Carers can help vulnerable clients visit sex workers

[Corus Boy]

External Link/Members Only

[Bikerman]

Just read this and few girls  do supply this service on Aw...personally i think everyone has a right to sex paid or otberwise

[willie loman]

have come across carers, in the lounge in saunas, while there client is in the room, as ever the dutch are way ahead of us.

[NigelF]

personally i think everyone has a right to sex paid or otberwise

Totally disagree. It’s not a right, it’s for someone else to freely choose to do with you, even if you’re paying for it.

I totally agree with the judge’s ruling as per the article. There’s also this charity that helps disabled people find escorts:
External Link/Members Only

[Gordon Bennett]

Seems fair enough. My concern would be what if the lad enjoys it and then wants a punt every day? Hopefully, he has sufficient mental capacity to understand the finances/economics of paying for escorts.
I'd also worry about carers encouraging him to pursue this. Barnardo's are a really right-on leftie bunch who demand that lads like this should be allowed to go boozing, do drugs, go whoring like any "normal" person. Perhaps they're right but some "normal" people have no interest in such things. My impression of Barnardo's carers is that they stray too far into nudging, pushing, steering their clients down this path and I think "who's idea is this?? Yours or theirs?".

[Euromax]

Carers can help vulnerable clients visit sex workers - External Link/Members Only

What a fabulous ruling...why should society deprive those with challenges experience the joy of the most natural of urges.

Let's just hope the carers do their UKP research!

[willie loman]

Totally disagree. It’s not a right, it’s for someone else to freely choose to do with you, even if you’re paying for it.

I totally agree with the judge’s ruling as per the article. There’s also this charity that helps disabled people find escorts:
External Link/Members Only

i think most of us understood this as a right to have the same rights as other punter, i.e. up to the service provider.

[sparkus]

Long overdue.

In the Netherlands, disabled people can negotiate paid visits to sex workers out of their disability benefits/care package with the local health authority.

[NigelF]

i think most of us understood this as a right to have the same rights as other punter, i.e. up to the service provider.

I would’ve thought that too but he wasn’t just referring to paid sex.

[Steely Dan]

Lawyers for Justice Secretary Robert Buckland are now appealing the ruling. They had argued that granting permission to the carers to help C would undermine attempts to reduce prostitution by using the state's care services to facilitate it.

Why the fuck does Buckland want to reduce prostitution? Exploitation? Sure. Trafficking? Of course! But no more than these.  Leave it alone and go after 1000 things that matter more.

[Hobbit]

Seems fair enough. My concern would be what if the lad enjoys it and then wants a punt every day? Hopefully, he has sufficient mental capacity to understand the finances/economics of paying for escorts.
I'd also worry about carers encouraging him to pursue this. Barnardo's are a really right-on leftie bunch who demand that lads like this should be allowed to go boozing, do drugs, go whoring like any "normal" person. Perhaps they're right but some "normal" people have no interest in such things. My impression of Barnardo's carers is that they stray too far into nudging, pushing, steering their clients down this path and I think "who's idea is this?? Yours or theirs?".

Like anyone else, he has a choice to see an escort or not. I doubt any carer would encourage someone to see escorts. In terms of mental capacity, if this person doesn't have the capacity to make his own decisions or manage finances then I am sure he would be getting some support in doing that and therefore someone would support him in decision-making.

[lillythesavage]

Couple of years back a SP told me about an outcall she had done that day. knocked on the door and taken aback when a women answered, invited in and the women explained the booking was for her dying son. 

Maybe should have explained when booking, but probably got a lot of rejections before deciding to try this way.

[Cullen]

My concern is that the new influx of 'carer-enabled punters' will flood the scene and I'll end up being priced out of the market by some lad who's funded by Mencap. Perhaps the solution to that is 'carer-enabled service providers' to help balance out the numbers and keep the market equilibrium intact.

Not really.

It's a sound and progressive judgement, and one that moves us, hopefully, towards a more regulated, legalised industry.

