Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

And another safeguarding one. Autistic woman 'pimped out'

103 replies

RedToothBrush · 17/10/2018 23:14

Allie Hodgkins-Brown@AllieHBNews
Thursday’s TIMES: “Autistic woman ‘pimped out’ in care scandal” #bbcpapers #tomorrowspaperstoday

This is copy of some of the article if you can't read it from the image:

Austistic Woman ‘pimped out’ in Care Scandal.

A young autistic woman was allow to have sex with numerous men because her carers were said to believe that high-risk encounters with strangers might help her to “learn from her mistakes”, it can be revealed today.

The woman 23, who has severe learning disabilities and an IQ of 52 was repeatedly exploited during a court approved, two month trial period this summer in which random men were permitted to visit her Manchester care home between 10am and 4pm each day.

She was also taken to shisha bars and had sex in public on numerous occasions, including in a taxi and at the back of a bowling alley because the care company paid to look after her would not physically intervene. In August carers reported that the woman was “offering her telephone number to any number of Asian males” with whom she came into contact. She “doesn’t always recognise them when they arrive at the door and they sometimes don’t recognise here”.

The sexual activity was brought to an end after two months. Last month, in a report to the court, a psychiatrist warned that allowing her to continue to be exposed to such a “high level of risk” was unacceptable, unprofessional and might lead to “sexual abuse, violence, injury or death”.

I note might be despite what had already happened.

The article then goes on to mention that the woman concerned has been under the Court of Protection whose role it is to safeguard vulnerable adults who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves since she was 18.

And the court report said, she might lead to, as in future tense, sexual abuse.

And another safeguarding one. Autistic woman 'pimped out'
OP posts:
RedToothBrush · 18/10/2018 00:31

Second article relating to original www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/care-scandal-q-a-can-the-woman-s-family-intervene-dj52frkkg
Care scandal Q&A: Can the woman’s family intervene?

OP posts:
DeRigueurMortis · 18/10/2018 00:32

I cannot begin to comprehend the thought processes behind these decisions.

Or, perhaps more truthfully the answer is that I can, but can't bring myself to do so.

How on earth do you justify the enabling of rape?

Lack of consent = rape.

Person incapable of giving consent = rape.

Angry
LassWiADelicateAir · 18/10/2018 00:34

The Times' leader is also about this case.

DawnFrenchKiss · 18/10/2018 00:38

Where does the 'learn from her mistakes' quote come from? A report? What preceded that quote? If it was 'and it was hoped she might' why didn't they quote that bit? Who uses the words 'pimp out'?

Care agency said they couldn't manage the situation and council said they had to.

Sorry, but I don't believe anything is as simple as a newspaper says it is. Especially that paper who have reported terribly on social care cases before

There is no way a council and care agency 'let' a woman be raped. No doubt everyone was trying themselves in knots over how they would physically stop her and whether they were legally allowed to do so

LassWiADelicateAir · 18/10/2018 00:39

The Leader explains the consent aspect. In terms of a 2015 ruling the legal position is she was able to decide whether to have sex but was not able to distinguish between safe and unsafe sexual partners.

BigChocFrenzy · 18/10/2018 00:40

The court said she should learn from her mistakes.
That's the key problem

However, the carers / social workers still should have called the police, because a woman was being raped

No court can legalise rape, afaik

BlueSpangles · 18/10/2018 00:44

Absolutely shocking Angry

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2018 00:46

No court can legalise rape, afaik

This^

She has not got the capacity to consent. That's it. That's where it begins and ends.

There is no nuance to that. If she's incapable of consent, every man who goes near her is a criminal.

The end.

That's what the carers are there to do. Prevent exploitation. Not just stand there like planks. Not just allow visitors, who clearly she doesn't know or they don't know her, into the building.

It's not just about stopping her. There is also a second party who DOES have the capacity to understand what consent is.

This isn't rocket science.

OP posts:
LorettasBox · 18/10/2018 00:58

God, I was hoping to get some sleep but I am so angry right now. I won't detail it but I have a relative with a similar level of capacity, and I have seen the negligent nonsense play out myself, so I do not doubt for a second the veracity of this report.

