Carers allowed to help clients visit sex workers

[StealthPolarBear]

words fail me

No, there isn’t but there is a difference where the person in question needs the assistance of someone else to obtain these services. There is no right to obtain sexual services that one cannot obtain due to disability. This is because nobody has a right to sex even if they really really want to

There is a right to do whatever you want within the law. Why is this man not allowed to do what every other man can? Nobody has the right to go horse riding or go the pub or sit for 8 hours at an airport watching planes but all those things may be part of a care plan because they are perfectly legal activities that the average person can participate in if they wish.

Buying sex is immoral. It's horrifying, it is not morally comparable to any of the above activities but it is legal. It is an option for all other men.

@Tealightsandd

I wonder, will it work both ways? Would they help a female client access a male sex worker? And same sex workers for those who want.

In similar circumstances, to use a phrase with which we're familiar, courtesy of Maya Forstater's hearings, it would seem to be on all fours if there is similarity of circumstances (capacity to be able to consent to sex but not the capacity to arrange to purchase the sex). There were several references in the judgment to similarity with the care teams of young men with brain injuries who wished to have transactional sex.

If TLC or a similar services has registered providers who offer the services you discuss then I should think it would be theoretically feasible.

And no-one seems to think of the Carers rights. They have enough to do without pimping being added to the list.

There is no right to obtain sexual services that one cannot obtain due to disability. This is because nobody has a right to sex even if they really really want to.

No, but given a woman willing to provide the service, and a carer that willing to assist, this is ruling that that is not in itself illegal. The carer wouldn't fall foul of the laws around prostitution designed to prevent pimping.

Is it ruling anything beyond that? If it was I'd be more concerned.

It doesn't sit well with me.

They have enough to do without pimping being added to the list.

I'd appreciate general background here. How do they deal with "what carers are prepared to do"? This surely would not be the only point of conflict. (Eg my flippant vegan carer example above).

@Pota2

Okay, that’s somewhat reassuring exwhyzed but I am still deeply uncomfortable with the references to autonomy and having the same rights as others to have sexual relationships. There was some mention that the prostituted woman may be at risk (but apparently some prostitutes are fine with that apparently!) but essentially she didn’t really feature in the discussion. It was all about the man and his needs and wants and the woman was just a vessel for him to use to do that. He sounds incredibly disturbed and I hope that his carers keep him away from women. Anyone with violent fantasies that have led to detention is a serious danger.

I wouldn't be reassured.

This particular man may not get a care plan to allow him to buy sex but it's effectively put it on the table for all other care plans (or it may do dependent on appeal).

@NecessaryScene1

They have enough to do without pimping being added to the list.

I'd appreciate general background here. How do they deal with "what carers are prepared to do"? This surely would not be the only point of conflict. (Eg my flippant vegan carer example above).

Same way they would in any other job for example a Muslim staff member wouldn't cook breakfast on bacon butty day. If you had a service user who only ate bacon butties a Muslim staff member probably wouldn't be rota'd to that service user.

Well in that case I find it grim. It doesn’t matter if able bodied men can purchase sexual services. I just do not think that providing care for a person extends to putting them in the same situation, sexually, as an able bodied person. Sex is not a human right, despite what men seem to think. There is no right to a sex life or facilitation of one. I wouldn’t be so sure that all the women servicing clients with ‘risk factors’ are freely consenting either.

Are there any limits to when we allow people in this man’s position to purchase sex? If pedophilic tendencies aren’t enough for this to be deeply disturbing, what if he had attacked women in the past?

@NecessaryScene1

They have enough to do without pimping being added to the list.

I'd appreciate general background here. How do they deal with "what carers are prepared to do"? This surely would not be the only point of conflict. (Eg my flippant vegan carer example above).

If you search on the word 'carer' within the judgment there are several extended discussions that may be relevant and informative:

He lacks capacity to make the practical arrangements involved in identifying a suitable and safe sex worker and is unable to negotiate the financial transaction. What is proposed is that C will be assisted in these arrangements by carers who are sympathetic and content to help him. As I have set out above, this is delicate but not unfamiliar terrain (see para 10 et seq.) I reiterate, this requires to be addressed with both maturity and sensitivity.
…
He understands that I am considering what the law permits and that should I come to a conclusion that the law will not stand in the way of carers who are willing and able to help C achieve his wishes

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/A-Local-Authority-v-C-and-ors-judgment.pdf

Okay gonna mute as it seems that I am in a minority here and I don’t like seeing it likened to cooking breakfast or whatever. This is someone really quite disturbed. Carers have enough shit to deal with without having to facilitate someone’s sexual desires that they believe they are entitled to act out in return for payment.

what if he had attacked women in the past?

Hayden addresses this:

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.
As a result of his progress it was possible for C to be discharged to his current home.

Hayden also discusses risk assessments for the man and sex workers. Hayden's final line is:

I will have in mind that it will never be in C’s interest to put himself or others at risk.

@Pota2

Well in that case I find it grim. It doesn’t matter if able bodied men can purchase sexual services. I just do not think that providing care for a person extends to putting them in the same situation, sexually, as an able bodied person. Sex is not a human right, despite what men seem to think. There is no right to a sex life or facilitation of one. I wouldn’t be so sure that all the women servicing clients with ‘risk factors’ are freely consenting either.

Are there any limits to when we allow people in this man’s position to purchase sex? If pedophilic tendencies aren’t enough for this to be deeply disturbing, what if he had attacked women in the past?

