Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Get a new bike from $50 per week

Lying to women to get sex apparently normal

By johnboy 11 October 2013 45

The ABC has word on efforts by Akis Livas to get the courts to accept that tricking women into sex is OK by the law:

It is alleged Akis Livas, 50, stuffed an envelop with fake money and used it to pay for a prostitute’s services in 2010.

At the initial hearing, Mr Edmonds attempted to explain the argument by giving the example of a husband offering to buy his wife a fur coat in exchange for sex but then never making good on his promise.

He said that if every man who lied to get sex was guilty of rape then Australia would need five times the number of prisons.

They will argue that a fraudulent misrepresentation is not within the legal scope of what Livas is alleged to have done.

In a world where nuclear submarine commanders need to pretend to be special forces soldiers in order to get laid what hope honesty?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to
Lying to women to get sex apparently normal
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
chewy14 8:49 pm 13 Oct 13

lostinbias said :

chewy14 said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Because he’s a poor unfortunate victim who had no choice but to pay for sex. Which left this unfortunate soul with no money left to choose a good lawyer.
Isn’t that how this shirking of responsibility thing works? Or perhaps he simply realised how ridiculous the charge was in the first place?

>poor unfortunate victim

Looks as if we have our own RiotACT MRAs now…

Did you really need me to add the “sarc” tags?

Queen_of_the_Bun 6:44 pm 13 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Because he’s a poor unfortunate victim who had no choice but to pay for sex. Which left this unfortunate soul with no money left to choose a good lawyer.
Isn’t that how this shirking of responsibility thing works? Or perhaps he simply realised how ridiculous the charge was in the first place?

I’m still waiting to read the links for Bimbogeek’s statistics on prostitution.

Poor sad fellow, unable to get laid without money. As someone who hangs out at the Durham, he must be truly sad.

lostinbias 4:21 pm 13 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

Robertson said :

She gave consent based on a contract.

You’re just making crap up now.

And as for the language of her changing her mind, that’s an incorrect interpretation. NSW legislation is better drafted, and puts it in terms of if the consent was originally given the circumstances defined by the provision, the consent is taken to have never been given in the first place.

It’s a case of the consent was never actually given in the eyes of the law.

+1. If Robertson wants to talk about a contract then he could possibly give some thought to this:

The consent of the woman involved was dependent upon terms. One such term was payment. Payment was not recieved therefore terms of consent were broken therefore consent invalid therefore rape.

lostinbias 4:12 pm 13 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Because he’s a poor unfortunate victim who had no choice but to pay for sex. Which left this unfortunate soul with no money left to choose a good lawyer.
Isn’t that how this shirking of responsibility thing works? Or perhaps he simply realised how ridiculous the charge was in the first place?

>poor unfortunate victim

Looks as if we have our own RiotACT MRAs now…

c_c™ 4:12 pm 13 Oct 13

IrishPete said :

It seems the missing L after HTM makes a difference (some techie can probably explain why).

IP

No technical difference between the two, they’re the same file type. I believe .htm is born of the need to play nice with operating systems that have traditionally needed 3 character file extensions.

IrishPete 1:55 pm 13 Oct 13

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Sometimes they remove stuff that is potentially prejudicial, but not this time:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.html

It seems the missing L after HTM makes a difference (some techie can probably explain why).

IP

c_c™ 1:52 pm 13 Oct 13

Robertson said :

She gave consent based on a contract.

You’re just making crap up now.

And as for the language of her changing her mind, that’s an incorrect interpretation. NSW legislation is better drafted, and puts it in terms of if the consent was originally given the circumstances defined by the provision, the consent is taken to have never been given in the first place.

It’s a case of the consent was never actually given in the eyes of the law.

chewy14 1:38 pm 13 Oct 13

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

Because he’s a poor unfortunate victim who had no choice but to pay for sex. Which left this unfortunate soul with no money left to choose a good lawyer.
Isn’t that how this shirking of responsibility thing works? Or perhaps he simply realised how ridiculous the charge was in the first place?

I’m still waiting to read the links for Bimbogeek’s statistics on prostitution.

MERC600 1:19 pm 13 Oct 13

caf said :

I always pretend to be a RiotACT editor to get laid.

Ha .. a very good chuckle ..

Queen_of_the_Bun 10:35 am 13 Oct 13

BimboGeek said :

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

The link didn’t work for me, but the story rings a bell.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why it’s okay for him to change his plea retrospectively but not for her.

IrishPete 9:20 am 13 Oct 13

banco said :

I thought whores had pimps to deal with these situations?

I don’t think pimping is legal.

The defendant is a very silly man though – his sentence would have taken the circumstances into account, and would likely have been derisory. He may be trying to avoid the rape conviction on his record, but really, by now he’s screwed up his reputation anyway. (And this doesn’t answer why he originally pleaded guilty.)

