Judge rules carers can help man pay for sex

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus although the case was about an individual with mental disorder (which could be a disability), this was not the reason why the judge ruled a carer could not organise a prostitute to supply sex without risking a criminal act. So it applies to others too.

Another point I saw was that the care agency would also have a duty of care towards the prostitute. So presumably they would have to ensure the prostitute was not at risk of catching a STD, would not suffer physical or mental harm....

Good result!

I read this as the result being about the potentially criminal position this would put the carers in? It seemed very clear to the three Appeal judges based on sexual offences statute.

(I wonder if the original judge had 'had the training' btw from a certain group.)

[quote OhHolyJesus]"We did it 👏🏽The Court of Appeal held today that a disabled person cannot pay for sex via a carer without risk of a crime.

No one has a human right to pay for sex. Prostitution is exploitation.

Amazing team, Tony Metzer QC, @centreWJ @niaendingVAWG @KIngalaSmith Women@theWell"
[[https://twitter.com/drproudman/status/1451495400427360258?s=21]][/quote]
I think this is awaiting further elaboration. As Tor Butler Cole points out, this decision concerns:

people with a mental disorder, not any disability, and was about arrangements for a particular individual that went beyond making payment.

twitter.com/TorButlerCole/status/1451498105598320640?s=20

More analysis here:

So on the face of it, this judgment makes one thing clear. It says that carers might easily find themselves committing a criminal offence under s39 if they become too involved in providing help and assistance to a person with a mental disorder.

www.gcnchambers.co.uk/re-c-the-court-of-appeals-view/

Well done. I still can't believe that this had to go to the appeal crt

This is an important reversal. Well done all who made this happen

Well done

Fantastic- well done. 🙌🙌

"We did it 👏🏽The Court of Appeal held today that a disabled person cannot pay for sex via a carer without risk of a crime.

No one has a human right to pay for sex. Prostitution is exploitation.

Amazing team, Tony Metzer QC, @centreWJ @niaendingVAWG @KIngalaSmith Women@theWell"
https://twitter.com/drproudman/status/1451495400427360258?s=21

Very good perspective, @FifteenToes

No thought given whatsoever as to whether this puts any present and future female carers at risk. How to explain to somebody with learning difficulties which women you can purchase consent from, and which you can't?

I have experience of being on the receiving end of unwelcome sexual advances (and flashing) from a young man who had been accessing porn and did not understand that my relationship with him (mentor /support) was different. It eventually stopped me being able to work properly with him, which was a big loss for him. What a shame he could not have been encouraged to experience sexual release without viewing porn. Or even better had a consensual relationship facilitated.

It is not that he was "bad". But I think people forget that a deeply misogynist culture affects people with learning difficulties too and is much harder to counteract.

@FifteenToes

The solicitor in the case argued that sex is a right and that the man is entitled to it. That was one of the arguments made. I cant see anything in the judgement which slaps that argument down.

@Zinco

The porn watching was dealt with in a different case. Carers complaining about clients watching porn infront of them and saying they dont want to work under those circumstances. They were told they had to carry out their job, even if the client is sitting watching porn. Now we have this; carers being told to assist in arranging prostitutes. It snowballs.

No carer is being forced to do anything related to their clients' wishes to watch porn or book a prostitute. The ruling just means if a carer does assist a client to book a prostitute the carer won't be committing any crime.

It shouldnt be based in whether or not the act is legal. It should be based on the impact it has on the other people involved. The impact, in this case, is forcing carers to arrange prostitutes and facilitate the visit with the prostitute.

But that issue could be presumably avoided? You could try to make sure you have one or two members of staff, in a particular place, that doesn't have an ethical objection to arranging the prostitutes.

Some people don't want to be involved with abortions. You still have access to them, using other staff that are OK with it.

I'm guessing you maybe still wouldn't support it, even if every staff member thought it was a great idea?

Its forcing carers to work in a room where a man can watch porn infront of them.

Shouldn't they be told to do that in private!? There is still the issue of masturbation regardless of whether they are buying porn or not, and you would think they should be told to be private about it, with sanctions available.

Obviously some people may be difficult to deal with here. If they really can't (or will not) control themselves, it's kind of a problem whether they have porn or not.

