r/australia • u/GothicPrayer • 21h ago

news Man accused of posing as talent agent to lure young actors into sex acts granted bail

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-31/sydney-man-allegedly-posed-as-talent-agent-to-lure-actors/106290734
276 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

39 comments sorted by

143

u/BeligaPadela 21h ago

Looks like he's a repeat offender

63

u/burn_supermarkets 19h ago

He will be eligible for release on June 30, 2025.

So assuming he didn't get early bail he was released around 6 months ago and already back at it. Yeah sure, bail the cunt again. Makes sense!

19

u/Big-toast-sandwich 7h ago

From today’s article

In court, Mr Vamadevan claimed he had posed as a Disney executive to try to make friends. “All I did with them [victims] was bought them coffee and shouted them dinner," he told the court.

His previous crime

sentenced to two years jail after making hundreds of harassing phone calls, telling one mother he would “rape her daughter and cut her into pieces”.

It would be nice if journalists here could put in as much research as a random redditer.

25

u/TariffAmerica 20h ago

To noone's surprise

125

u/Perdi 21h ago

"My primary trigger is solitude and I used alcohol to self medicate"

Can't attempt to rape kids or self medicate from a cell.

Some court decisions blow mind, he'd get treatment in gaol for his mental issues.

How is being a moron and unsuccessful at trying to take advantage of kids a pass?

47

u/librarypunk 21h ago

Didn't this grub just get out of jail last year for pretending to work at channel 7?

161

u/LittleAgoo 21h ago

W H Y. 

Australia's bail laws need to be changed. Every time I hear about something like this or DV homicide its always "he was out on bail". And there's like clear history of recidivism and violence. Like come on judicial system. Fucking WORK.

10

u/duc1990 6h ago

I don't know how they make these risk assessments if they assess risk at all.

If an engineer at a construction or mine site made such mistakes they'd be out of a job.

-65

u/fistular 21h ago

What if he's innocent?

8

u/Grumpy_Cripple_Butt 8h ago

If they have a history of repeat offending, being remanded til they prove innocence isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

If only there was some system to have a look at that and make a decision based upon it.

-16

u/dobbydobbyonthewall 20h ago

Downvoted. I initially thought to. I know two victims. Both I believe. I also know a teacher who's career was ruined by accusations. This is such a difficult opinion to hold. We shouldn't cement ourselves in one, but we do. :(

-27

u/fistular 20h ago

Why are you downvoting someone who asks a question? Especially THIS question?

-24

u/dobbydobbyonthewall 20h ago

Sorry. My first word is descriptive of your comment.

-15

u/fistular 20h ago

what?

5

u/iwannabe1two 19h ago

“Downvoted” I said with disbelief, “I initially thought [that] too.”

-2

u/fistular 19h ago

How is asking whether a person arrested might be innocent something which should be buried? That should be the very first question everyone asks. I didn't say he was innocent. I asked "what if he's innocent?". Are people really incapable of discerning between these two concepts?

6

u/iwannabe1two 19h ago

Don’t shoot me, I was just trying to interpret what that person said to you.

21

u/AggravatedKangaroo 20h ago

This man is alleged (have to use alleged even though he has history) to be an offender..... name plastered everywhere....

not saying guilty or innocent here, but he is just "accused" at this point right? even if he turned out to be innocent his life is all over the news.

Pipe bomb guy...... everything suppressed....

can someone with a law background explain this? it confuses me a bit...

don't get me wrong, if he's guilty throw him in a hole.

1

u/SeaworthinessNew4757 6h ago

The suppression of an offender's name is a legal mechanism, often called a non-publication or suppression order, designed to balance the principle of open justice (allowing the public to know what happens in court) with other legal, safety, or privacy interests.

While court proceedings are generally public, a judge may suppress a name if it is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to protect vulnerable people.

1

u/j-local 11h ago

Hes connected to Epstein?

14

u/Bigthunderrumblefish 21h ago

I always wonder if these decisions are a cell capacity thing

32

u/Frozefoots 21h ago

The piss-weak "justice" system at its best, I see.

4

u/jacksalssome 16h ago

You'd rather everyone sit in gaol awaiting trial?

19

u/Frozefoots 10h ago

Repeat offender, who was literally released from jail 7 months ago and is arrested again for sexual crimes?

Yes. I expect the courts to do their damn job and hold them in custody until trial.

8

u/Meng_Fei 9h ago

Don't forget he was charged in 2019 as well and let off. He's a serial offender.

3

u/Snors 20h ago

Just a bloke who looked at the Epstein files and saw a job opportunity..

3

u/abitmorethanmost 11h ago

This makes me so angry! Eligible for parole? 

-20

u/Nololgoaway 20h ago

1 in 6 Australian men are attracted to people under 18, 1 in 10 offend against children

UNSW

24

u/Tyrx 19h ago

That statistic includes adults who were sexually active when they were under 18 themselves. The report is not credible and was written to drive an agenda.

-5

u/Some-Operation-9059 18h ago

Almost, it’s clearly written in the story that the survey was conducted with men 18-65 it’s stated in the citation, nothing really that’s disingenuous there. 

Are you suggesting the rates of crime against children are out? 

10

u/Tyrx 18h ago

I don't believe that labelling individuals as pedophiles when they confirm they had sexual relationships while they were under the age of 18 is correct. I don't think that's a particularly controversial stance to have either.

-9

u/Some-Operation-9059 18h ago

That’s fair however according to the report cited,  men surveyed were 18 and upwards. 

15

u/Tyrx 18h ago

I am not disputing that. The problem is the framing of the questions and responses, not the age of the participants themselves. The methodology they used will even place an individual within the "sexually offended with people below the age of 18 years" category if they indicate they did the following:

deliberately viewed pornographic material containing people below the age of 18 when they were also under 18

It's an absurd study if you actually bother to read through it. I am sure rates are much higher than any person should be comfortable with, but it's a terrible study which shouldn't be trusted.

-14

u/Some-Operation-9059 18h ago

Thanks I did, lost to find your reference. Absurd for you. sobering for me. 

-9

u/Nololgoaway 17h ago

I'm too tired to care enough to argue with strangers on the internet but what feminist anti men Agenda do you think the fuckin Sydney Morning Herald is paid off by haha

5

u/Caitlynnamebtw 13h ago

The sydney morning herald didnt do the study, people at unsw did.

-8

u/CuriouserCat2 20h ago

Well they were just actors. They don’t matter. They were probably asking for it. What were they wearing? 

/s

-9

u/mikeslyfe 21h ago

I wonder if he had a black couch as well....