Changing your plea is always possible, but in his circumstances does seem to be an abuse of process. But he seems to be a recidivist in abuse of process.

Comments about this being fraud may or not be true, but it is not fraud he is charged with. I am sure there will be legal argument over whether S67(g) applies – it may not designed for this scenario, probably more cases like the recent one where a woman thought it was her partner.

IP

Robertson 9:10 am 13 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

Robertson said :

She gave consent. She can’t withdraw it retrospectively. If her consent was based on a financial transaction in which she was defrauded then she can make it a civil matter just like anybody else who is the vitcim of fraud.
Making it a rape case makes a mockery of the law.

You don’t know jack about the law but you’re going to lecture everyone about how it should be anyway.

Go look up s 67 of the Crimes Act – 9 sub-sections each detailing a different circumstance where consent is negated. In this case, it’s s 67(g) that applies.

Making it a rape case means following proper process as required by the law.

And you also don’t seem to realise fraud is also a criminal offence, in this case a 422A offence under the Criminal Code.

Do you even read?

She gave consent based on a contract. He didn’t misrepresent anything, he just failed to pay her.

If your interpretation of (g) is valid, then (g) needs to change, because it is ludicrous and an insult to genuine rape victims.

BimboGeek 12:10 am 13 Oct 13

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

I wondered about that too so I dug.

Turns out he never went to his sentencing hearing. He ran away instead and just turned up last month.

He’s out on bail now, on a $6000 surety, because obviously he’s not a flight risk.
http://m.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/fugitive-flees-without-paying-prostitute-plans-to-fight-charges-20130918-2tyw8.htm

Queen_of_the_Bun 10:57 pm 12 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

Robertson said :

She gave consent. She can’t withdraw it retrospectively. If her consent was based on a financial transaction in which she was defrauded then she can make it a civil matter just like anybody else who is the vitcim of fraud.
Making it a rape case makes a mockery of the law.

You don’t know jack about the law but you’re going to lecture everyone about how it should be anyway.

Go look up s 67 of the Crimes Act – 9 sub-sections each detailing a different circumstance where consent is negated. In this case, it’s s 67(g) that applies.

Making it a rape case means following proper process as required by the law.

And you also don’t seem to realise fraud is also a criminal offence, in this case a 422A offence under the Criminal Code.

Do you even read?

c_c™ said :

Robertson said :

She gave consent. She can’t withdraw it retrospectively. If her consent was based on a financial transaction in which she was defrauded then she can make it a civil matter just like anybody else who is the vitcim of fraud.
Making it a rape case makes a mockery of the law.

You don’t know jack about the law but you’re going to lecture everyone about how it should be anyway.

Go look up s 67 of the Crimes Act – 9 sub-sections each detailing a different circumstance where consent is negated. In this case, it’s s 67(g) that applies.

Making it a rape case means following proper process as required by the law.

And you also don’t seem to realise fraud is also a criminal offence, in this case a 422A offence under the Criminal Code.

Do you even read?

He pleaded GUILTY to rape the first time around.
Why can he change his mind and tie up our courts with an appeal, if she is not allowed to refuse consent once she’s worked out that her punter is not going to pay?
So many men on here have said she changed her mind after the fact – what about him? He has already been convicted but he is allowed to change his mind apparently.
Sheesh.

c_c™ 7:24 pm 12 Oct 13

Robertson said :

She gave consent. She can’t withdraw it retrospectively. If her consent was based on a financial transaction in which she was defrauded then she can make it a civil matter just like anybody else who is the vitcim of fraud.
Making it a rape case makes a mockery of the law.

You don’t know jack about the law but you’re going to lecture everyone about how it should be anyway.

Go look up s 67 of the Crimes Act – 9 sub-sections each detailing a different circumstance where consent is negated. In this case, it’s s 67(g) that applies.

Making it a rape case means following proper process as required by the law.

And you also don’t seem to realise fraud is also a criminal offence, in this case a 422A offence under the Criminal Code.

Do you even read?

banco 7:08 pm 12 Oct 13

I thought whores had pimps to deal with these situations?

Robertson 6:42 pm 12 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

BimboGeek said :

chewy14 said :

Its pretty far out there, but maybe they could choose to not be a prostitute?

You make me embarrased to call myself human.
75% began as children
85% report a family history of violence during their childhood
95% have drug addiction issues
They began as children because they became homeless, were pimped out by a family member, or perhaps the “boyfriend” that helped them escape family violence turned out to be a pimp.
Through the unfortunate circumstances of their history they earned enough money to truly become educated, free and powerful, only to find their only option is to become an “ex-whore” and thus remain as detested and marginalised as they are now.
And yet your only contribution is “herp derp she shouldn’t be a prostitute!”
Go sniff a butt.

Those figures are total BS. You’re the one who should be embarrassed. Absolutely disgusting contribution to the issue.

chewy14 said :

My bush lawyer skills are showing but with the above I was actually wondering whether this is a civil rather than criminal matter.