Good intentions on the part of the professionals involved mean absolutely nothing if they cannot do their jobs and protect someone who does not have the capacity for consent. This isn't an experiment, these people are supposed to be trained in best practice.

LassWiADelicateAir · 18/10/2018 01:04

There are a couple of more articles. I am a Times subscriber but don't know how share tokens work.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/care-scandal-men-took-full-advantage-of-autistic-woman-s-care-plan-296nx0jnq

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/care-scandal-allowed-to-marry-and-receive-lovers-775mvgq80

LassWiADelicateAir · 18/10/2018 01:09

There is no nuance to that. If she's incapable of consent, every man who goes near her is a criminal

She was found in 2015 to be capable of consent. The nuance is that she does not distinguish between safe and unsafe men; nor I expect recognise the damage to her mental and physical health and wellbeing which multiple, casual encounters are likely to cause.

acivilcontract · 18/10/2018 01:18

This may have been more complicated than the very limited bits I am reading suggests.
It sounds as though a judge has ruled on a care plan that the local authority contested. The judge must have thought that she had capacity to consent to these sexual encounters which is why the care plan was agreed. The local authoritiy, which means the social workers were worried about sexual exploitation were overruled by the judge who followed the advice of the support agency that the young woman should be able to make her own choices.
There is often considerable conflict between different parties about how much of a sex life people with learning disabilities should be allowed to have, with different parties having different risk thresholds. As a social worker I would place myself between parents who are the most protective and advocacy groups who can be very liberal. They often take the most liberal approach arguing that people with LD have the same right as anyone else to choices even if they are bad ones.
There may well have been a horrendous mess up, but these things are rarely as simple as they look on paper.

noeffingidea · 18/10/2018 01:42

This makes me sick to my stomach. I know I will have to put my daughter into care one day. Is she going to be abused like this?

Threeminis · 18/10/2018 02:40

I find this difficult, I agree with all the comments here but then ask myself why isn't she allowed a sex life? She is an adult physically, even if she doesn't have the mental capacity. I appreciate the experiences she has had don't sound like desirable ones and verging on abuse but in a different situation would it still be classed as rape?

noeffingidea · 18/10/2018 03:32

What's difficult to understand? If she hasn't got 'the capacity' to consent then she can't have a sex life for her own protection.

KataraJean · 18/10/2018 07:20

What about the husband?
The couple had a supervised courtship and expressed a wish to marry. He was said to be devoted to her. He was not told what was going on when he was not there; in fact, it was timed to be when he was not there.

There is also the presumption from the agency that he only married her for citizenship, which I find sad. As if that is the only reason someone would marry an autistic woman. I don’t know his motives but both families say he was devoted to her.

What a sad story all around.

KataraJean · 18/10/2018 07:23

The courts ruled she did have a capacity to consent to being married. The issue is around safe behaviour and her obsessional interest (common with autistic people) being with men. The court cannot judge her able to marry, but not to have sex with anyone else. It is the planned and unsafe nature of it all.

SpartacusAutisticusAHF · 18/10/2018 07:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FissionChips · 18/10/2018 07:41

That’s made me cry, I feel sick. Poor woman.

TheQueef · 18/10/2018 07:55

I'm gutted reading this.

I despair. Sad

BabySharkAteMyHamster · 18/10/2018 07:56

An IQ below 70 is deemed as severe.

Either ways, I don't think people realise how tricky situations around capacity are.........in my dds case, I wouldnt have an issue with her having a sexual relationship with someone of an equal ability. However id have major issues with her having a relationship with a non, disabled person. The relationship just wouldnt be equal. I think this is where a lot of the lines are blurred and people who have disabilities are being exploited

RepealtheGRA · 18/10/2018 07:59

WTAF did I just read? Wow. I really don’t know where to start with this?

The ‘private agency’ rings all sorts of fucking alarm bells though AngrySad

kalinkafoxtrot45 · 18/10/2018 08:00

Court sanctioned exploitation. Absolutely disgraceful. Would they pimp out an autistic man in the same way?

RedToothBrush · 18/10/2018 08:03

A judge ruled in 2015 that the woman was able to consent to sex but lacked the capacity to “make decisions on her contact with men”.

So did not have the capacity to consent around random strangers. As ruled by a judge.

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread