Care worker buys women for sex for man

Sorry its a really long video and I have to go out soon. What was the outcome of the case?

How would one ensure that when caught driving around looking, or booking am escort , that they couldn't just turn round and claim as a disabled individual they aren't doing anything wrong.

Are there select circumstances where it would be acceptable, a drs note or like the blue badge or a list of conditions that would be deemed "acceptable it doesn't bear thinking about really

I can't believe, in this day and age, that some people still believe that women exist to service the needs of the male sex drive. Rape is theoretically legal, except when payment is offered

I think it adjourned for lunch without any decision.

The articles below explain the background. The Court of Protection ruled it was lawful but allowed the Justice Secretary to appeal. The Justice Secretary was entered in the original application and I assume opposed the idea it was lawful. I assume the objectiion was on public policy grounds that eradicating prostitution entirely might be an impossible pipe dream but that doesn't mean the state should actively facilitate it.

www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/not-unlawful-for-carers-to-help-autistic-man-visit-sex-worker-cop-rules/5108334.article

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/094ccf88-b316-11eb-9055-64edaa2be8dd?shareToken=31bb286f8cd48591f47512336d3bee33

This comment below from Justice Hayden is, in my view, nonsense.

While parliament “has recognised the futility of seeking to criminalise prostitution”, he said the secretary of state “finds himself in the invidious position of trying to discourage, by guidelines and policy, that which the law allows”

Er, hello- what about smoking? Eating fatty and unhealthy food? Alcohol? Gas guzzling cars? Plastic bags?

These are all lawful- some of them bring in revenue to the Exchequer- but the Government does discourage or seeks to prevent over-use of all of them by guidelines and policy.

I am most concerned about the care workers here.

Care workers change. If its in the care plan its going to become someones responsibility who may not have signed up to this.

Who wants to be liasing with 'Daisy Big Boobs Belle' as part of your job.

The point that care workers might object to being involved with this on ethical grounds was acknowledged in the first court order. It was acknowledged that care workers should be entitled to refuse to participate in this.

If I were a care worker I would refuse because I believe prostitution is degrading and dehumanising primarily obviously for the seller but in a wider context for society as a whole. I would not want to facilitate that.

Having said that your flippant comment is part and parcel of the dehumanisation.

If I were a care worker I would refuse because I believe prostitution is degrading and dehumanising primarily obviously for the seller but in a wider context for society as a whole. I would not want to facilitate that

How qualified are carers to decide on "capacity" of their charge?

Genuine question not trying to be glady or anything. But some people requiring care surely are not always equipped to make appropriate decisions or would be deemed to have enough capacity to make decisions. But who decides? Drs appointments etc can be long times in between, referrals can take a while, how seriously would a carers assessment as opposed to drs/specialist ( like nurses I've no doubt rhe medical knowledge or understanding of the conditions could actually surpass the drs as they see the patients daily etc I'm talking in a legal sense here, actual designated responsibility to decide and act accordingly)

Who /what protects a carer in a situation where u have a patient with questionable capacity to consent to sex and an escort who's so called consent is financially coerced . I mean in that situation both are victims realky and the one seemingly behind it all should family etc file a complaint would be the poor carer...

I am not trying to be dehumanising. I am just trying to be realistic here.

If the man had capacity to organise his own sex worker then he would. The carers literally going to have to sit there with them and go through the 'listings' with many bountiful names and pictures to choose one; or its an issue of liasing communications and they will have to discuss 'services' and relay this info. I am trying to think of the day to day of this 'care'

Unless this is purely an issue of him not having access to his own money. In which case its an entirely different issue and he should be given access to that to spend as he wishes.

This has been to court before hasn't it? Or very similar.

Judge said man needs sex no probs iirc.

In the news loads about care homes procuring women for the men in their care.

It's shit.

There are threads on the previous judgement.

Pretty sure it's the same person.

From the actual judgement of the first case

'Between 2014 and 2017, C was detained in hospital, pursuant to the Mental Health Act 1983. 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'

Similar case-

'Mrs Justice Roberts ruled that the man, who has autism with impaired cognition and lives in a supported residential placement, has a “fundamental right to sex”.

The court considers issues relating to people who might lack the mental capacity to make decisions.

A clinical psychologist submitted a report saying that the 36-year-old man, referred to as JB, represents a “moderate risk” of sexual offending to women, particularly to those who are vulnerable, and that JB cannot understand that a woman’s consent is relevant in sexual situations, nor that attempting sex without consent is likely to be a criminal offence.'

'The judgment said that the “decision to engage in sexual relations ... is a primal expression of our humanity and existence as sexual beings. It is an essential part of our basic DNA as reproductive human beings.”

Roberts added: “Sexual relations form a fundamental aspect of our humanity, common to all regardless of whether an individual suffers from some impairment of the mind.”