The issue making the news is the criminal matter. Whether the woman also seeks a civil claim is separate, and can be in addition to the criminal matter.

She gave consent. She can’t withdraw it retrospectively. If her consent was based on a financial transaction in which she was defrauded then she can make it a civil matter just like anybody else who is the vitcim of fraud.
Making it a rape case makes a mockery of the law.

Queen_of_the_Bun 4:40 pm 12 Oct 13

c_c™ said :

BimboGeek said :

chewy14 said :

Its pretty far out there, but maybe they could choose to not be a prostitute?

You make me embarrased to call myself human.
75% began as children
85% report a family history of violence during their childhood
95% have drug addiction issues
They began as children because they became homeless, were pimped out by a family member, or perhaps the “boyfriend” that helped them escape family violence turned out to be a pimp.
Through the unfortunate circumstances of their history they earned enough money to truly become educated, free and powerful, only to find their only option is to become an “ex-whore” and thus remain as detested and marginalised as they are now.
And yet your only contribution is “herp derp she shouldn’t be a prostitute!”
Go sniff a butt.

Those figures are total BS. You’re the one who should be embarrassed. Absolutely disgusting contribution to the issue.

chewy14 said :

My bush lawyer skills are showing but with the above I was actually wondering whether this is a civil rather than criminal matter.

The issue making the news is the criminal matter. Whether the woman also seeks a civil claim is separate, and can be in addition to the criminal matter.

Let me repeat – this man pleaded guilty originally and was sentenced. This is not about the woman seeking a civil claim. This is about a man getting legal advice and lodging an appeal.

Why someone who admitted guilt three years ago and would have already served his sentence by now chooses to put himself through the extra embarrassment of more people finding out that he not only has to pay for sex but is a fraudster astounds me.

But then, maybe he’s innocent. Of what, I’m not sure.

Henry82 4:25 pm 12 Oct 13

Sounds like fraud to me.

c_c™ 2:18 pm 12 Oct 13

BimboGeek said :

chewy14 said :

Its pretty far out there, but maybe they could choose to not be a prostitute?

You make me embarrased to call myself human.
75% began as children
85% report a family history of violence during their childhood
95% have drug addiction issues
They began as children because they became homeless, were pimped out by a family member, or perhaps the “boyfriend” that helped them escape family violence turned out to be a pimp.
Through the unfortunate circumstances of their history they earned enough money to truly become educated, free and powerful, only to find their only option is to become an “ex-whore” and thus remain as detested and marginalised as they are now.
And yet your only contribution is “herp derp she shouldn’t be a prostitute!”
Go sniff a butt.

Those figures are total BS. You’re the one who should be embarrassed. Absolutely disgusting contribution to the issue.

chewy14 said :

My bush lawyer skills are showing but with the above I was actually wondering whether this is a civil rather than criminal matter.

The issue making the news is the criminal matter. Whether the woman also seeks a civil claim is separate, and can be in addition to the criminal matter.

Queen_of_the_Bun 1:42 pm 12 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

BimboGeek said :

chewy14 said :

Its pretty far out there, but maybe they could choose to not be a prostitute?

You make me embarrased to call myself human.
75% began as children
85% report a family history of violence during their childhood
95% have drug addiction issues
They began as children because they became homeless, were pimped out by a family member, or perhaps the “boyfriend” that helped them escape family violence turned out to be a pimp.
Through the unfortunate circumstances of their history they earned enough money to truly become educated, free and powerful, only to find their only option is to become an “ex-whore” and thus remain as detested and marginalised as they are now.
And yet your only contribution is “herp derp she shouldn’t be a prostitute!”
Go sniff a butt.

And you make me embarrassed to think we live in the same universe. Actually, that may be a bit harsh, i simply think you’re too willing to see a victim instead of a human adult personally responsible for their own decisions. Even if they’re bad ones.

Now, can you provide links for those stats please? I’d be interested to read more.

Then, putting aside the “forced” issue which if it was occurring I think we can all agree is abhorrent, do you have one shred of evidence that this women couldn’t have simply chosen not to be a prostitute?

Even if the choice is become a prostitute or live on the dole, it’s still a choice. We have a fairly decent welfare system in this country and no one is going to stave from being out of work. Could we do better? Hell yes we could, but that doesn’t negate the fact that all of us make choices about the direction of our lives everyday, we all have our price.

And correct me if I’m wrong here but “ex whores” aren’t branded physically are they? Please tell me how you can detect them for all this marginalisation?

You might have missed this recent survey into poverty levels in the ACT
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/capitals-cycle-of-poverty-20131010-2vbrl.html

But aside from the arguments about why people become sex workers, just remember – the defendant originally admitted guilt and was convicted of rape. Are you saying it’s a man’s prerogative to change his mind?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site