Man's 'right' to have sex is more important than vulnerable women's right to safety.

The correct judgement should have been that he has a right to want sex but not at the cost of unconsenting women. That is the bloody judgment! The fact of consent is not changed by the judge deciding the Care Package was too restrictive!

The REAL issuse is that this has not been tested at the Supreme Court, so no judge can make any other decision. Just like the man with a wife with dementia! There is NO OTHER judgement they can come to without a Supreme Court ruling.

The LA have appealed. Hopefull that will be heard and they will; chase it all the way up the system and get a definitive answer. Nobody has done that before. It needs to be done, as quickly as possible.

No one has a “fundamental right to sex”.

However, it’s not clear what restrictions the LA are trying to impose. Are they trying to prevent him (trying to) form a relationship (“family life”). Because that would be unfair.

???

What is wrong with that, in essence?

He is an adult, albeit with social issues. He has as much right as every other adult to have as normal a sexual and family life. I remember when adults with any learnign difficulty (Downs Syndrome etc) were held incapable and were forced into a celibate solitary life as they were deemed dangerous to themselves and others!

If the care package that was in place was overly restrictive then it was right to remove it. Yes, there is a great conflict of interests and, as Victoria Butler-Cole QC says in that last paragraph, it will need to get to Supreme Court in some form, in order for it to be resolved.

As far as I can tell there is nothing preventing his care team putting another Order in place that is less restrictive and enables him to form proper relationships.