[Colston36]

Seems fair enough. My concern would be what if the lad enjoys it and then wants a punt every day? Hopefully, he has sufficient mental capacity to understand the finances/economics of paying for escorts.
I'd also worry about carers encouraging him to pursue this. Barnardo's are a really right-on leftie bunch who demand that lads like this should be allowed to go boozing, do drugs, go whoring like any "normal" person. Perhaps they're right but some "normal" people have no interest in such things. My impression of Barnardo's carers is that they stray too far into nudging, pushing, steering their clients down this path and I think "who's idea is this?? Yours or theirs?".

Your "impression of Barnardo's carers" is interesting. What is it based on? I worked with them for a while and it wasn't my impression. Nowhere in the article is it suggested the carer encouraged the lad. What evidence do you have that carers encourage drug taking?

[Cullen]

Seems fair enough. My concern would be what if the lad enjoys it and then wants a punt every day? Hopefully, he has sufficient mental capacity to understand the finances/economics of paying for escorts.
I'd also worry about carers encouraging him to pursue this. Barnardo's are a really right-on leftie bunch who demand that lads like this should be allowed to go boozing, do drugs, go whoring like any "normal" person. Perhaps they're right but some "normal" people have no interest in such things. My impression of Barnardo's carers is that they stray too far into nudging, pushing, steering their clients down this path and I think "who's idea is this?? Yours or theirs?".

I can't keep up with the Victorian Dad wing of the political right. One the one hand, the 'leftie bunch' are these puritanical man-haters that want punting banned - and one the other, they're encouraging men to seek out prostitutes.

[Home Alone]

 

Why the fuck does Buckland want to reduce prostitution? Exploitation? Sure. Trafficking? Of course! But no more than these. Leave it alone and go after 1000 things that matter more.

Ironic that, at a time when the wheels of most Government Departments are grinding very slowly because of Covid, they're being given the green light to challenge this ruling.

[sparkus]

Why the fuck does Buckland want to reduce prostitution? Exploitation? Sure. Trafficking? Of course! But no more than these.  Leave it alone and go after 1000 things that matter more.

Tory MPs have been among the most avid users of sex workers throughout time, that won't change.

The current grey area legislation regarding brothels is probably going to be kept in place for years to come because it allows for enough prostitution to take place to cope with the demand for it in a way that doesn't make it too visible or apparent (unlike RLDs).  This judgement does however expose the uneasy compromise to some unwanted scrutiny, so it's probably a token protest for appearances' sake.

I'm no defender or fan of this government, far from it, but it's not showing the appetite or zeal for the 'Nordic model' that other parties are and just wants the issue to go away.

[RedKettle]

Wish there was a right/expectation that married people could visit a sex worker if not getting it at home!

[Kelgon85]

Tory MPs have been among the most avid users of sex workers throughout time, that won't change.

The current grey area legislation regarding brothels is probably going to be kept in place for years to come because it allows for enough prostitution to take place to cope with the demand for it in a way that doesn't make it too visible or apparent (unlike RLDs).  This judgement does however expose the uneasy compromise to some unwanted scrutiny, so it's probably a token protest for appearances' sake.

I'm no defender or fan of this government, far from it, but it's not showing the appetite or zeal for the 'Nordic model' that other parties are and just wants the issue to go away.

Yes, the reason is simple really. He doesn't want to be seen to encourage or endorse prostitution.

[sparkus]

Yes, the reason is simple really. He doesn't want to be seen to encourage or endorse prostitution.

"Phwoarrr, go on lads, get stuck in!"

[Kelgon85]

"Phwoarrr, go on lads, get stuck in!"

 

[blend57]

Good.

I suspect the Guardian opinion pages are going to fun over the weekend.

[signy]

Ironic that, at a time when the wheels of most Government Departments are grinding very slowly because of Covid, they're being given the green light to challenge this ruling.

To be fair, governments will often challenge rulings so that the case makes its way to the supreme court and a definitive decision can be made. It is then done and can be forgotten about unless a government wants to specifically change the law, which is unlikely if theyare going to get into another human rights battle.

OTOH, many people in government are just vindictive bastards who will drag out cases and pile costs onto both parties (of course the government only picks up one side's bill) in the hope that plaintiffs lose interest/resources and suffer as much as possible. There is no interest in what is best for the individuals involved or the country as a whole.

