Article

2004-02-18

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Lil Dhimmi 2004-02-18 5:28:36 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Police coast guard sergeant Annis Abdullahâs sentence was halved to a year in jail after the 27-year-old received consensual oral sex from a teenage girl in April.

Isn't Anus Abdullah a Saudi prince or something?

Posted by Lil Dhimmi 2004-2-18 5:30:18 PM|| 2004-2-18 5:30:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 He said Penal Code. Huh huh.

Posted by Beavis 2004-2-18 6:04:42 PM|| 2004-2-18 6:04:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 In the interests of accuracy I need to point out that in Singapore oral sex as part of foreplay leading to intercourse is not illegal. Oral sex is illegal only when it does not lead to intercourse.

So remember! When in Singapore, No sucking without F**king!

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-18 6:53:43 PM|| 2004-2-18 6:53:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 phil_b - I know I'm asking for the moon, but can you point to an online source for the penal code reference? I would just love to see the legalistic jargon in context. That could be a major hoot!

Posted by .com 2004-2-18 6:59:52 PM|| 2004-2-18 6:59:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 .com I believe the statute is vaguely worded along the lines of 'un-natural sex acts'. This has then been interpreted by judges.

There was a much talked about (at least by expats who thought it was hilarious) case 5 or 6 years ago where the judge ruled that oral sex as a part of foreplay leading to intercourse was not 'un-natural', and hence not illegal. Given that Singapore has a UK based system of case law, that is now the legal precedent. Hence my earlier statement.

Of course every press report I have read on the subject fails to mention this and anyone not familiar with the history of the subject would assume all oral sex is illegal, which is not the case. An interesting illustration of how blogs can be more reliable than the mainstream press.

regards

Posted by phil_b 2004-2-18 7:19:35 PM|| 2004-2-18 7:19:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Thx! I am constantly amazed by the opportunities the internet & blogosphere offer. Looking back 20+ years, it was simple: if Walter Crankcase, Howard K Smith, Huntley / Brinkley, or the local paper didn't say it, not only did it not happen, but what did happen happened precisely how and why they said it did. Boggles. And in those parts of the world where these awesome sources are anything less than commonplace (includes much of the US), it explains much. Thx, again!

Posted by .com 2004-2-18 8:18:31 PM|| 2004-2-18 8:18:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 So much to learn. So little time.

Posted by Lucky 2004-2-18 11:50:55 PM|| 2004-2-18 11:50:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Would you say this is a heads-up.

Posted by Raptor 2004-2-19 9:44:53 AM|| 2004-2-19 9:44:53 AM|| Front Page Top

19:42 Dqem
21:09 Dqem
21:05 Dqem
09:44 Raptor
08:21 Jennie Taliaferro
02:07 Aris Katsaris
01:53 Aris Katsaris
01:06 Lucky
00:37 Lucky
00:07 Lucky
23:50 Lucky
23:02 Mike Sylwester
22:39 Mike Sylwester
22:15 Korora
22:00 badanov
21:52 Stephen
21:45 Alaska Paul
21:27 Dcreeper
21:24 Lone Ranger
21:18 Hyper
21:12 .com
20:58 .com
20:55 Frank G
20:46 .com