Amanda Lockhart is accused of grooming a 14 year old boy who she says that she believed was 17 at the time. She claims that after they had sex, he blackmailed her with naked photos that he had taken of her in the midst of one of their steamy sessions.

Featured Image VIA

The first thing that this story tells us is that women have changed a lot since I was a 14 year old boy. I don’t remember any of them throwing themselves at me, but then maybe that says more about me than it does about the women. Although, I certainly wouldn’t have been complaining. Well, unless she was my aunt, like this unlucky kid we told you about yesterday.

The boy – unnamed for legal reasons – has been described as ‘reluctant’ to accept the offers of Lockhart. Mr Olivares-Chandler, prosecuting, says he only went along with it because:

He didn’t feel like there was anything he could do to stop the defendant’s sexual advances.

Alright then.

Meanwhile, Lockhart’s defence argued that the boy tried to blackmail her with the photos he had taken and turned aggressive, demanding £500 to prevent him from showing the explicit images to his family.

Image VIA

She said that she asked him to prove he was 17 by showing her his passport before she ever did anything with him and that the age on the passport matched up with what he claimed. Meaning one of three things: she’s lying, he has fake ID, or she can’t read for shit.

Once she was satisfied with his age, the court heard how she encouraged him to ‘touch her legs’. This was followed up in January last year by her telling the boy to ‘rub her breasts and have sex’ with her, a request with which he complied, albeit reluctantly.

Reluctantly my ass, mate.

Mr Olivares-Chandler said that the boy took the photos on his phone because he was scared the woman would force him to have sex with her again and he wanted to show his family to prove it had happened.

Image VIA

Lockhart was caught out when he sent the pictures to his cousin who reported the 46 year old to the police.

To be honest, I’ve no idea what the truth is here. It’s probably lucky I’m not on the jury, really. It’s obviously unacceptable that this happened but I do find it hard to believe the boy was completely adverse to the idea. Personally, I reckon they’re both telling porkies because something just doesn’t quite add up.

If this kid think’s he’s had a troubled childhood, he should count himself lucky he didn’t have to see what Danny Dyer did when he was a kid.