[blend57]

To be fair, governments will often challenge rulings so that the case makes its way to the supreme court and a definitive decision can be made. It is then done and can be forgotten about unless a government wants to specifically change the law, which is unlikely if theyare going to get into another human rights battle.

OTOH, many people in government are just vindictive bastards who will drag out cases and pile costs onto both parties (of course the government only picks up one side's bill) in the hope that plaintiffs lose interest/resources and suffer as much as possible. There is no interest in what is best for the individuals involved or the country as a whole.

If the government were to simply drop the issue they would be attacked for giving up, especially by the anti-prostitution crowd. This way they get some respite from the feminists and Christian prudes until the supreme court stage. This is the problem with people who campaign for changes in the law. They never give up and they have a hard time accepting that the majority of the country either does not agree with them or simply does not care enough for the current situation to change.

[Kelgon85]

Good.

I suspect the Guardian opinion pages are going to fun over the weekend.

Look for the stock image they always use of a woman's legs poking out of a car door.

[sparkus]

Look for the stock image they always use of a woman's legs poking out of a car door.

Or a mini skirted hooker leaning into a car window.

[Gordon Bennett]

Your "impression of Barnardo's carers" is interesting. What is it based on? I worked with them for a while and it wasn't my impression. Nowhere in the article is it suggested the carer encouraged the lad. What evidence do you have that carers encourage drug taking?

12+ years of sorting out placements, care-packages and support for someone with severe learning difficulties and SMI. I just don't use them anymore - I feel their militancy clouds their judgment and I'm not convinced about their vetting procedures either, but that's another story.
Anyway, beyond that you cannot tell me there are no perverts, monsters and paedos working in the care/support industry. These monsters gravitate to professions where they can get at vulnerable people. Wherever this legislation goes, it needs to be rock-solid and 100% nonce-proof if it progresses. I have no issue with facilitating visits to a sex-worker for adults with learning difficulties - I just worry about who's doing the facilitating.

[simon07]

I need a carer to find me a good gal.

Really poor punting in Hertfordshire is affected my mental and ‘Willy’ well being.

[willie loman]

Or a mini skirted hooker leaning into a car window.

guardian readers love those sort of pics, plus any "drama " that depicts trafficking with obligatory rape scene.

[sparkus]

guardian readers love those sort of pics, plus any "drama " that depicts trafficking with obligatory rape scene.

And being able to 'save' the women, in the manner of a Victorian workhouse, by clicking on a 38degrees petition.

[OLDTIMEGAL]

Just read this and few girls  do supply this service on Aw...personally i think everyone has a right to sex paid or otberwise

Had a few guide dogs in over the years..

[delete]

I don't have an issue with this, I am sure the carer could refuse to support their client if they didn't feel happy supporting them to visit a service provider.

If the client wants to see a working girl and they are happy to accept the booking, good luck to them.

[Backstreetboy]

Its not just lads who have needs.

[sparkus]

The Court of Appeal has now overturned this:

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

The Court of Appeal has now overturned this:

External Link/Members Only

Thanks for that update. Interesting.

[Straightsix]

A regular SP I used to see years ago would service a guy in a wheelchair while his wife would wait in the car.
One day this SP asked if I would join her and this guys wife for a threesome but first she would like a conversation on the phone. I missed the fucking call and then she changed her mind once enough days had gone by. That one really hurts.

[bristolian31]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

[Strawberry]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

Flaming heck.

[Lou2019]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

Wow what an absolutely vile comment 

[signy]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

Site Rules
21 Gender / Race / Nationality
Banter is allowed, but racist or homophobic posting will result in a ban.

I never thought I would have to say it, but maybe the mods should consider adding disability to the above list of prohibited comments/attacks. We are aware from their reviews that some of our most respected members have disabilities, and they should be able to read threads without having to put up with this. There shouldn't be any place for such things on this board.

[daviemac]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

What an absolute cunt you are and I don't think you have a place on this forum.  There's loads of members here with disabilities.

[Hobbit]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

Glad you're banned. You sound like a cunt.