Are there any limits to when we allow people in this man’s position to purchase sex?

No there aren't. That's my point. If this man's history were exactly the same but he lived independently he would be legally able to purchase sex within the same parameters as every other man. That's the problem.

So no, I don't think we should hold this man to a higher standard than anybody else. The problem is that standard is too low for everybody, not this man in particular.

@Tealightsandd

It doesn't sit well with me.

The law around buying sex hasn't changed as a result of this judgement.

The judgement has clarified the existing law and identified that the existing laws around procuring sex can be extended to any person assisting someone with a disability to access the same 'rights' to procure sex as someone without a disability.

However distasteful that may be, it's the law as it it currently exists.

@2020isnotbehaving has made a really valuable contribution to this thread and has described much better than I have why this needed to go to the COP for clarification.

It's a judgement that's most likely irrelevant to the actual day to day care of the gentleman who is the subject of it, it sounds like he is risky and it's not something his staff team would ever contemplate supporting him with as part of his care plan.

It’s not up for able bodied people to decide what other adults want to do just because they have a disability though. It’s like saying every pub has a step but as your carer I don’t feel you have a right to go to the pub it’s not a human right. Even if practically every adult will have a drinking in pub experience. Sorry I’ve got to much to do.

A carer is a paid employer, there must be plenty of office PAs that have booked drinks in strip clubs and hotel rooms for their bosses after parties. No one has a problem when that’s same sort of thing.

@Pota2

Okay gonna mute as it seems that I am in a minority here and I don’t like seeing it likened to cooking breakfast or whatever. This is someone really quite disturbed. Carers have enough shit to deal with without having to facilitate someone’s sexual desires that they believe they are entitled to act out in return for payment.

They don't have to. That's the point.

They CAN, legally assist.

Whether they do or not is another matter entirely.

However distasteful that may be, it's the law as it it currently exists.

Yes. If you want this disabled man to not be able to do this, you'll have to so via universal law changes, not just block him because you can because he's disabled.

Are carers also allowed to assist their clients to sell themselves?

@2020isnotbehaving

It’s not up for able bodied people to decide what other adults want to do just because they have a disability though. It’s like saying every pub has a step but as your carer I don’t feel you have a right to go to the pub it’s not a human right. Even if practically every adult will have a drinking in pub experience. Sorry I’ve got to much to do.

A carer is a paid employer, there must be plenty of office PAs that have booked drinks in strip clubs and hotel rooms for their bosses after parties. No one has a problem when that’s same sort of thing.

Actually I have a huge problem when it's that sort of thing as do a lot of people.

This ruling makes my heart sink, it really does. The thing is, for this man (and others with similar presentations) I imagine that all care plans like this would need to go to CoP. What concerns me is men who do not have a cognitive impairment.

As far as I understand it the only thing standing in the way of the LA commissioning carers to facilitate prostitution was the fact that it would criminalise them. If this stands and they are no longer criminalised then I don't see how the LA could deny physically disabled men the same kind of support. It wouldn't have to see the inside of a court room, after all it is perfectly legal and available to the rest of society.

Heart sick.

I worked in a care home when I was a student. There was one resident every morning we'd go in his room and he had his watch round his erect penis and he'd say 'what time is it'. Carers have enough to put up with.

Flipping heck. However I have heard of this going on before now.

Of course, carers cannot be forced to facilitate anything like that, it won't be in their contract of employment. If they don't mind, they can do it, though what that actually entails I can't imagine other than driving their client to an appointment or, if the client sees the person at home, seeing them in and out. The mind boggles.

In all honesty I would have thought the clients would have been too embarrassed to ask anyone to help them meet....someone.

I do know that carers are often propositioned, they are taught how to deal with, and deflect, situations like that.

But @Glasstabletop the law hasn't changed. It's been clarified but not changed.

No one is compelling anyone to do anything. The case has clarified that if the man is able to find someone willing to assist him to pay for sex then that person will be treated as a proxy rather than as a pimp. It's essentially allowing for a 'reasonable adjustment' to allow him to access a 'service' that many other men legally access. The moral implications and concerns surrounding that 'service' are an entirely different issue.

If the COP had been asked e.g to consider if a carer could be asked to carry an unlicensed hand gun on behalf of the man as he couldn't do it himself then the judgement would have gone the other way, because unlike buying sex the man would have been committing a criminal act if he was carrying the gun himself and therefore the carer would also be committing an offence even if they were only acting as a proxy carrier.

What men want men get,...
Yes
... nothing has changed.
I disagree with this part though, because things did start to change, but things are sliding backwards now. It's so depressing, I worry so much for the future of my young female relatives and friends.

When I think of all the strong working class women I grew up with, I think they would he turning in their grave at all this that's going on. What I read on these boards

Don't worry , I'm sure the trade unions for carers will be come down hard on this like a ton of bricks ! Oh no but wait...

Not read the whole thread.

I am interested in how this case actually came about.

It's been reported in the news and has been s thing for years, a known thing, that care homes of various types will get women in for sex with the residents.

It's not even newsworthy. No drama, no arrests, news articles met with meh.

So who has really brought this case and why? We know that strategic lawsuits have been seen as a good move elsewhere.

This seems very iffy to me. A court case where in reality there was no risk to the carers because this goes on all the time and has done for years and no one really cares?

A man who is particularly vulnerable?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. This feels off to me.