Prostitution has gone through phases. Some times the hookers get arrested, other times the Johns get arrested and other times no one gets arrested.
Until this lawsuit, the council only paid for his housing and other welfare payments. I'm not sure how much "care" they provided.
I have no idea about the "lewd acts" bit.
Due to the nature of the case, it was done in secret, but what we do know is what the judge deemed to be open to the public.
There are cases where heteros are forced to have some sort of birth control implanted, but none that prevent a person from having sex, until this one. At least that's what has been being said on the various news chat shows.
From what I gather, the boyfriend has a low IQ from standard, but not as bad as Alan.
I'm disappointed by how weak all of articles and headlines are on this story. The fact that this has never happened to a hetero, but is happening to a gay person isn't even mentioned in any of the articles.
Also, councils have been paying for heteros with mental and physical disabilities to have sex via hookers.
hXXp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7945785/Councils-pay-for-prostitutes-for-the-disabled.html
Councils pay for prostitutes for the disabled
Taxpayers' money is being spent on prostitutes, lap dancing clubs and exotic holidays under schemes designed to give more independence to the disabled.
By Laura Donnelly, Michael Howie and Ben Leach 9:30PM BST 14 Aug 2010
One local authority is using its budget to pay for the services of a prostitute in Amsterdam, while others have said visits to lap dancing clubs are permissible under new policies which transfer funds directly to those who receive care from social services.
Holidays abroad, subscriptions for internet dating and driving lessons have all been funded by the taxpayer under a national initiative introduced by the last Government.
The £520 million scheme promised to give elderly people and those with disabilities more control over the care they received, by passing on cash so individuals could choose the services they needed, such as home help, or mobility aids.
An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph can disclose that exotic holidays, internet dating subscriptions and adventure breaks, as well as visits to sex workers and lap dancing clubs have been permitted under the system.
One local authority has agreed a care plan including payment for a 21-year-old with learning disabilities to have sex with a prostitute in Amsterdam next month.
His social worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said social services were there to identify and meet the needs of their clients – which, in the case of an angry and frustrated young man, meant paying for sex.
Another care worker said staff at her council had been told that trips to lap dancing clubs could be funded, if it could be argued that it would help the "mental and physical well being" of their client.In response to Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, four local authorities describe themselves as "condoning" the payment of sex workers by disabled clients, using money transferred from their budgets.
Other councils said they took no moral judgement about the use of funds, but said care money could be spent on anything, as long as it was not illegal.Paying for sex is not against the law but soliciting sexual services, kerb crawling and paying for sex with women who have been coerced into prostitution is.
In Greater Manchester and Norfolk, councils say payments to social care clients can be used to pay for internet dating subscriptions.
In the course of 12 months, one man with mental health problems from Norwich received a holiday in Tunisia, a subscription to an internet dating site, driving lessons, and expensive art materials.
Department of Health documents describe how the man received the funding on top of his state benefits, after suffering from psychiatric problems when his wife asked for a divorce.
In the report on his case, the man says he needed "some time out, some rest and a change of scenery" after suffering marital problems and says the break in Tunisia with a friend was cheaper than a week in institutional care.
Trafford council, in Greater Manchester, says its budgets cannot be spent on anything illegal, or anything that would bring the council into disrepute. It suggests personal budgets could be used for holidays, adventure breaks, subscriptions to dating agencies, horse riding or to buy a pet.The FOI survey, by The Outsiders and TLC Trusts – two groups which campaign for the sexual rights of people with disabilities – found most local authorities said they did not "condone" transfer of their funds to pay for sex.
But of 121 councils who responded, 97 per cent said they had no policy on the topic, allowing discretion for social workers and junior managers about how to manage such requests.Several councils contacted by this newspaper said they did not know if they had ever funded visits by disabled people to sex workers.
Stockton-on-Tees borough council said it did not think it had funded sex workers for clients. A spokesman said people "in receipt of our care can do whatever they wish, though we would not condone or be involved in anything illegal".
A spokeswoman for Knowsley council said requests for funding to access sexual services would be "looked at on a case by case nature".
Doncaster council said that so far it had not funded any requests for sexual services, but said future decisions would depends on the needs of the individual.
Norfolk county council said it did not believe it had funded any visits to sex workers, but Di Croot, assistant team manager for learning disabilities in North Norfolk said such requests would be looked on "favourably" with staff encouraged to be "as free thinking as possible" about how to ensure all the needs of clients were met.
Zoe Grace Cozens, who wrote the council's policy on learning disability and sexuality, said the authority also had a duty of care to ensure that those with learning disabilities were not being exploited financially, if they paid for prostitutes from their own money.
"That could mean care workers phoning to check what rate sex workers were charging," she added.
Belinda Schwer, a legal consultant who advises councils, said many local authorities agreed support plans for clients which did not specify how funds would be used, once they passed out of their hands.
"From what I have seen, at least one quarter of local authorities are doing support plans which only state what outcome should be achieved – not which services are being employed."
In the case of someone given funds to go to a sex worker, such documents might set out an intended emotional outcome, rather than the means by which it was achieved, she suggested. "If you have got a happy and calm person who was previously frustrated and angry, that might achieve a good outcome, but the case law says councils should be setting out which services are being used," she said.
Neil Coyle, director of policy at Disability Alliance, said most people with disabilities did not want or expect the state to pay for sexual services.
He said: "When people go to councils for help, they are looking for essential services to maintain some level of dignified existence – help to dress and wash. Given that councils have been drawing the most basic support from those who need it, I do not think this is the biggest concern of people with disabilities."
Liz Sayce, chief executive of disability network Radar, said the desire for sexual relations was a matter of human rights, meaning cases involving payments should be carefully examined on a "case by case" basis.