In its submission to the court, the local authority said that there was concern that JB’s behaviour, if unrestrained, “might result in his exposure to the criminal justice system and risk to potentially vulnerable females”. They said that his advances to women in the past have lacked appropriate social inhibition.'

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/03/man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to-pursue-sex-court-rules

I note from Google that the c case is being reported with comments from the English collective of prostitutes in at least one article.

Strategic court cases?

If sex with another human is deemed s basic need in court then that would be very helpful for them.

Isn’t it weird how, in a country where universal credit is about to be cut and most people cannot access any support for SEN in schools, certain individuals seem to be supported to ridiculous extremes? Why are women being left in the sort of desperation that causes prostitution, while men are given so much?

I have worked with people with learning disabilities, and some of them I’m afraid are ridiculously spoilt and entitled. This would be a resignation matter for me. Autism is a complex matter and if this man has the capability to ask for sex and learn that it can be hired - probably by being glued to the bloody internet all day - then he can learn how to procure it himself by actually being nice to women, not by treating them as a slave race.

The contrast between some being supported so much and the vast majority of others left to struggle is exactly why the country is turning away from the left.

What makes this man different to the thousands of creepy, rapey entitled little neckbeards lurking around on the internet?

A clinical psychologist submitted a report saying that the 36-year-old man, referred to as JB, represents a “moderate risk” of sexual offending to women, particularly to those who are vulnerable, and that JB cannot understand that a woman’s consent is relevant in sexual situations, nor that attempting sex without consent is likely to be a criminal offence

So then the ruling basically tells him that consent doesn't matter and then compounds the problem the psychologist warned them about?

Makes makes no sense.

And of course the womans safety isn't a consideration. Of he doesn't understand consent what's to stop him.engaging in acts that hurt her ? She's a prostitute so it doesn't matter? Didn't think we were meant to judge like that. Sane way prisoners are entitled to health hcare just like everyone else. These rights are not based on how nice or morally pure someone is.

A fundamental right to sex. What does that even mean? It implies sex is some ‘thing’ you can just get, like water or a toaster, ignoring that it involves another human being.

I honestly despair of this world and what it’s coming to. And I can’t believe the case mentioned upthread whereby a man is basically told he has a right to prostitutes because otherwise be might rape a woman. I mean, how will this help? If he doesn’t understand consent and may be likely to sexually assault a woman, how will he recognise that he is allowed to have sex with women who are prostitutes and not those who aren’t? If he doesn’t understand consent then the money won’t matter, he’s as likely to rape any vulnerable woman.

“A fundamental right to sex” for men means women, girls and even children, if men’s sex drive leans that way, have no fundamental right to bodily autonomy. That’s what it means.

Who are these oh-so-superior highly educated ‘professionals’ that they do not know this, or do not care? That have no practical awareness or capability for logic, as long as a vocal and powerful group in front of them complains that they are not being ‘nice’ enough? Let’s not forget how much it costs to bring a law case now, and how many people cannot and in effect are living in a world with no access to law or justice.

It's disgusting.
Sex is a human need (as in a biological urge) but it is not a human right and I think the difference is not being seen.

Does it involve the cases in this thread and Justice Hayden's judgment?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4232040-Carers-allowed-to-help-clients-visit-sex-workers

It’s not really a ‘need’ though. It’s more like a want/desire. A need is food, water, shelter - need is what drives many vulnerable women into prostitution in the first place.

Nothing bad will happen to someone who can’t have sex, except they might feel unhappy.

That's why I said need as in biological urge. Which it is. We have urges and feel needs. That does not translate to rights. That's what I'm saying.

"PickUpAPepper: I have worked with people with learning disabilities ...This would be a resignation matter for me. "

You realise if you were a carer and were asked by someone you were caring for for assistance to book a sex worker(or to attend an appointment with one etc), you have the right to say no?

All the court hearing is about is whether if a carer does assist a disabled person to make such a booking, the carer isn't going to get into any legal trouble.

This issue appears (according to the blurb) to be slightly similar to the topic of a novel that’s being advertised a lot on Twitter. The book is ‘This is how we are human’ by Louise Beech and the blurb is below. I haven’t read it but was slightly disconcerted to see this being presented as a sort of ‘Pretty Woman’ style scenario, so I actually came on to the Feminism chat board to see if it has been discussed in case I’m wrong and it’s deeper and weightier than it perhaps looks in the blurb.

‘When the mother of an autistic young man hires a call girl to make him happy, three lives collide in unexpected and moving ways … changing everything. A devastatingly beautiful, rich and thought-provoking novel that will warm and break your heart…’

It has had glowing reviews so I’m fairly intrigued as to how the author handles the issue…

Sorry if this is a derail. I can start a new thread if that’s better.