Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

This ruling makes my heart sink, it really does. The thing is, for this man (and others with similar presentations) I imagine that all care plans like this would need to go to CoP. What concerns me is men who do not have a cognitive impairment.

As far as I understand it the only thing standing in the way of the LA commissioning carers to facilitate prostitution was the fact that it would criminalise them. If this stands and they are no longer criminalised then I don't see how the LA could deny physically disabled men the same kind of support. It wouldn't have to see the inside of a court room, after all it is perfectly legal and available to the rest of society.

Heart sick.

Are carers also allowed to assist their clients to sell themselves?

However distasteful that may be, it's the law as it it currently exists.

Yes. If you want this disabled man to not be able to do this, you'll have to so via universal law changes, not just block him because you can because he's disabled.

They CAN, legally assist.

Whether they do or not is another matter entirely.

It’s not up for able bodied people to decide what other adults want to do just because they have a disability though. It’s like saying every pub has a step but as your carer I don’t feel you have a right to go to the pub it’s not a human right. Even if practically every adult will have a drinking in pub experience. Sorry I’ve got to much to do.

A carer is a paid employer, there must be plenty of office PAs that have booked drinks in strip clubs and hotel rooms for their bosses after parties. No one has a problem when that’s same sort of thing.

The judgement has clarified the existing law and identified that the existing laws around procuring sex can be extended to any person assisting someone with a disability to access the same 'rights' to procure sex as someone without a disability.

However distasteful that may be, it's the law as it it currently exists.

@2020isnotbehaving has made a really valuable contribution to this thread and has described much better than I have why this needed to go to the COP for clarification.

It's a judgement that's most likely irrelevant to the actual day to day care of the gentleman who is the subject of it, it sounds like he is risky and it's not something his staff team would ever contemplate supporting him with as part of his care plan.

No there aren't. That's my point. If this man's history were exactly the same but he lived independently he would be legally able to purchase sex within the same parameters as every other man. That's the problem.

So no, I don't think we should hold this man to a higher standard than anybody else. The problem is that standard is too low for everybody, not this man in particular.

what if he had attacked women in the past?

Hayden addresses this:

C’s admission had become necessary as a result of a deterioration in his mental health and threats that he was articulating which were of a sexual nature. For accuracy, it is important that I record that the threats were never acted upon.
As a result of his progress it was possible for C to be discharged to his current home.

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.

Okay gonna mute as it seems that I am in a minority here and I don’t like seeing it likened to cooking breakfast or whatever. This is someone really quite disturbed. Carers have enough shit to deal with without having to facilitate someone’s sexual desires that they believe they are entitled to act out in return for payment.

He lacks capacity to make the practical arrangements involved in identifying a suitable and safe sex worker and is unable to negotiate the financial transaction. What is proposed is that C will be assisted in these arrangements by carers who are sympathetic and content to help him. As I have set out above, this is delicate but not unfamiliar terrain (see para 10 et seq.) I reiterate, this requires to be addressed with both maturity and sensitivity.
…
He understands that I am considering what the law permits and that should I come to a conclusion that the law will not stand in the way of carers who are willing and able to help C achieve his wishes

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A-Local-Authority-v-C-and-ors-judgment.pdf

Well in that case I find it grim. It doesn’t matter if able bodied men can purchase sexual services. I just do not think that providing care for a person extends to putting them in the same situation, sexually, as an able bodied person. Sex is not a human right, despite what men seem to think. There is no right to a sex life or facilitation of one. I wouldn’t be so sure that all the women servicing clients with ‘risk factors’ are freely consenting either.

Are there any limits to when we allow people in this man’s position to purchase sex? If pedophilic tendencies aren’t enough for this to be deeply disturbing, what if he had attacked women in the past?

This particular man may not get a care plan to allow him to buy sex but it's effectively put it on the table for all other care plans (or it may do dependent on appeal).

They have enough to do without pimping being added to the list.

I'd appreciate general background here. How do they deal with "what carers are prepared to do"? This surely would not be the only point of conflict. (Eg my flippant vegan carer example above).

It doesn't sit well with me.

There is no right to obtain sexual services that one cannot obtain due to disability. This is because nobody has a right to sex even if they really really want to.

No, but given a woman willing to provide the service, and a carer that willing to assist, this is ruling that that is not in itself illegal. The carer wouldn't fall foul of the laws around prostitution designed to prevent pimping.

Is it ruling anything beyond that? If it was I'd be more concerned.

