Liaison with sex workers on social workers' watch denied

[Lone-punter]

Social services should not help man meet sex workers, judge rules
External Link/Members Only

A judge has ruled that social services should not facilitate access to prostitutes for a man with learning disabilities who has a “high sex drive”. The man, who is in his 50s, had become fascinated with female sex workers about a decade ago after developing a relationship with one

The man said:

high sex drive” and found the “lack of access to sex workers” frustrating

The judge observed:

I consider it would be wholly contrary to public policy for this court and for this local authority, to endorse and sanction [him] having sexual relations with a woman for payment.

Sharing it because found it interesting tension between care, human right and public policy 

[Home Alone]

Fascinating!

I know I'm not the only physically disabled punter on here and I was very self-conscious about getting dressed in front of the lass in Sandy's Prestwich Parlour at the end of my very first punt nearly 15 years ago. It was a really big step for me to go into a Parlour for the first time; but I knew that, as a disabled 58-year old, I was unlikely to pull a 'civvy' so, if I wanted sex - and I did!  - somewhere like that was where I'd have to go.

I've subsequently learned that there are SPs who 'specialise' in seeing the more disabled punters and this judgement makes me wonder if it could be challenged on human rights grounds. Surely disabled people have the right to a sex-life?

[Stiltskin]

Maybe he should ask to see a 'sex surrogate'. That sounds far more respectable.

[myothernameis]

Social services should not help man meet sex workers, judge rules

And while passing this ruling, the judge himself is of for a kinky weekend, arrange by his fellow judges   

The man in question has said, he has a high sex drive, but does not lack the ability to undertake a booking for an escort, which begs me to think.  What happens when the man is sexualy frustrated, and a young nurse walks into his room, maybe to wash and bath him, and take his sexual frustrations on her

[bigmc]

why go to court for this ?. just ask an understanding nurse ( lets face it, a hell of a lot of health care professionals are wg`s ) to sort it on the quiet.

[Lone-punter]

Fascinating!

I know I'm not the only physically disabled punter on here and I was very self-conscious about getting dressed in front of the lass in Sandy's Prestwich Parlour at the end of my very first punt nearly 15 years ago. It was a really big step for me to go into a Parlour for the first time; but I knew that, as a disabled 58-year old, I was unlikely to pull a 'civvy' so, if I wanted sex - and I did!  - somewhere like that was where I'd have to go.

I've subsequently learned that there are SPs who 'specialise' in seeing the more disabled punters and this judgement makes me wonder if it could be challenged on human rights grounds. Surely disabled people have the right to a sex-life?

Thanks for sharing your personal experience  I think the Court of Protection's decision can be challenged on the basis of Equality Act 2000 which says "it is illegal not to support disabled people to enjoy the same pleasures as others". A short BBC documentary throws light on this subject:

External Link/Members Only

The sex worker interviewed in it, who is also a former care worker, says categorically that it is in fact care workers legal duty to help their clients to get access to a full and healthy sex life and that by doing this they are not promoting prostitution.

[Jonestown]

That would be a great job for a seasoned punter in later years - Outreach Coordinator (Provision of Sexual Services)

[Blackpool Rock]

That would be a great job for a seasoned punter in later years - Outreach Coordinator (Provision of Sexual Services)

Yeah I wonder if it would be a bit like in Thailand when a rickshaw driver takes you to a shop then runs in to get his commission if you buy something.
OK so I brought you a punter for an hour, now where's my BJ   

[bender999]

There's a movie called The Sessions which is about a man in an iron lung who wants to lose his virginity. Sounds oddball but it well worth watching.

[winkywanky]

Maybe he should ask to see a 'sex surrogate'. That sounds far more respectable.

Alternatively, he could see if the Judge's regular's any good, and whether she sees disabled gents? And perhaps pop a review of the punt in the Court letterbox next time he's passing  .

[winkywanky]

There's a movie called The Sessions which is about a man in an iron lung who wants to lose his virginity. Sounds oddball but it well worth watching.

I'll keep an eye out for that one.

