Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

What about priests and Monks? It’s so ridiculous.

To be fair, some priests, very rarely, have very slightly misbehaved.

I always laugh when I hear about ‘men’s needs’. What about priests and Monks? It’s so ridiculous.

I keep seeing the phrase, 'men's needs'. This is about men's wants, not needs. It seems that a great many men don't like being told 'no'.

I don't know the legislation in question, but if it's a case where the language of the law sounds like it might prevent an action, "assisting prostitution", but this specific type of case is substantially different to the kinds of cases that parliament likely had in mind, and they weren't focused on this specific kind of case when they made the legislation (it probably never even occurred to the people drafting and then voting on the legislation), then I would have sympathy that the judge made a correct decision.

There is nothing to stop parliament passing an amendment to say, "actually, we did mean to ban that also".

And of course they could just make clear, that as a matter of policy, they don't support carers doing it, even if it doesn't violate a particular law on prostitution.

I agree that it will impact care going forwards and relationships going forward. Even putting aside the distaste you might feel to an individual employing prostitutes, how will that impact how he perceives and interacts with women going forward?. Limiting someone’s already limited life by reducing who can care for them, possibly who they can socialise with and their future sex lives while putting them at risk of exploitation and those around them at risk is misguided and utterly irresponsible.

I cannot imagine how vulnerable a prostituted woman must be to be in a position where they are procured by a man who is unable to get a consenting sexual partner, and have a background of violence and violent sexual fantasies, and for the woman to think that it is a worthwhile risk for her to agree to letting that man have access to her body, while alone, in exchange for a small sum of money.

These women must be some of the most vulnerable women in society, yet we are allowing them to be put in this harmful situation, because for some reason the man takes primacy.

I suspect if they bothered to do a risk assessment it might reasonably conclude that he should only have male carers.

There's a lot of stuff about dignity at work and harassment. Honestly, how can any woman carer have dignity at work if knowing the person she's working for sees women as commodities to be bought?

Maybe his carers are all men but what I am getting at is that may this not put any female carers at increased risk?

This is a good point.

I personally wouldn't want to work for any man that used prostitutes as I think it displays a level of misogyny (buying a woman, women are 'lesser than') which would be harmful to me, as a woman, in the workplace.

I hope that any female carer is appraised of the facts around this individual before they are left alone with him.

With regards to the strategic part a feminist lawyer collective (legalfeminist on twitter) points out that

Certainly memorable. It's quite a leap from "Article 8 extends to a person's sexual life" - which is obviously true - to "access to prostituted women is within scope" - which is horrifying.

twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1387827572596215809?s=19

It occurs to me - and I don't think we can guess the answer from the information we have - but if he is given access to sex via paid "workers" might this (to put it in an old fashioned way) feed his desires? Is he able to distinguish between those women who are there for the purpose and those who aren't? Maybe his carers are all men but what I am getting at is that may this not put any female carers at increased risk?

What is my apprehension surrounding using vulnerable people to normalise the abuse of women?
What is my apprehension for the women the disabled man or his carers?

I see absolutely no merit in this for anyone concerned.

There is a discussion of his understanding that is detailed in the document: this covers conversations over some time with his advocate friend in addition to an interview with J Hayden.

What is your wider apprehension?

I think it’s yet another example of using disabled people to cloud issues and nothing to do with their lives and safety. I am so tired of “what about disabled people?” Being used in this way. How can you possibly think that someone who lacks capacity to procure a woman’s orifices has the capacity to understand the ramifications of doing so?

[quote balloonsandboobies]@highame there are an awful lot of people on this thread who've asked how disabled people or those with LD would even know about sex / prostitution. That level of Ignorance and lack of understanding is quite depressing really. [/quote]
No - one person said that actually, not 'an awful lot'.

This is why we need the Nordic Model. Paying for sex needs to be criminalised.

