The case was in Australia, so all this BS that Thai police had any thing to do with it is pure BS at best

He is on a $2000 dollar good behaviour bond, so if he breaks the bond he will have to pay the $2000, he did not and will not go to jail no matter how much you may want him to

Conclusion

If I said that the world is not round but flat, the reason we not fall off

there would be those who agree and those that are against

some people just do not know when they are being set up here on TVF

You really seem to be justifying this guy. He was charged under a piece of legislation designed in Australia to stop Australians going to places like S/E Asia and in this case Thailand and procuring young children for the purpose of sex. The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex with his son thus contributing to the child sex slavery industry which this very same piece of legislation was designed to help fight.

Had the son done it himself then maybe just maybe there would not be this problem. The offence is that dad bought a child to feed to his son.

Many are talking about Thai law and this has absolutely nothing to do with Thai law or the age for prostitution in Thailand or the age of consent in Thailand. It is 100% about Australian law and if an Australian procures a person under the age of 16 for sex either for yourself or another then you can and will be charged under Australian law. Regardless of what country you do it in.

The laws were designed by politicians in Australia so they could control the fine upstanding members of the judiciary system whom the pollies know like to play with boys and men!

See what I mean, even you prove to someone that the world is not flat they still keep argueing

(The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex)

B..S..t The man was convicted of abetting the sexual act of his underage son ...... NOT A UNDER AGE GIRL

An Underage girl we assume never existed, and this has been made clear even in the posting you are replying to, except in your imagination

No one is arguing he did the wrong thing here, there was no underage girl, she was probable 25 for all we know

Please put brain in to gear, before fingers onto keyboard

Edited April 15, 2014 by tezzainoz

[Shurup]

You really seem to be justifying this guy. He was charged under a piece of legislation designed in Australia to stop Australians going to places like S/E Asia and in this case Thailand and procuring young children for the purpose of sex. The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex with his son thus contributing to the child sex slavery industry which this very same piece of legislation was designed to help fight.

Had the son done it himself then maybe just maybe there would not be this problem. The offence is that dad bought a child to feed to his son.

Many are talking about Thai law and this has absolutely nothing to do with Thai law or the age for prostitution in Thailand or the age of consent in Thailand. It is 100% about Australian law and if an Australian procures a person under the age of 16 for sex either for yourself or another then you can and will be charged under Australian law. Regardless of what country you do it in.

You sound like a broken record.

[icare999]

That's one cool dad

and your one sick dude

[Artisi]

You really seem to be justifying this guy. He was charged under a piece of legislation designed in Australia to stop Australians going to places like S/E Asia and in this case Thailand and procuring young children for the purpose of sex. The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex with his son thus contributing to the child sex slavery industry which this very same piece of legislation was designed to help fight.

Had the son done it himself then maybe just maybe there would not be this problem. The offence is that dad bought a child to feed to his son.

Many are talking about Thai law and this has absolutely nothing to do with Thai law or the age for prostitution in Thailand or the age of consent in Thailand. It is 100% about Australian law and if an Australian procures a person under the age of 16 for sex either for yourself or another then you can and will be charged under Australian law. Regardless of what country you do it in.

You sound like a broken record.

Yes he does sound like a broken record - but it's a fact re the Australian law - and that you can't deny.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Artisi

[alphaboy123]

That's one cool dad

Absolutely!

What a whole lot of <deleted>!

Every sane father on the face on the planet will want to teach his son

manhood. Naturally, having sex with women is a part of that upbringing,

& that's what whores are there for.

Dad did nothing wrong at all.

& it is no business of the mother anyway. She knows nothing about boys.

A boy will not learn manhood from a woman. She just wanted to create

trouble.

Unfortunately, in feminist-dominated Australia (and the UK & US), manly

behaviour is frowned upon, ridiculed, demonized & to be 'castrated'. In

such sickening societies, boys are to be brought up as if they were females, ...

& the gayer & the more moronic, the better

[GuestHouse]

Still waiting for Tezza to put up evidence to back the claim he made at post #93.