Although anyone in an iron lung generally feels nothing from the neck down, so although all kinds of activity with a WG might be possible (and very enjoyable), literally losing one's virginity sounds a mite implausible?

[Romeo Sensini]

why go to court for this ?. just ask an understanding nurse ( lets face it, a hell of a lot of health care professionals are wg`s ) to sort it on the quiet.

That explains the chunky calves and poor attitudes.

[peter purves]

The Judgment

Lincolnshire City Council [Applicant] - and - MR AB

External Link/Members Only

[Lone-punter]

The Judgment

Lincolnshire City Council [Applicant] - and - MR AB

External Link/Members Only

Thanks for sharing the judgement. In my view, it's hypocritical on the judge's part that on one hand he denied "P" access to sex workers observing it would amount to criminal offence because it is:

sexual activity by an individual for payment, with another person

while on the other he kept a blind eye over the Lincoln Council's admission that it had been facilitating "P" the access to sex workers here and abroad for the last 8 years before bringing up the case to the CoP. How you can class the care workers as "pimp" if they aren't profiting from helping a disabled person to satisfy a natural desire which he or she otherwise cannot manage at their own. The judge also seems to have a very low viewpoint about sex workers as he remarks while denying "P" access to them:

He puts himself at risk to his health, his welfare and his safety and he puts himself at risk of exploitation

The case however looks a formality and bureaucratic activity to have a judicial cover on the part of the plaintiff local council after deciding it would no longer facilitate high sex drive of "P". All the parties including respondent "P's" litigation friend were congruent with the view that he should be denied access to sex workers. 

[Mallow841]

There's a movie called The Sessions which is about a man in an iron lung who wants to lose his virginity. Sounds oddball but it well worth watching.

I’ve seen that.
It’s an interesting and eye opening film.

[Doc Holliday]

Having read the judgement I too am struggling to identify on what grounds anyone involved would be in breach of the Sexual Offences Act?

[mh]

Funnily enough there was a news story last week about a man with autism who didn't understand the concept of consent and a judge ruled he had a fundamental right to pursue sexual relationships even though he might force himself upon women!

External Link/Members Only

His local authority, as his carer, had put limits on his freedoms and the judge said they had to go.

I know as absolute fact that workers in care homes do enable their residents to have sex both with other residents and with sex workers. Even going so far as to arrange a trip to a red light district for the specific purpose of the resident "exercising their fundamental right to sex"! And very happy it made them, too. Telling social workers that they cannot assist a disabled person with doing something perfectly legal is unacceptable in my opinion.

[winkywanky]

Funnily enough there was a news story last week about a man with autism who didn't understand the concept of consent and a judge ruled he had a fundamental right to pursue sexual relationships even though he might force himself upon women!

External Link/Members Only

His local authority, as his carer, had put limits on his freedoms and the judge said they had to go.

...and a female judge, to boot.

Let's hope she's the judge when his rape case goes to court.

[Gordon Bennett]

Having read the judgement I too am struggling to identify on what grounds anyone involved would be in breach of the Sexual Offences Act?

If a third party facilitates a meeting between a bloke and a sex worker wouldn't that make them a pimp? I'm too lazy to read the article but I suspect this was about clarifying the law and/or testing the water in order to pave the way for ensuring Social Services can support such arrangements  in the future or at least understand what precise legal barriers need to be addressed or removed. Ultimately, the only way to get a definitive answer on a legal point is to test it in court so that's what they've done.

[winkywanky]

If a third party facilitates a meeting between a bloke and a sex worker wouldn't that make them a pimp?

Only if they made money out of it I think?

[myothernameis]

The Judgment

Lincolnshire City Council [Applicant] - and - MR AB

Anyone know if the judgement is binding, and some other social worker, came to the aid of the man, and got him an escort for the night, is the social worker actually breaking the law

[Lone-punter]

If a third party facilitates a meeting between a bloke and a sex worker wouldn't that make them a pimp?

The case is decided on the basis of sections 39 (Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity), 42 (Care workers: interpretation) & 53A (Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force etc) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The expert witness in the case, a Consultant Psychiatrist, concluded in her report "P lacked capacity in all relevant domains, save the capacity to consent to sex".