Maybe limit porn to people that know to "consume" it in private?

@Whatsnewpussyhat

The issue is that it adds the bullshit narrative that having access to a woman for sex is somehow a 'human right'.

It doesn't though, this is a strawman. Nobody's claimed that it's a human right, and the fact of care workers helping to facilitate it doesn't make it so. Care workers facilitate all kinds of activities and transactions for luxuries and preferences that have nothing at all to do with human rights.

If it's legal, I can't see why there would be a problem with someone asking their care company to facilitate it. Although I'd also respect the rights of care workers not to be exposed to degradation, eg. by having to see porn while they're working if they don't want to.

This is a very good piece reflecting on the implications.

[Extract]

"As a care provider, you get to care plan and risk assess all sorts of fun stuff. This male client likes buying ladies’ underwear for their own personal reasons, pick a kind and open-minded member of staff to support them to go get one with minimum fuss and put it down to experience. We don’t worry about how the girl at the till looked at you, it’s no biggy, but well done.

"But this? Do we need to research and see which brothel has the best hygiene rating? Reviews? DBS checks? Accessibility? Disabled parking?

"In my years of supporting people experiencing mental health issues, many of the vulnerable women who’ve come through the service have had terrible trauma and many of those women have had drug and alcohol problems and abusive relationships and many have been coerced into prostitution. Vulnerable people aren’t just in care homes or the ones receiving support. Many don’t get that chance.

"Here's a question.

"Am I to support a service user to see her and pay for sex, whilst also trying to support her to exit and recover? But maybe I haven’t met her yet, maybe that will be next year. Will she engage with support from the support worker who pulled some creased notes out of a money bag and asked for a receipt?"

Continues here:
www.wepsbr.com/post/sex-and-the-support-worker?

@WarwickHunt

It may be legal, but we dont force those thing upon other people. Having an abortion is legal, but medical staff can opt out of that care if they so choose.

It shouldnt be based in whether or not the act is legal. It should be based on the impact it has on the other people involved. The impact, in this case, is forcing carers to arrange prostitutes and facilitate the visit with the prostitute. Its forcing carers to work in a room where a man can watch porn infront of them. Its forcing carers to be in a room with a man with an erection, or collect a man after having sex with a prostitute and help clean him up etc.

Having sex is not a right. It's really very dangerous for a judgement to fall on the side of the solicitor who argued that sex is a right. Education is a right. If we are refused an education in this country, by our parents or local authority, then we can sue or have them arrested for neglect. Because education is a right.

If the narrative that has started playing from this is that sex is a right... does that mean men can start taking legal action when women say no? Thats what you're looking at. Remember, every judgement is not in a vacuum. They filter down, they are used to force the next thing people want, then the next and then the next. Small judgements can snowball.

We now have a judgement which agrees that sex is a right. Something men are entitled to. Sex is a privilege, which should only be available to those who have found a consenting, enthusiastically involved, not coerced by anything partner to have sex with. But now... it's being represented as a right.

Out right to choose to consent or to say no is in direct opposition to the idea that men have a right to sex. What happens when those two thing encounter each other? Rape has already been all but decriminalised in this country. What next?

Weirdly, it's always men who want to have the right to buy sex and women who make up the vast majority of care workers.

It's just another form of sexual abuse.

The court heard that C displayed some significant behavioural issues in his youth including aggression and "dangerous behaviour".

He was sectioned and detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act between 2014 and 2017 after his behaviour deteriorated, including making threats of a "sexual nature" although they were never acted upon.

Would the "sex worker" be informed of this, I wonder?

One of the other threads with discussion and links to text of judgment and what it covers: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4232040-Carers-allowed-to-help-clients-visit-sex-workers

Not a human right. No one dies through lack of sex.

The issue is that it adds the bullshit narrative that having access to a woman for sex is somehow a 'human right'.

Men don't die from not having a hole to fuck.

I'd say that as long as it's legal then whether someone relying on careworkers can do it shouldn't depend on the moral views of the careworkers. Carers could equally have genuinely-held conscientious beliefs against dairy farming, abortion, alcohol, religion online shopping or homosexuality which should not be imposed on those needing care.

People wanting change in the sex industry need to change the law around the sex industry generally.