man who cannot understand the issue of consent must be allowed to pursue sexual relationships

[ProstheticConscience]

I'm baffled at this decision. It puts him at risk as way as everyone else.
The judge said "JB was “entitled to make the same mistakes which all human beings can, and do, make in the course of a lifetime”."
However I also see that things are drifting into the territory of punishing people for things they haven't done.
Whose rights are more important here? My opinion is that others have more right not to be harmed.

If someone has a right to sex then by extension someone else is compelled to provide it.

Hence my earlier comment about this leading to State-issued brothel vouchers and legalised brothels, and my repeated strident "hell no" to the idea of any kind of "right" to sex.

That seems all a bit left hand right hand to me.

If the LA is taking the LA itself to court over this, was there some internal discussion on the matter ?

And the LA must be happy with the court decision so the LA is appealing.

Or have I misunderstood something.

As it stands no one is helped by this, and I'm left muttering about hell and handcarts.

No, it's me! But also yes, as the LA are his 'guardians' They found him representation and are the defendant. It happens a lot with people with dimished capacity. 2 parts of one organisation have to act against each other.

The LA have to refer to the Court of Protection to justify why they are restricting the freedom of someone who lacks capacity.
Reminds me when I was in this area of work, a man with advanced dementia was aggressively sexually assaulting women with advanced dementia in the same dementia unit. Groping genitals under clothing, attempting to kiss, pinning down etc.
Seemingly had no history of this before developing dementia and was otherwise polite and courteous and shocked to hear he has been doing this. Remember a meeting with a psychiatrist (female ) from the MH team staring calmly that the LA need to pay for a sex worker to visit weekly and the care home need to accommodate this.
My manager thankfully wasn’t having it as a) it’s currently illegal, b) there was no proof this will stop his abusive behaviour due to his advanced memory loss...c) (to my mind) how dare women be suggested to be hired out so a sexually abusive man in his 90s can have his ‘needs’ met and to provide a solution to make other women safe? Yuk.
But it seems this type of logic is becoming more of a reality in adult social care now.

a man with advanced dementia was aggressively sexually assaulting women with advanced dementia in the same dementia unit. Groping genitals under clothing, attempting to kiss, pinning down etc.

And here's the case for single-sex adult care units.

how dare women be suggested to be hired out so a sexually abusive man in his 90s can have his ‘needs’ met and to provide a solution to make other women safe?

Yet libfems think throwing some women under the bus like that is a solution and call us "whorephobic" for suggesting that all women have the right to be safe, with "all women" including the ones they want to throw under the bus. Pro-tip: it's not us who are "whorephobic"...