Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

His care plan involves him being restricted from contact with children because he poses a risk. I would argue that he probably poses a risk to women too.

It may be legal to use prostitutes but this man cannot do so without assistance. He has no right to demand that others facilitate it. There is no right to sex with anyone and it’s especially worrying where this person has exhibited disturbing behaviour that has influenced his care plan and which has led to him being detained for a number of years.

I wonder how many women with disabilities demand that their carers find them a man to have sex with.

It's not the same person. You don't have to read an article about this stuff, you can actually read the rulings.

afaict from reading the CoP judgment I posted, it is the same person and it's the Justice Hayden referred to within it. Interestingly, there is reference within the judgment to someone else with whom this person is confused. TLC is the solution proposed within the judgment.

Unherd: Z has spent several years in a specialist facility, detained under the Mental Health Act, and has told care workers that he has sexual fantasies involving violence…

Buying sex is not illegal in this country, even for men who confess to such disturbing fantasies. It is illegal to keep a brothel, solicit in a public place, or (as of 2009) pay for sex with someone who has been “subjected to force”. So, to get around these legal impediments, Z’s advocates propose that his care workers seek out an escort for him through a charity called the TLC Trust,

@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.

I can't see a problem with the logic of judgment. If prostitution is legal, then this follows.

Much as you don't like something being legal - you can't fight it by denying access to specific protected classes. That falls foul of anti-discrimination law.

Certainly I would expect there to be scope for carers to refuse on conscience grounds, but I don't know how you draw the line there. Can a vegan carer refuse to buy meat, etc?

Pota2

I apologise it does appear to be the same person.

@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.

Title and article says "allowed". Lots of people here saying "forced".

Those are quite different things.

The problem is that it really shouldn't be legal.

You sometimes get people saying that something like this should be legal because of the problems created by prohibition, but remain socially unacceptable. That might work in some societies, but I don't think it works in a society that is basically liberal.

I believe there is a website called the TLC trust where sex workers register to say they will see disabled clients.
Some disabled people will never have sex for obvious reasons.
I personally do not see the harm since the prostitutes actively make the approach to provide this service.

[quote Pota2]You may wish to read this for more details about his past behaviour. Words fail me with this case.

unherd.com/2020/12/men-do-not-have-the-right-to-sex/[/quote]
It's not the same person. You don't have to read an article about this stuff, you can actually read the rulings.

You may wish to read this for more details about his past behaviour. Words fail me with this case.

unherd.com/2020/12/men-do-not-have-the-right-to-sex/

*Actually paying for sex in certain circumstances is still an offence. The fact that no one bothers to prosecute or the punishment is just a fine does not make it any less so.

Street soliciting is an offence.

Having sex with an exploited prostitute, even if you didn't know about it, is an offence.

Just like someone using pot for recreational occasional use wouldn't actually end up on trial or in jail*

Under all circumstances buying pot is illegal.

The same is not true of prostitution.

I believe the above horrible and indefensible, but it is true.

While it is true I don't think it is right to stop disabled men (because it is, of course, men) doing something legal no matter how horribly immoral it is.

I've work with people with learning disabilities and I want to digest this a little more and read the judgement without being impaired by the couple of glasses of wine I've had this evening,

but my initial instinct is that this essentially an idea that grew legs due to an over zealous independent advocate with a cause, will most likely end up being a paper exercise in clarifying a point of law rather than something that actually happens in practice and ultimately only clarifies that a care worker who assists the gentleman to pay for sex won't be prosecuted if they do so, but there is no indication that they will be compelled to assist if they don't want to.

However, For those querying if people with LD know about sex/ prostitutes etc. Yes, they do. They watch TV, play GTA, use the internet etc just like everyone else. There's huge variations in learning disabilities and it's probably only the people at the more severe end of LD that wouldn't have any concept of this stuff.

We shouldn't be at the point through where people with learning disabilities feel they have no choice but to pay for sex. Many specialist schools and colleges and local authorities need start accepting that many people with learning disabilities do experience sexual desires just like people without learning disabilities and work with that to encourage safe and consenting relationships within peer groups rather than discouraging it on the basis of 'safeguarding' and treating people with LD like children.

Allowed to help or forced to help or lose your job and deregistered for what will be recorded as refusing to do 'your duty', so basically 2 lots of women (as likely the carers will be women) forced into this to satisfy a male.

Street soliciting is an offence.

Having sex with an exploited prostitute, even if you didn't know about it, is an offence.

Just like someone using pot for recreational occasional use wouldn't actually end up on trial or in jail.

the idea could come from TV / movies - there are plenty of those around.

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]The Court of Protection judgment goes into considerable discussion and detail about carers, what constitutes exploitation, illegality, a preference for registered sex services etc.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A-Local-Authority-v-C-and-ors-judgment.pdf[/quote]
It reminds me of the GRA. Pieces of legislation that just really poorly thought out (Both the MCA and the SOA) that courts have to make sense of.

On the plus side maybe this will prompt a review a bring us closer to the Nordic model?

The Court of Protection judgment goes into considerable discussion and detail about carers, what constitutes exploitation, illegality, a preference for registered sex services etc.

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

I can only say that I would hand in my notice if I was ordered to do this, too. It is forcing carers, predominantly women, to become complicit in prostituting women for men’s needs. Nothing doing.

There are loads of carer jobs out there, loads. Anyone who's a carer who doesn't want to do this should just refuse and get another job. I'd imagine most carers would refuse. It's sort of the definition of the role that most carers care about people - so unless you think women aren't people I can't see how this exploitation would sit well .

So should the carers also go and source him some pot?

That's illegal not immoral.

Prostitution is immoral not illegal.

This is the problem.

I don't believe the notion of 'a sex worker' is one that would spontaneously occur to someone with an intellectual disability, so who gave him that idea and why?

Why don't you believe that?

Also he likely has contact with friends and relatives as well as carers.