It becomes increasingly clear he cannot.

[Shurup]

Oh my god you have all gone mad

There was no under age girl in this, she is a figment of all your wild minds ( except a few who still have working brains )

in posting 93 a correction was made on this web site from the report on Sky News Australia that threw this OP Posting out the window

In post 93 you yourself made the claim to have heard from Brisbane, I have asked you to provide the source for the claim you made at #93 in order that we can read for ourselves.

You have failed to provide any verifiable source - you expect us to take your word for your own claim as a fact.

Provide the verifiable source, a report from the court proceedings or news report please - A phone call or email from a mate back home does not cut-it.

So, again, in response to the claim you made at #93.

Please provide the source so that we can read for ourselves.

Here:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/is-this-father-who-pleaded-guilty-to-procuring-a-child-to-engage-in-sex-overseas-the-grubbiest-dad-in-australia/story-fnihsrf2-1226884249331

Not a single mention of girl's age. Just a "prostitute".

[Shurup]

Still waiting for Tezza to put up evidence to back the claim he made at post #93.

It becomes increasingly clear he cannot.

See a post just above this

[tezzainoz]

Oh my god you have all gone mad

There was no under age girl in this, she is a figment of all your wild minds ( except a few who still have working brains )

in posting 93 a correction was made on this web site from the report on Sky News Australia that threw this OP Posting out the window

I post 93 you yourself made the claim the have heard from Brisbane, I have asked you to provide the source for the claim you made at #93 in order that we can read for ourselves.

You have failed to provide any verifiable source - you expect us to take your word for your own claim as a fact.

Provide the verifiable source, a report from the court proceedings or news report please - A phone call or email from a mate back home does not cut-it.

So, again, in response to the claim you made at #93.

Please provide the source so that we can read for ourselves.

Even if said girl was not underage, the son is only 13 and therefore considered a child, quite rightly. The father, an adult, paid for a girl to have sex with his underage son; that in itself would be classed as a crime.

Tezza has obviously been hitting the Lao Khao hard over the Songkran, and not letting his wife edit his posts.

you really are a case are you not

This is posting 193

If you had not gone to sleep you would have see in Posting169 I made it very clear where the information comes from

proving all you have just said is pure BS

No only tat but look at the facts brought up by the TVF members

and you believe that the Australian court would convict a man having sex with a minor with no poof

what happend to the innocent until prove guilty

We owned up to abetting the act of sex with his son

why do you think the magistrate said it was a bizzare case

Oh I see you believe all courts are doing illegal judgment

Have you been folowing Thai politics to closely

Now who is on the Lao Khao

Earlier to day I mad a mistake on one of my postings and apoliges to my fellow members for incorrect information

Are you man enough to do the same to me

Well I will not hold my breath

[Showbags]

You really seem to be justifying this guy. He was charged under a piece of legislation designed in Australia to stop Australians going to places like S/E Asia and in this case Thailand and procuring young children for the purpose of sex. The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex with his son thus contributing to the child sex slavery industry which this very same piece of legislation was designed to help fight.

Had the son done it himself then maybe just maybe there would not be this problem. The offence is that dad bought a child to feed to his son.

Many are talking about Thai law and this has absolutely nothing to do with Thai law or the age for prostitution in Thailand or the age of consent in Thailand. It is 100% about Australian law and if an Australian procures a person under the age of 16 for sex either for yourself or another then you can and will be charged under Australian law. Regardless of what country you do it in.

You sound like a broken record.

Yes he does sound like a broken record - but it's a fact re the Australian law - and that you can't deny.

If its a fact...how old exactly was this girl ?

