A man jailed for fo[u]r years claims he is still a good dad despite offering his son cocaine and trying to get him to have sex with a 26-year-old prostitute.
“Don’t be a p[u]ssy” the man told his son after he organised for two sex workers to visit a hotel in Bromley, Greater London. The young lad, who cannot be named, bravely told his dad “I’m f***ing 13, that’s ridiculous” when he was offered a line of cocaine.
At his sentencing hearing, the man told Croydon Crown Court he is a great father, despite appearing to have some weird and very skewed views on what is good parenting. "I’m a good father,” he insisted, after he pleaded guilty to arranging for a child to engage in sexual activity as well as offering to supply cocaine.
He told the court: "I might not look like it in your eyes. It was only because he was feeling down because he’d broken up with his girlfriend and he said he’d done all that stuff before.
He added: “So the brass sucked his p****. Job done. Whatever.”
… his father paid a woman to sexually assault him and pressured his son to concede. He’s 13 years old. That’s sexual assault no matter the circumstances. His father is fucking sick and should be in prison.
He is:
And won’t be allowed unsupervised contact with children for ten years.
Out of interest, what does UK law have to say about the sex workers in this case? Where I live age of consent is 16, but I believe it’s a defence to have reasonably believed they were over that age. However that defence can only be used to a certain point. I forget if it’s 14 or 12.
It’s unclear in this case because the Daily Star is not known for the quality of their reporting. It is likely that the Crown Prosecution Service felt that the fact that they’d been lied to would make the prospect of a conviction tricky and they decided not to press charges. I wonder if they’d feel the same if the sexes were reversed.
Oh yeah for sure. Possibly also a matter of the bad press they’d receive and the fact that they want the sex workers’ cooperation with prosecuting the father. I was more interested in the hypothetical of could they be charged.
No shit. Should’ve known someone would get rattled by a dumb joke.
The article clearly states the kid was not amused, so the joke part of your comment does not exist.
The joke is that boys/men like being sexually assaulted.
Most kids I knew would think you’re gay or something if you bring up the legal ramifications of teacher banging at the lunchtable
Yes, teenage boys are notorious for brushing off the harm done by the statutory sexual assault of their peers. But if we’re going to start taking sexual violence against men seriously we have to take sexual violence against men seriously. The boy in the article was well below the age of consent and did not want to engage in the sex acts that his father pushed him to perform. If it was a 13 year old girl it would be nearly universally recognized as horrible (even if her friends thought it was really cool and were envious).
Can you explain your joke to me?