Perverted S'pore Judge admits he surfs Sammyboy porn site and sex forum

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

District Court Judge Mathew Joseph has just admitted that he has visited the Sammyboy sex site, otherwise, how can he note that there were "a lot of activities involving young and vulnerable people"? Surely a learned judge like him would not have relied on third party accounts or hearsay. So, he must have personally check out the site. Only a long and detailed visit or multiple visits to the site would reveal young and vulnerable people. Most of the girls on the site are not that young, and are there to earn a living and make some money in exchange for sex. This is not illegal in singapore. Prostitution is allowed. Does the judge not know this? A person would be vulnerable if they were forced to give sex and not get anything in exchange. So, did the Judge chat online with many of these girls to determine if they are vulnerable, because a cursory visit will not reveal who is and who is not vulnerable. If he did, then he must be a regular visitor to the site.

His comments about the site flourishing is also suspicious. In order to determine whether a site is flourishing or not, he must have visited the site multiple times. Only then can he note whether the visitors are up, advertising banners are up, etc. and make this determination. Judge Joseph, why don't you just admit it. You called chicken many times from Sammyboy, stop being so self righteous, you jack ass.

SINGAPORE: A District Judge in the State Courts raised concerns over the existence of online forum Sammyboy after hearing a case on Friday (Jul 10) related to sex workers advertising their services on the website.


District Judge Mathew Joseph said he was "concerned" with the site, after noting "a lot of activities" were present on the site involving "young, vulnerable people".


"The site seems to be flourishing," he added.

He said this in sentencing 41-year-old Foo Suan Wee to ten weeks' imprisonment for living off the earnings of prostitutes. Foo had pleaded guilty to four charges, with three others taken into consideration.


Judge Joseph asked the prosecution to check with the authorities to see if any actions were being taken against the Sammyboy site. The prosecutor said that he would pass on the feedback to enforcement agencies.


The site was cited in a High Court judgement on Dec 22, 2014, where a freelance photographer helped to advertise sex workers on the website and charged them a fee for his photographic and advertising services.


A check on the Sammyboy website revealed slogans such as "your virtual sex hub" and "commercial sex info at your fingertips". Threads pertaining to sex worker activities in areas, such as Geylang, Keong Saik and Desker, were present.


Sex work is legal in Singapore, but public solicitation for sex and living off the earnings of sex workers are illegal.


S$6,000 MONTHLY PROFIT FOR HELPING WITH PROSTITUTES' ONLINE ADS


Investigations revealed that sometime in September 2013, Foo had become a regular customer of a female Chinese prostitute before she asked him if he could help advertise her services on the Internet.


Foo then posted an advertisement on behalf of the girl on Sammyboy.


Subsequently, the prostitute referred others to Foo to advertise their sexual services. Foo began charging S$200 per month from each prostitute's earnings to advertise on different websites.


Foo would also trawl other websites for prostitutes and contact them via messaging app WeChat to ask if they wanted his help to advertise their sexual services. He would meet them to collect payment in cash before publishing photographs and information on such websites.


To keep the advertisements up on the websites, the prostitutes had to pay a monthly fee of between S$200 and S$300 to the accused. When he was arrested on Dec 19, 2014, the authorities found that Foo had helped advertise the sexual services of about 30 to 40 female prostitutes per month, making a monthly profit of about S$6,000.


Prosecution submitted that the case was aggravated due to the protracted period of advertising, the low-cost and high-multiplier nature of using the Internet, and the high monthly profits that Foo was getting from the offence.


Foo could have received a maximum five years' jail and a S$10,000 fine for his offence.


- CNA

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...e/1974466.html


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.