[tezzainoz]

if a thai did this upcountry for his boy they wouldn't bat an eyelid as up in issan its no big deal ,and he wouldnt be bothered by anyone

in fact i know of a head teacher of a school who runs a Isaan brothel/bar staffed by underage jailbait and he hasnt been busted yet,very strange business going on

and you standby and what ?.....approve ?

well he is not like you who comes to Thailand as a guest and then demands they must change all their customs for you

Right or wrong this is there country and if we not like the heat in the kitchen

we all know what we can do

[mrtoad]

Oh my god you have all gone mad

There was no under age girl in this, she is a figment of all your wild minds ( except a few who still have working brains )

in posting 93 a correction was made on this web site from the report on Sky News Australia that threw this OP Posting out the window

I post 93 you yourself made the claim the have heard from Brisbane, I have asked you to provide the source for the claim you made at #93 in order that we can read for ourselves.

You have failed to provide any verifiable source - you expect us to take your word for your own claim as a fact.

Provide the verifiable source, a report from the court proceedings or news report please - A phone call or email from a mate back home does not cut-it.

So, again, in response to the claim you made at #93.

Please provide the source so that we can read for ourselves.

Even if said girl was not underage, the son is only 13 and therefore considered a child, quite rightly. The father, an adult, paid for a girl to have sex with his underage son; that in itself would be classed as a crime.

Tezza has obviously been hitting the Lao Khao hard over the Songkran, and not letting his wife edit his posts.

you really are a case are you not

This is posting 193

If you had not gone to sleep you would have see in Posting169 I made it very clear where the information comes from

proving all you have just said is pure BS

No only tat but look at the facts brought up by the TVF members

and you believe that the Australian court would convict a man having sex with a minor with no poof

what happend to the innocent until prove guilty

We owned up to abetting the act of sex with his son

why do you think the magistrate said it was a bizzare case

Oh I see you believe all courts are doing illegal judgment

Have you been folowing Thai politics to closely

Now who is on the Lao Khao

Earlier to day I mad a mistake on one of my postings and apoliges to my fellow members for incorrect information

Are you man enough to do the same to me

Well I will not hold my breath

Sorry, but it is you that has clearly been out in the sun too long. Apologise for what exactly?

Australian court found him guilty, that's a fact.

Father paying a girl for sex with a 13 year old boy appears to be a fact. Dress it up as you wish, but there are few that seem to be in agreement with your take on it.

[Shurup]

So it all came to the BS reporting (no underage girl!) and a bitchy mother who used the case against her ex-husband to get some leverage.

Opinions on whether it was right for the boy or wrong are very different among the TV members, too bad we don't know what the boy thinks of it. I know if I were him, I would have wanted it and welcomed it, many are of the same opinions, some particular raving members are absolutely against it.

In the end I'd have to agree with @Konini and few others who suggested it's not good for even a boy if he's mentally not ready.

All the PC of the Western countries bringing up a lot of soft, mama boy type of boys, many of them won't even be mentally ready by the age 20-25 with all the BS propaganda and over-caring parents.

Yes there's a law, but in the end it only matters what the boy himself makes out of it, and we have no idea....

Next story please...

[nontabury]

What I just cannot understand about this thread is the number of people who continually mention that the girl was underage, yet there is no proof of that, she could easily have been 17 years old or even 57 yrs old. Nobody knows so why keep mentioning her age.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Shurup]

You really seem to be justifying this guy. He was charged under a piece of legislation designed in Australia to stop Australians going to places like S/E Asia and in this case Thailand and procuring young children for the purpose of sex. The guy did this, he procured a female a minor to have sex with his son thus contributing to the child sex slavery industry which this very same piece of legislation was designed to help fight.

Had the son done it himself then maybe just maybe there would not be this problem. The offence is that dad bought a child to feed to his son.

Many are talking about Thai law and this has absolutely nothing to do with Thai law or the age for prostitution in Thailand or the age of consent in Thailand. It is 100% about Australian law and if an Australian procures a person under the age of 16 for sex either for yourself or another then you can and will be charged under Australian law. Regardless of what country you do it in.

You sound like a broken record.

Yes he does sound like a broken record - but it's a fact re the Australian law - and that you can't deny.

If its a fact...how old exactly was this girl ?

Don't know and don't care - there was no underage girl there so your question is irrelevant.

See the link in post #193

[Showbags]

You sound like a broken record.

