man who cannot understand the issue of consent must be allowed to pursue sexual relationships

a man with advanced dementia was aggressively sexually assaulting women with advanced dementia in the same dementia unit. Groping genitals under clothing, attempting to kiss, pinning down etc.

And here's the case for single-sex adult care units.

how dare women be suggested to be hired out so a sexually abusive man in his 90s can have his ‘needs’ met and to provide a solution to make other women safe?

Yet libfems think throwing some women under the bus like that is a solution and call us "whorephobic" for suggesting that all women have the right to be safe, with "all women" including the ones they want to throw under the bus. Pro-tip: it's not us who are "whorephobic"...

The LA have to refer to the Court of Protection to justify why they are restricting the freedom of someone who lacks capacity.
Reminds me when I was in this area of work, a man with advanced dementia was aggressively sexually assaulting women with advanced dementia in the same dementia unit. Groping genitals under clothing, attempting to kiss, pinning down etc.
Seemingly had no history of this before developing dementia and was otherwise polite and courteous and shocked to hear he has been doing this. Remember a meeting with a psychiatrist (female ) from the MH team staring calmly that the LA need to pay for a sex worker to visit weekly and the care home need to accommodate this.
My manager thankfully wasn’t having it as a) it’s currently illegal, b) there was no proof this will stop his abusive behaviour due to his advanced memory loss...c) (to my mind) how dare women be suggested to be hired out so a sexually abusive man in his 90s can have his ‘needs’ met and to provide a solution to make other women safe? Yuk.
But it seems this type of logic is becoming more of a reality in adult social care now.

No, it's me! But also yes, as the LA are his 'guardians' They found him representation and are the defendant. It happens a lot with people with dimished capacity. 2 parts of one organisation have to act against each other.

That seems all a bit left hand right hand to me.

If the LA is taking the LA itself to court over this, was there some internal discussion on the matter ?

And the LA must be happy with the court decision so the LA is appealing.

Or have I misunderstood something.

As it stands no one is helped by this, and I'm left muttering about hell and handcarts.

If someone has a right to sex then by extension someone else is compelled to provide it.

Hence my earlier comment about this leading to State-issued brothel vouchers and legalised brothels, and my repeated strident "hell no" to the idea of any kind of "right" to sex.

Reading the judgement it's not a case of risking punishing someone for something they may or may not do; he has already harassed and sent inappropriate sexual texts etc. There is obviously a long history of issues and events that the LA have been unable to manage in any other way and it's a case that they foresee inevitable escalation as he pursues this sexual contact without understanding the need for his chosen person to consent or being able to recognise their signals to stop, that contact is unwanted. This to me reads like the LA knowing it's only a matter of time before he commits a serious assault.

The line about a fundamental right to sex is appalling and should be challenged, not with relation to this case but as an unacceptable statement in any context. If someone has a right to sex then by extension someone else is compelled to provide it.

@woopdedoodle From the judgement, which I hope I read/remember correctly, the LA... the same LA that is now appealing the result. Which gives me hope that this will be the case that forces us, society, and the court system to work this one through properly.

Though I suspect that it will end up with conflicting rights being upheld...as is very often the case.

Do English courts accept amicus briefs?

I read this story this morning and couldn't believe my eyes. This decision puts the (already vulnerable) man at risk as well as, obviously, the women he comes into contact with. This judge determines that sexual assault/rape = 'a mistake'?! There surely has to be ways he can be supported to have a healthy love life without totally disregarding the safety of other humans.

Be doesn't know how not to rape, bit well take away his care plan so he can 'make the same mistakes as the rest of us'. FFS. Glad the LA are going to appeal, that'll be failing a vulnerable person in going to jail for something he won't understand AND putting women at likely risk.

Who is bring this to the court? The man himself? His family? His social workers?

I honestly thought the thread title was a typo. Utterly horrified by this but, unfortunately, by no means surprised. The patriarchy is well and truly grinding women down.

He's been judged not to have capacity to understand consent now, I bet that will be used to acquit him in criminal court.

I bet you're right - but it should be the opposite.

There's absolutely no way a jury can be convinced he had a reasonable belief in consent because he's been judged not to understand what consent is.

The judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination

WTAF?

Surely understanding what consent is should be a prerequisite for ANYONE who wants to be allowed to pursue sexual relationships?

Instead of saying "Oh, this man's not capable of understanding consent so it would be unfair to expect him to ask before attempting sex" might it be better if we insisted all men demonstrate an understanding of consent before they're allowed to pursue sexual relationships?

(I don't know how we fight it; I'm going to be stuck on shouting about it for a while I think.)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3707853-Mans-right-to-have-sex-is-more-important-than-vulnerable-womens-right-to-safety?msgid=90530460

Separate post because I suspect it will be deleted

How do we fight this? I can't see a way. If the judiciary have been captured, we have no lawful mechanism to defend our bodies any more. Rape is already de facto legal, will any women this guy rapes even see him go to jail? He's been judged not to have capacity to understand consent now, I bet that will be used to acquit him in criminal court.

Do I kill myself? Do I arm myself? If it's ok for TPAs to carry trans flag baseball bats and rainbow hammers, can I have a two-handed labrys painted in suffragette green, white, and purple? I'm not actually joking about suicide or self-defence: if the law won't back women, we've got nothing else we can do to protect ourselves.

The local authority is expected to appeal against the decision.

I hope they win.

The judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination because it would “impose on him a burden which a capacitous individual may not share”.

Mrs Justice Roberts ruled that the man, who has autism with impaired cognition and lives in a supported residential placement, has a “fundamental right to sex”.

This is judicial capture. A male having a "right to sex" is now case law. This is the first ruling on the path towards legal brothels, state-issued brothel vouchers, and women as public property.

How do we fight this?

According to the psychologist JB "cannot understand that a woman’s consent is relevant in sexual situations, nor that attempting sex without consent is likely to be a criminal offence" yet the judge has ruled it's discriminatory to rule he still cannot pursue sex.

So that's JB's rights covered but what about the rights of the women he runs the very real risk of sexually assaulting? The report mentions he presents a particular risk to vulnerable women. It's very worrying. We can only hope and trust they have safeguards in place but it's hard to see how they will enforce this since JB has the right to pursue sex however he sees fit.

"This person doesn't have the capacity to understand that shooting people is wrong, but we should issue him a gun license anyway"

My first thought is what is/was the level of supervision he had before the court case?

Was it unnecessarily strict or was it reasonable? The best answer, IMO, would be that this person is supervised at an appropriate level. That would protect both him and any women he approaches.

I did find the comment near the end about him having capacity a little confusing. Did I read that right? If he has capacity, can he not be helped to gain consent whether he understands why he has to do this or not?

Yet another example of protecting the minority (who may or may not have mental issues) and putting the majority at risk.

The court and confused about the evolutionary drive to have sex. It is an innate desire to have sex, not an innate decision.

It's also a drive, unequally distributed among humans. Some of us have more of it, some less, some none at all, and all three strengths might manifest in a single person at various periods in their life. Does this mean that those who have a weak or no drive, should automatically submit to those who have a strong drive?
What about the rights of the latter not to have sex?

Excellent analogy re the driver, Lumene.

And yes. “Mistake*

Dismissed as unimportant by a woman judge, no less. (Well, I presume Mrs Justice Roberts actually is a woman.)

Also this:

I find this decision disturbing, especially the idea that when men rape women it is simply a “mistake” akin to any other that people make in their life.

Is this judge also proclaiming on rape cases?!?