[Lou2019]

What an absolute cunt you are and I don't think you have a place on this forum.  There's loads of members here with disabilities.

Well done daviemac 

[Punterperson1971]

I don't have an issue with this, I am sure the carer could refuse to support their client if they didn't feel happy supporting them to visit a service provider.

If the client wants to see a working girl and they are happy to accept the booking, good luck to them.

Wow wow so glad you are banged now what a vile thing to say

[isaac_gauss]

The court heard that C [...] wanted to experience sex - and so he had asked his carers if they could find him a sex worker

Given C has the money to spend, and is able to communicate his desires to his carers, why can't he communicate with escorts directly and find one himself? Apparently he has been judged to indeed have the mental capacity to consent. But he doesn't have the capacity, somehow, to procure SW services? Is he deprived of the freedom to use the internet? I'd say that's even worse than being deprived of sex.

Maybe he can't read due to intellectual disabilities? Difficult issue. In C's case, seems there are behavioural concerns:

The characteristics of C raised a serious question about whether it would be appropriate to expose a sex worker to the risks of spending time alone with him.

For the sake of safety for all involved, how about group sex then? Or a volunteer, friend, or carer, and an associate of the WG could simply be present for the proceedings. I realise this would make the booking more expensive.

[Marmalade]

guardian readers love those sort of pics, plus any "drama " that depicts trafficking with obligatory rape scene.

A bit off topic, but just came across this and agree and despise the gratuitousness involved. In cinema too — somehow there are a vast number of ‘poor trafficked victim’ virtue-signalling films as well as violent movies where the ‘artistic content’ supposedly justifying displays of flesh will be a rape victim who of course eventually gets her own back. Anything with the same amount of lurid content in a healthy sex scene is somehow verbotten and with only a few exceptions. Consequently the ‘wrong’ kind of sex is actually normalised, the very opposite of what campaigners claim to want with their prurient objections.

[Doc Holliday]

Given C has the money to spend, and is able to communicate his desires to his carers, why can't he communicate with escorts directly and find one himself? Apparently he has been judged to indeed have the mental capacity to consent. But he doesn't have the capacity, somehow, to procure SW services? Is he deprived of the freedom to use the internet? I'd say that's even worse than being deprived of sex.

Maybe he can't read due to intellectual disabilities? Difficult issue. In C's case, seems there are behavioural concerns:

He has something of a complex medical and social history, but it seems it had been decided he lacked the capacity to access the internet and also control his own financial affairs. The latter especially gave rise to this test case.

External Link/Members Only)

[tynetunnel]

I know it's mean and controversial, but i don't like disabled people, they are taking away resources (tax money), and now they want to spend my (our) tax money on prossies, who most likely are again not paying tax...

That’s quite a post. Which of course got you banned. The right outcome for such a nasty, ignorant c**t

[isaac_gauss]

Thanks for the link Doc. So, from that source, it's been determined that he 'lacked capacity' to 'decide to use the internet and social media'. But also: 'C has the capacity both to engage in sexual relations and to decide to have contact with a sex worker.'

 

I suspect he's being deprived of too much of his freedom. Poor sod. Maybe he shouldn't have free rein on forums, Tiktok, and Twitter, but can't he safely engage in a limited way, in one-to-one communications (e.g. AW emails) with some controls and monitoring? Just like he can't spend all of his money at will, but I'd imagine he gets some discretionary spending money? I hope!?

[Doc Holliday]

Thanks for the link Doc. So, from that source, it's been determined that he 'lacked capacity' to 'decide to use the internet and social media'. But also: 'C has the capacity both to engage in sexual relations and to decide to have contact with a sex worker.'

 

I suspect he's being deprived of too much of his freedom. Poor sod. Maybe he shouldn't have free rein on forums, Tiktok, and Twitter, but can't he safely engage in a limited way, in one-to-one communications (e.g. AW emails) with some controls and monitoring? Just like he can't spend all of his money at will, but I'd imagine he gets some discretionary spending money? I hope!?

I gave up many years ago trying to understand rationale behind Social Care and Psychiatric reports/decisions. Poor sod has been used as a pawn in a very high level game of legal chess.