Care worker buys women for sex for man

[OhHolyJesus]

Life case on you tube being heard now

@MargaritaPie

"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.

Firstly I think you have a slightly naive approach to understanding what employers can force employees to do.

Second I would not want to be a woman being paid minimum wage to provide top quality care for a male who knows that women are sex objects he can buy. I would not want in any way to be associated with an organisation that treats women’s bodies as commodities to buy. If I knew this was going on in somewhere I was working I would leave. There’s always places looking for care workers.

I would warn my friends and DDs away from anyone who claims humans (we all know this means the men kind) have a fundamental right to sex. Changes are they would be at risk for abuse or coercion.

Wonderful how the judge declares the "rights" of an incel with no concept of consent to sex yet the rights of a woman to not have sex she doesn't want are rarely supported.

This case or the similar one. Or maybe just in the news.

The group running a group of homes, one of which was where the man was.

I will never forget that they said - the gist.

We always remember our duty to our clients as they are vulnerable.
Risk assessments are always carried out. To make sure there is no risk to their psychological health etc.
And so on.

I thought.
Women selling sex are often vulnerable.
Selling sex comes with a host of risks- physical and psychological.
And some are being controlled etc.

No thought even slightly of risk assessments for the women though. Not any concern for their potential vulnerability.

In the one I'm thinking of the man sounded like a risk to the women. That was not mentioned by the spokesperson either.

I'll try to find it.

This is about C- the man in the OP.

The judgement is not neutrally about whether carers would be breaking the law.

'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.

...

'Mr Justice Anthony Hayden, vice president of the Court of Protection, ruled that carers should not be prosecuted for helping certain patients with "this most important sphere of human interaction".'

He ruled it would be discrimination to not assist him in booking women. So I'm not sure really that no is an answer that can be given.

Can't find the other case in much detail.

What I did find was that the case had an org that provides this service was involved.

More strategic cases?

@PickUpAPepper

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.

Obviously, since the left have been in power for the last 11 years and are responsible for austerity and people being left to struggle.

Sometimes you just really need a facepalm emojie . . .

Erm

People with disabilities who need various levels of support should get it. Obviously.

If you want people with disabilities to get support I don't think the conservatives will deliver that somehow!

Oh hold on.

You're saying that people who have disabilities that mean they need various levels of support are getting too much?!

Erm...

Yes I think it's fair to say that those who think this is a waste of money would not be voting labour.

You're saying that people who have disabilities that mean they need various levels of support are getting too much?!

In the context of this report, yes. I won't bother defending my voting record, but those in power in the so-called "left" do not defend people who work. Tell me, do you work in the area? This is about the contrast of "rights" for some while those working for a living struggle to live.

There is NO fundamental right to food in this country. There is NO fundamental right to housing in this country. There is NO fundamental right to clothing and energy in this country. I have known the struggle to maintain all three while working two jobs. Some women turn to prostitution to make ends meet.

Yet a male waves a finger, in a situation where he is already guaranteed all those things with no struggle, and he now has a fundamental right for SEX?? WTF?? If so-called feminists, who can afford to spend so long on the internet all day, can see nothing at all to question in that, no wonder the country is in such a state. I could also refer you to another thread on learning disabilities, wherein I actually had to spell out the point that people with learning disabilities should not be "supported" to the point where people with intelligence, but no "support" are valued less. But that's the situation we are in.

Found it www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4284215-To-think-prejudice-against-low-intelligence-is-a-big-problem

"‘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…’"

If anyone is interested, there's a movie based on a true story about a man with polio in an iron lung. With the help of his priest and therapist he hires a professional sex surrogate to lose his virginity. It's called The Sessions from 2012.

Excellent points, @PickUpAPepper (and others).
Women's needs and rights, as ever, the lowest priority. Why should women be service animals for men?

'There is NO fundamental right to food in this country. There is NO fundamental right to housing in this country. There is NO fundamental right to clothing and energy in this country. '

I was thinking of the international declaration of Human rights.

