Councils pay for prostitutes for the disabled

Don · Aug 15, 2010

Taxpayers' money is being spent on prostitutes, lap dancing clubs and exotic holidays under schemes designed to give more independence to the disabled.

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.

Words fail me. So much for cogent analysis and a thought-provoking question.

Zoombie · Aug 15, 2010

maryland · Aug 15, 2010

... a case of councils getting into bed with a) the devil or b) shady characters on commission? It stinks to high heaven.

Don · Aug 15, 2010

There's nothing nefarious about this; it's endemic to the system.

There are four ways to spend money.

1) Spending your money on yourself.
2) Spending your money on other people.
3) Spending other people's money on yourself.
4) Spending other people's money on other people.

As you move down the scale, personal interest in the outcome decreases. Absent penalties for misappropriation, why priortize, if next year's budget is dependent on running out of money this year? The spender gets the accolades of the recipient, and the donors are too difuse to raise a fuss, or to be listened to if they do.

veinglory · Aug 15, 2010

That aticle is almost impossible to understand in terms of who actually paid for what. But as I read it some disabled people are spending their benefit income on prostitutes. To which I would say: so what, once they receive it, it is their money. They, like any other person, can do whatever the hell they want to with it.

If anything else is going on, the journalist failed to make it clear.

CACTUSWENDY · Aug 15, 2010

Don · Aug 15, 2010

veinglory said:
That aticle is almost impossible to understand in terms of who actually paid for what. But as I read it some disabled people are spending their benefit income on prostitutes. To which I would say: so what, once they receive it, it is their money. They, like any other person, can do whatever the hell they want to with it.

If anything else is going on, the journalist failed to make it clear.

Srsly? Because this seems pretty clear to me.

One local authority has agreed to 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.

Or how about this one? Plain enough?

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.

veinglory · Aug 15, 2010

Mostly they are talking about money distributed as benefits i.e."which transfer funds directly to those who receive care from social services. "

The few exceptions name no person or place--which, when it comes to the Telegraph, falls under 'possibly didn't happen at all'.

I will get all morally outraged when they make the report what actually happen, when, where, why and to whom. Until then it is just a journalistic pandering.

Frankly, if seeing a prostitute from time to time might stop someone with a severe disability from getting suicidally depressed, that seems on a par with other stuff that we pay for. I get far more upset about policitians perks than what happens with some guys meagre benefit money.

They get a DVD, a book, a lap dance, whatever.

Devil Ledbetter · Aug 15, 2010

Prostitution is legal in Amsterdam.

Sex is as much a necessity for human well-being as many other legal items or activities we would not object to having disability benefits going toward. I don't see why a disabled adult should be denied legal prostitution if he can't obtain sex by the usual means.

scarletpeaches · Aug 15, 2010

You die without food, water, clothing and shelter. You don't die without sex.

Shakesbear · Aug 15, 2010

I would rather my tax money was spent on helping people with problems than paying for them to be institutionalized and ill treated.

scarletpeaches · Aug 15, 2010

If never having sex is a problem, who's gonna pay for me to get laid?

JoNightshade · Aug 15, 2010

Devil Ledbetter said:
I don't see why a disabled adult should be denied legal prostitution if he can't obtain sex by the usual means.

Why would someone be unable to obtain sex simply because he/she is disabled? If you allow that, then anyone who can't get sex by normal means "deserves" to have a prostitute, regardless of the reason. Otherwise you're heading down the path of saying that disabled people are somehow lesser than the rest of us.

Xelebes · Aug 15, 2010

JoNightshade said:
Why would someone be unable to obtain sex simply because he/she is disabled? If you allow that, then anyone who can't get sex by normal means "deserves" to have a prostitute, regardless of the reason. Otherwise you're heading down the path of saying that disabled people are somehow lesser than the rest of us.

Someone with a learning disability might find it extremely difficult to navigate a sexual relationship. I think that was the case made for this specific situation.

Mr Flibble · Aug 15, 2010

Hmm,maybe when I was on disability I shoulda claimed I needed to get laid more...but of course, I wasnae entitled. I had to pay my own way outta the pittance they gave me, including the £30 a week in pills, out of £80. hich was to buy food. I didnae deserve more, cos...(I'll stop here, but suffice to say, if I was in a council house, I'd have been quids in. Penalised for not sponging). Much less a shag. And they wonder why people get pissed off at the benefit culture.

Devil Ledbetter · Aug 15, 2010

scarletpeaches said:
You die without food, water, clothing and shelter. You don't die without sex.

How far should those on disability be limited in determining what to spend their checks on? Should they be allowed just enough food to survive? No cookies, no sugar, no coffee, no dairy, because they won't die without it? No medicines except those that save their lives?

One can survive quite nicely without religion, but I doubt there would be a lot of outrage if it was discovered that some of the disabled's paychecks were winding up in church collection plates.

JoNightshade said:
Why would someone be unable to obtain sex simply because he/she is disabled?

I said if, Jo. I did not say because.

If you read the linked article, you will see that the issue at hand was a mentally disabled man's inability to obtain sex by the usual means of dating, promises, manipulation, marriage, etc.

JoNightshade said:
If you allow that, then anyone who can't get sex by normal means "deserves" to have a prostitute, regardless of the reason.

I agree, and revise my initial sentiment. Anyone who wants a legal prostitute should be able spend their money that way, even if it's government disability money, regardless of whether they can get sex by other means.

JoNightshade said:
Otherwise you're heading down the path of saying that disabled people are somehow lesser than the rest of us.