Yes he does sound like a broken record - but it's a fact re the Australian law - and that you can't deny.

If its a fact...how old exactly was this girl ?

Don't know and don't care - there was no underage girl there so your question is irrelevant.

See the link in post #193

Not irrelevant as a few people keep referring to it as the main priority of the story....an ex copper for one.....so entirely relevant.

[tezzainoz]

To Tezza:

Sorry, but it is you that has clearly been out in the sun too long. Apologise for what exactly?

Australian court found him guilty, that's a fact.

Father paying a girl for sex with a 13 year old boy appears to be a fact. Dress it up as you wish, but there are few that seem to be in agreement with your take on it.

..........................................................

This is getting stupid

here we have member to lazy to use the search function

and he is arguing with members who agree's with him

[chooka]

What I just cannot understand about this thread is the number of people who continually mention that the girl was underage, yet there is no proof of that, she could easily have been 17 years old or even 57 yrs old. Nobody knows so why keep mentioning her age.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

When you refer to under age girls in Australia it is under the age of consent, 57 is over age. I have been in the police in Australia for 23 yrs and I can assure you 150% underage means under 16.

[Shurup]

What I just cannot understand about this thread is the number of people who continually mention that the girl was underage, yet there is no proof of that, she could easily have been 17 years old or even 57 yrs old. Nobody knows so why keep mentioning her age.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

When you refer to under age girls in Australia it is under the age of consent, 57 is over age. I have been in the police in Australia for 23 yrs and I can assure you 150% underage means under 16.

And your point?

You haven't said anything constructive to the post you quoted.

[toybits]

Sick in the mind... No other word for it. Oh! Criminal!!

[Shurup]

Don't know and don't care - there was no underage girl there so your question is irrelevant.

See the link in post #193

Not irrelevant as a few people keep referring to it as the main priority of the story....an ex copper for one.....so entirely relevant.

Was the said ex-cooper investigating the case himself? No? Then it doesn't mater what cooper said.

Read the darn article from a link in post 193! No underage girls involved so the prostitute's age is irrelevant!

[chooka]

What I just cannot understand about this thread is the number of people who continually mention that the girl was underage, yet there is no proof of that, she could easily have been 17 years old or even 57 yrs old. Nobody knows so why keep mentioning her age.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

When you refer to under age girls in Australia it is under the age of consent, 57 is over age. I have been in the police in Australia for 23 yrs and I can assure you 150% underage means under 16.

And your point?

You haven't said anything constructive to the post you quoted.

I will try again

Under age in Australia means "Under the age of Consent." That means she was under 16 years of age, less than 16 years old.

It doesn't matter what country in the world you go to if you procure a child under the age of consent for sex for either yourself or another then you can be charged under Australia law.

Does that help? Do you see my point about underage now?

It doesn't matter if she was aged between 10 and 15 and 350 days still under 16 so the term underaged in Australia means exactly that, under 16 yrs old.

Edited April 15, 2014 by chooka

[Showbags]

Coppers...ex or not...really like to dodge the relevant crap when it suits them....

[tezzainoz]

What I just cannot understand about this thread is the number of people who continually mention that the girl was underage, yet there is no proof of that, she could easily have been 17 years old or even 57 yrs old. Nobody knows so why keep mentioning her age.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

When you refer to under age girls in Australia it is under the age of consent, 57 is over age. I have been in the police in Australia for 23 yrs and I can assure you 150% underage means under 16.

And your point?

You haven't said anything constructive to the post you quoted.

I will try again

Under age in Australia means "Under the age of Consent." That means she was under 16 years of age, less than 16 years old.

It doesn't matter what country in the world you go to if you procure a child under the age of consent for sex for either yourself or another then you can be charged under Australia law.

Does that help? Do you see my point about underage now?

It doesn't matter if she was aged between 10 and 15 and 350 days still under 16 so the term underaged in Australia means exactly that, under 16 yrs old.

PLEASE LISTEN

there was no underage girl involved, even if you want one

this has been stated over and over again