And no-one seems to think of the Carers rights. They have enough to do without pimping being added to the list.

If TLC or a similar services has registered providers who offer the services you discuss then I should think it would be theoretically feasible.

No, there isn’t but there is a difference where the person in question needs the assistance of someone else to obtain these services. There is no right to obtain sexual services that one cannot obtain due to disability. This is because nobody has a right to sex even if they really really want to

There is a right to do whatever you want within the law. Why is this man not allowed to do what every other man can? Nobody has the right to go horse riding or go the pub or sit for 8 hours at an airport watching planes but all those things may be part of a care plan because they are perfectly legal activities that the average person can participate in if they wish.

Buying sex is immoral. It's horrifying, it is not morally comparable to any of the above activities but it is legal. It is an option for all other men.

Okay, that’s somewhat reassuring exwhyzed but I am still deeply uncomfortable with the references to autonomy and having the same rights as others to have sexual relationships. There was some mention that the prostituted woman may be at risk (but apparently some prostitutes are fine with that apparently!) but essentially she didn’t really feature in the discussion. It was all about the man and his needs and wants and the woman was just a vessel for him to use to do that. He sounds incredibly disturbed and I hope that his carers keep him away from women. Anyone with violent fantasies that have led to detention is a serious danger.

Having a sexual fantasy and full blown sex is one thing (but still legal) Where is the line between therapy/physical release human touch that you cannot do yourself? A horny 18y with a constant erection but not the ability to use their hands say. Should they just put up with it for they whole lives? Or when does a massage become a release?

No ones saying forcing women into sex but if some women are willing to assist this “function” for want of a better word to assist masturbation with two consenting adults. That is one issue.

Second issue if as a carer you may be asked to help maybe lift that person into the bed or get dressed after. This is something you would discuss on interview most people need and want to get along with paid carers.

If someone was married you may be asked to help them get dressed after sex or help get them into bed is that all fine? If their disability means they are never going have a GF then helping them get into bed with someone who’s paid to touch them. Is that very different?

As a Disabled person I’m very much it’s down to individuals if they choose to do something that’s legal and willing to find someone who’s happy to assist as sex worker and driver, undresser carer. I wouldn’t myself but then I’ve had plenty of sex before my body broke!

I wonder, will it work both ways? Would they help a female client access a male sex worker? And same sex workers for those who want.

[quote Pota2]@Glasstabletop the author of the article, Louise Perry, has confirmed on Twitter that it’s the same case. She attended the hearing in December. The judgment doesn’t mention that the man had pedophilic fantasies but this was mentioned at the hearing.[/quote]
This is why I believe that this case has been pushed forward by his advocate. I don't for one second imagine that any of the staff involved in his care have ever had any intention of assisting him to buy sex.

I suspect the staff have been declining to assist him to procure sex and that discussing this, talking about it, etc is probably a manifestation of his care needs and will have been being managed by a care plan and risk assessment already.

But the advocate's role is to speak on behalf of the client and the advocate therefore has to push forward his views even if this goes against any careful management of his risks by the staff team supporting him. The advocates job isn't to agree with professional opinion it's to ensure that people have their views heard and their legal rights upheld for they are unable to ensure this themselves.

This judgement doesn't compel any of the staff supporting him to do anything about this, it just clarifies that if he can find someone to help him pay for sex that person won't be criminalised for doing so.

It's absolutely right that the COP should consider this as a point of law, as it's been brought to their attention, but I highly doubt it will change any part of his care plan in practice.

Reading the judgement it's clear that the judge also seems to indicate that they consider it to be a paper exercise rather than a green light or an order for the man's carers to go out and find someone he can pay to have sex with.

[quote Glasstabletop]@Pota2

I was hoping to post before you did! Oh well.

Those details, while horrible, don't really change anything as there is no law prohibiting an able bodied man with those kind of fantasies buying sex.

Can anybody clarify if registered sex offenders are prohibited from buying sex or are they only bound by the same laws as everybody else?

If so I would disagree with this ruling dependent on if the "inappropriate behaviour" constituted a sexual assault that would potentially get an able bodied man arrested and charged.[/quote]
No, there isn’t but there is a difference where the person in question needs the assistance of someone else to obtain these services. There is no right to obtain sexual services that one cannot obtain due to disability. This is because nobody has a right to sex even if they really really want to.

I actually thought the closing part of the judgement about harm was really odd, now I read the article it makes sense and Hayden obviously read that article too.