I absolutely did not say, indicate or think that.

leahzero · Aug 15, 2010

Devil Ledbetter said:
Sex is as much a necessity for human well-being as many other legal items or activities we would not object to having disability benefits going toward. I don't see why a disabled adult should be denied legal prostitution if he can't obtain sex by the usual means.

I disagree, and I doubt I am alone.

Sex is not a "necessity for human well-being." There are many, many people who manage just fine without it.

But sexual gratification is vital to the happiness of many people. And sexual gratification is something that can be obtained for free, on one's own.

The objection here is to public funds paying for the extraneous entertainment of the disabled.

Let's not conflate issues. Sex with another person is not a right or a necessity, it is a privilege we grant to one another. Food, water, shelter--these are the bare necessities of life, and society makes a concerted effort to provide them to all people, including those who are incapable of obtaining them on their own.

Devil Ledbetter · Aug 15, 2010

Leah Raeder said:
I disagree, and I doubt I am alone.

Not being alone doesn't automatically make you right.

Leah Raeder said:
The objection here is to public funds paying for the extraneous entertainment of the disabled.

Sex is more than entertainment. It's a basic human drive. Denying to the disabled is cruel.

Leah Raeder said:
Food, water, shelter--these are the bare necessities of life, and society makes a concerted effort to provide them to all people, including those who are incapable of obtaining them on their own.

I can't wait to hear whether JoNightShade thinks that saying some people are incapable of obtaining food, water or shelter on their own means you're saying they are somehow lesser than the rest of us.

scarletpeaches · Aug 15, 2010

Devil Ledbetter said:
Sex is more than entertainment. It's a basic human drive. Denying to the disabled is cruel.

It's a drive, not a need. And if it's cruel to deny sex to the disabled, it's cruel to deny sex to the able-bodied. No-one's 'need' is greater than any other.

You can get by without it. Is it fair? Probably not. But it's definitely not a need. If it is, everyone should get some.

SPMiller · Aug 15, 2010

For ablebodied people, it's relatively easy to get sex. Self-professed asexuals aside, everyone wants it. Unfortunately, it's a competition, just like almost everything else in this world, and apart from those few people with relevant fetishes, I think it's disingenuous to claim the disabled aren't near the bottom of the sexual-attractiveness hierarchy.

Williebee · Aug 15, 2010

No-one's 'need' is greater than any other.

Yeah, tell that to Tiger Woods. *smirk*

I'm thinking I could argue this either way, on a case by case basis. Unfortunately, most governments aren't designed to handle things "case by case".

Plot Device · Aug 15, 2010

Can anyone fill in the blanks on all of these below questions??

DEATH WILL OCCUR IN A HUMAN AFTER HOW MANY SECONDS/MINUTES/HOURS/DAYS/WEEKS IF ONE IS FORCED TO GO WITHOUT ....

_________ 1) Without air pressure (the vacuum of outer space)

_________ 2) Without oxygen to breathe

_________ 3) Without a comfortable atmospheric temperature (above 40 degrees F, below 100 degrees F)

_________ 4) Without water to drink

_________ 5) Without sleep

_________ 6) Without food

_________ 7) Without sex/sexual gratification

I am sympathetic to the desire for sex. And I am appreciative of social programs meant to help people with their needs. But, as Scarlet said, sex is NOT a need. Not when the majority of the entire human race can get along years at a time without it. It's NOT a life or death need the same way food is. Admittedly, we have heard the tales of Tibettan monks who go somethig like nine years at a shot without ever eating food. And that would be either the biggest hoax in the world, or just a one in a billion case of a unique individual with some super-deluxe spiritual abilities which allow him to transcend normal biological functions. But while one man in a billion going years without food is a rarity (if not an outright lie), millions upon millions of normal individuals go without sex for years at a time with no adverse risks at all, and no one bats an eye or sceams "Hoax!" at such a concept.

And I am aware of the mental healing that sex can (temporarilly) privide to distressed individuals. But to say that provinding sex is the only way to prevent someone from killing himself is a bit of a stretch. And having the taxpayers pay for it is just unacceptable. Free food from the taxpayers -- yes. Free sex from them? Ridiculous.

Williebee · Aug 15, 2010

But PD -- (and Hi, I've missed you!)

Does/should Social Services only equal Basic Human Needs?

For example:

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.

I don't KNOW that I could argue for the first two, but driving lessons? Dependant upon where the individual lives, I could make a case for that.

SPMiller · Aug 15, 2010

The assumption that health only involves physical needs is shortsighted and more than a little offensive.

I can almost taste the ableism in this thread.

veinglory · Aug 15, 2010

I think one can easily consider things 'needs' even if you can live without them. They are needs for a basic quality of life and while they vary physical and social contact are typically high on the list alongside freedom and the ability to pursue one's interests.

But then I don't really care if any person does sex work or purchases that service. I can see, on a case by case basis, that it might be important for someone's quality of life.

Councils pay for prostitutes for the disabled

All Living is Local

Dragon of the Multiverse

All Living is Local

volitare nequeo

An old, sappy, and happy one.

All Living is Local

volitare nequeo

Come on you stranger, you legend,

knows a hawk from a handsaw

has finally arrived

Delerium ex Ennui

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Come on you stranger, you legend,

The colors! THE COLORS!

Come on you stranger, you legend,

Prodigiously Hanged

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

A woman said to write like a man.

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Prodigiously Hanged

volitare nequeo