Food etc are on there. The aim of the document is to:

'Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves..' etc

My personal view is that as the 'right' to sex has been mentioned, in the context of it being a need. Including by one pretty high profile org.

While people mean the words need and right in different ways. They do have specific meanings for really important global aims etc.

That's why on these topics there is such pushback around saying sex is a need or s right.

Sidetrack-

The pics from the film the bloke isn't in an iron lung. He's on a hospital bed thing or in a bed.

The actual bloke was in an iron lung.

I don't think the actor chosen was a particularly good match for his physical aspect either.

Do you know why that is?

I've only just heard about this film.

'
Yet a male waves a finger, in a situation where he is already guaranteed all those things with no struggle, and he now has a fundamental right for SEX?? WTF?? I'

Ah, no.

Someone or some group have the confidence knowledge and money to take his case to court.

Totally different matter.

On the other case, there was a very long quote from a company that provides this service. The context seemed that they were involved in some way.

I think these cases are strategic. The aim is to get rulings with sex is a right etc and then they can be used to challenge other laws.

I've worked with adults with a learning disability one service user wanted to book sex workers but had history of making threats against women and calling them names. A risk assessment was done and it was agreed by the multidisciplinary team that he could purchase an adult DVD but he wouldn't be able to book a sex worker because we couldn't guarantee her safety unless we directly supervised which would be all sorts of wrongs.

Why hasn't the judge considered a risk assessment for the woman?

Well he views sex as a human need and it's not fair for some men to buy be able to get some so...

While looking for info etc on the case I found one about a woman with autism who wanted sex with men.

If you are subscribed to times they prob have more info. This is not paywalled.

Warning- upsetting.

www.theweek.co.uk/97209/local-authorities-accused-of-pimping-out-autistic-woman?amp

[quote EmbarrassingAdmissions]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[/quote]
For anyone who hasn't seen it, I recommend the very nuanced and focused discussion in the King Chambers' webinar mentioned in the above thread which is about the original CoP judgment.

www.kingschambers.com/latest-news/resources/can-it-be-lawful-for-the-state-to-facilitate-an-incapacitatous-person-to-see-a-sex-worker

Is this the same judge Hayden?

'A row has erupted after a judge spoke in court about the “fundamental human right” of a man to have sex with his wife.

The remark was made by Mr Justice Hayden, who had been asked to consider imposing a court order preventing a man from having sex with his wife of 20 years because she may no longer be able to give her consent.'

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right

[quote NiceGerbil]Is this the same judge Hayden?

'A row has erupted after a judge spoke in court about the “fundamental human right” of a man to have sex with his wife.

The remark was made by Mr Justice Hayden, who had been asked to consider imposing a court order preventing a man from having sex with his wife of 20 years because she may no longer be able to give her consent.'

www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/english-judge-says-man-having-sex-with-wife-is-fundamental-human-right[/quote]
Yes.

I don't know why MPs seized upon it as misogyny but in context, it seems as if Justice Hayden was arguing for a compassionate examination of a complex and sensitive issue.

www.transparencyproject.org.uk/does-a-man-have-a-right-to-sex-with-his-wife/

Whatever he 'meant' to say. And I believe he got pissed off with the reaction.

A very high up judge stating in ANY context - this:

'“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife '

Is unequivocally appalling.

-Not a couple to have sex with each other- man with his wife.

-No more fundamental human right? He can't think of ANY? None at all ?????
The international declaration of Human rights includes stuff like-
No one shall be subject to slavery
No one shall be subject to torture
Ummmm.

• marital rape was only banned in the early 90s.

No man has had the right to sex with his wife here for (only) 30 years

You can't see why what he said was a problem?

You can't see why what he said was a problem?

I will always see a problem with taking remarks out of context whatever the motives.

I formed my opinion by reading several CoP judgments and attending precise discussions on the scope of the narrow areas on which Justice Hayden had been enlisted to rule.