Matthew Elliot, chief executive of The Taxpayers’ Alliance said it was “deeply worrying” that public money had been spent on the services of prostitutes, lapdancing clubs and to pay for holidays.
He said: “Many taxpayers will be appalled and offended that money intended for social care has been used in this way. What's more, it’s deeply worrying that this scheme has been so vulnerable to these abuses. It’s essential that where public funds are involved, there are the sort of checks and balances in place that prevent money being wasted in this way”.
hXXp://www.vancouversun.com/life/Judge+bans+with+from+having/4225699/story.html#ixzz1D2RzFmoF
Judge bans man with low IQ from having sex
BY MARTIN BECKFORD, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH FEBRUARY 4, 2011
A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sexual intercourse by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about "civil liberties and personal autonomy".
The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man with whom he lived and told officials "it would make me feel happy" for it to continue.
But his local council, which provides his accommodation, decided his "vigorous sex drive" was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a "moderate" learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing. It started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship.
A psychiatrist involved in the case tried to prevent the man being given sex education, on the grounds that it would leave him "confused".
Mr Justice Mostyn said the case was "legally, intellectually and morally" complex as sex is "one of the most basic human functions" and the court must "tread especially carefully" when the state tries to curtail it.
But he agreed that the man, known only as Alan, should not be allowed to have intercourse with anyone on the grounds that he did not have the mental capacity to understand the health risks associated with his actions.
Under the judge's order, the man is now subject to "close supervision" by the local authority to ensure he does not break the highly unusual order. The judge concluded: "Alan does not have the capacity to consent to and engage in sexual relations.
"In such circumstances it is agreed that the present regime for Alan's supervision and for the prevention of future sexual activity is in his best interests."
It is the latest controversial case to come before Britain's Court of Protection. Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its judges have the power to make life-or-death decisions for people deemed to lack the intelligence to make them for themselves - such as ordering that they undergo surgery, have forced abortions, have life-support switched off or be forced to use contraception.
In the latest case, the man known as Alan was described as being physically able but "seriously challenged in all aspects of his mental functionality". He lived in a home provided by the council, where he developed a sexual relationship with a man called Kieron by the court. Alan was also accused of making lewd gestures at children in a dentists' surgery and on a bus, although no police action was taken.
The town hall began court proceedings in 2009 to restrict contact with Kieron on the grounds that he lacked mental capacity, and an interim order was made.
"Since then Alan has been subjected to close supervision to prevent any further sexual activity on his part," said the judge.
Copyright
While there has been similar cases that involved heterosexuals with low IQ, their right to have sex has never been denied.
Chalk another one up for blatant homophobia in the government and courts.
While Target may not have been giving money for homophobic issues, they knowingly gave the money to a notorious homophobe.
Imagine the what would have happened if if Tom Emmer was anti black or anti jewish. Besides the massive media coverage, they {blacks or jews} wouldn't sit back and say, "Target doesn't hate us, they just support him".
Another muslim preaching hate while whining that people hate him and his kind.
Can we say HYPOCRITE?!
It's not exactly what we mean by torrent comment.
It would be better to send by PM, but we would not punish you for posting that as a torrent comment as it's not aggressive or flaming.
It's true that all groups need to lighten up.
However, it seems that the world demands that gays lighten up while everyone else refuses to do the same. And for this very reason I won't give stereotype because people will scream that I'll a racist and whatnot.
Sadly, this will not prevent Uganda from getting aid from the west.
They are not the same thing, however they are supposed to be treated the same in most cases. This is one of the cases where both are supposed to be treated the same..
Areas like work and private pensions can exclude transferring the pension benefits to civil partners, but they have to give it to hetero married partners.
The homophobe couple are appealing the court ruling.
The Christian Institute is funding the appeal.
There are many articles that talk about the government paying for it. The wikipedia article says the government paid the Bishop of Exeter and his 2 cronies for the slaves.
Under the UCMJ, the fact that it's consensual doesn't mean diddly squat.
Let's ignore the HIV part of this story for the moment.
The judge also convicted Gutierrez of indecent acts for having sex in front of others and eight counts of adultery.
The US military is extremely prudish in it's rules any type of sex, so I wonder how this will play into the repeal of DADT.
The only legal sex according to the UCMJ is between married heteros and in the "missionary position". The "missionary position" only rule means gays can be prosecuted for having any form of sex.
hXXp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4694896.stm
Read that.
Also note that the £13,000 talked about was the amount paid in 1833, not today's money. That was just one Bishop and a few of his cronies.
We also have to remember that there were Africans involved in the slave trade as well. Slavery in Africa still continues to this very day.
Personally, even if I was straight I don't think marriage is of personal importance. If two people are right for each other they'll stay together. A marriage certificate isn't going to change that. However, I think the right to marry is an important stepping stone to being treated as equals, as a precedent for future issues, for the satisfaction of those who choose to marry and to assuring benefits, etc., to our chosen family.
You don't see the 1,400+ rights granted under marriage in the US as important?
I'm not sure where you got the idea that no porn stars are tested. They all are.
Ok, maybe some shit hole country not required testing, but the US and Europe do require it.
The biggest single slave owner was the Church of England and they are the reason that it took so long for the UK to ban slavery.
From memory, it cost the UK government an equivalent of £64 Billion in today's money to buy them out of the slave industry.
YES, you did very off topic.
IN Canada we had MAD COW DISEASE, IN USA its was known as downer syndrome
IN CANADA it was called SARS, in the USA it was known as severe pneumonia
Down Syndrome in the US is not related to mad cow disease and never has been. The US also had SARS.
Down Syndrome and "mad cow" have some similar symptoms, maybe that's what you are thinking.
Google "sars in the us" and the first 3 links will be to the US's Center of Disease Control or CDC and it talks about SARS.