"P" has high sex drive and also the capacity to consent sex, so how then the care workers be held culpable under s.39? Here come, the s.53A, which provides:

1. A person (A) commits an offence if:

a. A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B);
b. A third person (C) has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual offences for which A has made or promised payment; and
c. C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).

But, the case workers in this instance are considering welfare of their client rather than being exploitative to him or the sex worker(s). They are not making any gains out of this arrangement. Section 53A is controversial as it makes it irrelevant that "Whether A [punter] is, or ought to be, aware that C [facilitator/pimp] has engaged in exploitative conduct" and therefore makes the punter accomplice even if they did not know the prostitute they had sex with was coerced or trafficked.

In NSW Australia, it has been legal to be sex worker since 1978 and owning and running brothels have also been decriminalized since 1995. And, that is why charities like Touching Base (External Link/Members Only) are actively working there to connect disabled people and sex workers. Britain will also have to approach this issue progressively instead of making life of the people with disabilities more difficult.

I suspect this was about clarifying the law and/or testing the water in order to pave the way for ensuring Social Services can support such arrangements  in the future or at least understand what precise legal barriers need to be addressed or removed. Ultimately, the only way to get a definitive answer on a legal point is to test it in court so that's what they've done.

Yes, it seems the case. The council had however made its position very clear from the onset before the court that it did not intend to facilitate "P's" access to sex workers. Yes, it ultimately wanted judicial seal either way.

[Lone-punter]

Anyone know if the judgement is binding, and some other social worker, came to the aid of the man, and got him an escort for the night, is the social worker actually breaking the law

It is binding unless is overturned by the Court of appeal. But there are no indications so far that it is going to be challenged in the CoA.

[LLPunting]

Thanks L-p 
My PC gave up trying to download the 200 sections of the SOA so I could understand why the care workers were going to be (possibly) liable.
The fact that the man was unable to assess or reason with the SPs he might meet meant that the court was also protecting him from falling foul of prosecution for exploitation of coerced SPs.

[Lone-punter]

Funnily enough there was a news story last week about a man with autism who didn't understand the concept of consent and a judge ruled he had a fundamental right to pursue sexual relationships even though he might force himself upon women!

External Link/Members Only

His local authority, as his carer, had put limits on his freedoms and the judge said they had to go.

An interesting case and judgment indeed. But the difference between this case and LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL v AB is facilitation access to sex workers. The justice system does not want AB or "P" to see sex workers to get realized his fundamental right to have sex despite him pleading that with his disabilities it is not possible to maintain an acceptable conventional relationship. But in both cases, the judgments risk producing the same result of leaving both the disabled persons prone to criminal justice system and people around them in vulnerable situation by leaving one unhinged despite he does not understand importance of consent to pursue sex while the other with high sex drive is expected to look out for relationship(s) whether he has the capacity or not.

[Lone-punter]

Thanks L-p 
My PC gave up trying to download the 200 sections of the SOA so I could understand why the care workers were going to be (possibly) liable.
The fact that the man was unable to assess or reason with the SPs he might meet meant that the court was also protecting him from falling foul of prosecution for exploitation of coerced SPs.

Yes, the court decides in his 'best interest' to save him from risks of exploitation and exposure to criminal justice system. But I would say such cases should ultimately be tested at higher courts like Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court where the judges  are more experienced and see things beyond the confines of public policy.

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, the court decides in his 'best interest' to save him from risks of exploitation and exposure to criminal justice system. But I would say such cases should ultimately be tested at higher courts like Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court where the judges  are more experienced and see things beyond the confines of public policy.

Many thanks for taking the time to provide a detailed and knowledgeable analysis of this interesting case. I agree with you and GB that this appears to be an exercise to legally rubber stamp a local authority policy choice to avoid something they are uncomfortable with, rather than something in the best interests of the clients in their care.

I still doubt if push came to shove CPS would consider prosecution of anyone involved under the SOA 2003 and that interpretation of any sections of the act to fit the circumstances of this case are academic and very tenuous?

As you said earlier if laws had been broken the council had been breaking them for many years.

Thanks again