There was nothing about a risk assessment for the women. Nothing about whether they were advised that he was sexually inappropriate and had a thing for throttling. Nothing acknowledging that the women might themselves be vulnerable.

This case has strategic written all over it for me.

Hayden discusses the personal risk assessments of those who provide services via TLC (The Outsider). Hayden also discusses risk assessments for the man and sex workers. Hayden's final line is:

I will have in mind that it will never be in C’s interest to put himself or others at risk.

The whole area has been rather romanticised by films such as The Sessions and Helen Hunt's role in that (based on a true story).

www.imdb.com/title/tt1866249/

It will never be in an LA's interest to put sex workers at risk. However, from the discussion of the present state of play in the judgment and the contribution of knowledgeable and experienced posters in this thread - it is an area where the law needed to be clarified to some extent and it doesn't touch the topic of sex work as such (there is some discussion of prostitution and sex workers that acknowledges there may be a lack of volition).

Are the sex workers in fact willing to enter into contracts with service users who have known risk factors?
Yes, some are, and will either indicate such on their profiles or discuss risk and boundaries individually.

Whilst it can be true in law that a disabled person asking a carer to arrange a prostitute may not be illegal, surely any carer who objects to this very unusual and non-standard job request has the right to refuse? It is illegal to force a professional to participate in your sex life without their consent.

Some men don't have the money to pay for a prostitute - there is no right to a prostitute.

I just hope those carers involved with this man know how to say 'no'.

So who has really brought this case and why? We know that strategic lawsuits have been seen as a good move elsewhere.

I think this is a key question.

And yes, I know. Never has a poster been more in need of an edit function than I. Every.Single.Time.

I think when you have worked in this field it is much easier to envisage how this particular scenario has ended up in front of the court of protection.

I've worked with many gentlemen with learning disabilities in forensic settings who would obsess over stuff like this (not this exact situation but similar) . But ultimately they could talk about it as much as they liked but none of the staff members would actually assist them to carry it out A) because of their own moral objection to it and B) because it would fly in the face of the care plans and risk assessments in place to keep the client and the public safe.

Just like it's not illegal for someone to hang around outside a school, it's not illegal to pay for sex, but if their care plan states that watching children is a risk indicator for that person / the person is a risk to women then their care plan will explicitly state to avoid routes going past schools/ don't facilitate situations where the person may present as a risk to a woman he is having sex with.

This gentleman and his advocate have had it clarified that if someone does help him pay for sex they won't be prosecuted because it's legal, but it's not going to undo the risk assessments and care plans that will be in place for him that will most likely prevent that scenario from happening.

As everyone else has said, this is just a clarification of the existing law that it's legal to pay for sex. That's the law that needs changing.

Sorry I didn't mean 'paucity' it doesn't work there at all - for that substitute 'inadequacy' - I forgot to change it!

That being said I take your points on law and agency of a disabled person via a carer and why the judgement went as it did. I agree the issue is the paucity of the law with regards to buying women in general - that bar is too low.

I would not be that carer though, I would leave if that was a part of the job even if the person wasn't a threat to women. Logically they should be able to do what able bodied men can do but to me able bodied men shouldn't be buying women either so it would be a step too far for me. I just couldn't perform the act of (what to me seems like) pimping, it goes well beyonf the bounds of caring imo.

The law in this country with regard to prostitution is wrong and needs to be changed. The commodification of women affects ALL women and girls and this really needs to start being taken into account.

The posts on here about discrimination.

I really feel this case is strategic.

Could well be. But that's not sufficient in and of itself to block it via a slippery-slope argument.

Either something is right or it isn't. You shouldn't block A using it as a shield for B. You have to argue each thing on its merits.

Certainly careful scrutiny is in order, and get ready for the next fight.

Permitting gay marriage did arguably help lead to the mess we're in now, where all the gay rights orgs suddenly needed something to do, so latched onto "trans rights".

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have permitted gay marriage.

agree Balloons hey ho!