Sunday, August 15, 2010

Fancy a Bit of How's Your Father on the State?

I support government helping to make the lives of disabled people easier. It's what a civilised society should do. But I did wince when I saw £520 million a year is being handed out to people with absolutely no accountability and little detail of what the money is spent on.

According to the Sunday Telegraph the money is sometimes spent on visits to strip clubs, internet dating agency subscriptions and adventure breaks.

And in one case a 21 year old disabled man has used his taxpayer funded allowance to fly to Amsterdam to have sex with a prostitute.

We're entering a big taboo here, because no doubt most able bodied people don't like to think about the sexual needs of the disabled. One thing I learned when I was a nurse in Germany at the age of 18 was that just because you have some sort of disability does not make you a different class of person. You have the same emotional and physical needs as anyone else.

But even allowing for that, surely it can't be right for anyone, disabled or not, to use taxpayer's money to fund trips abroad to have sex with a prostitute. What's wrong with British prostitutes?!

Seriously, no disabled person I know would expect the state to fund activities of this nature. To say that "the desire for sexual intercourse is a matter of human rights" as Liz Sayce of disability group Radar, is patently ridiculous. If that is the case, perhaps every virgin over the age of 30 should take the government to the European Court of Human Rights.


BeefQueen said...

In what way do these people have 'no accountability'? They're local councils, elected by local voters.

If individuals don't like how their council is spending their money, they can register that distate with their vote. ConDems might not like it but that's real power - and long may it continue.

David said...

I'm 80% disabled after Army service and have yet to be offered such personal services! (Mayhap the wife has spoken to the Powers that Be.. 8-) )

Steve Tierney said...

It doesn't worry me at all if some disabled people are using some of their benefits in this way.

I can't imagine what difficulties and miseries some disabled people must face. I propose that in this area a "dont ask dont tell" policy would be the respectful way to proceed.

After all, there but for the grace of God...

Bloomingpouf said...

Oh Iain

Given your own past experience within a sexually oppressed minority, I would have expected you to be more thoughtful and considered.

Given the body fascism within the GAY community, you should even consider the way that Disabled Poufs get treated! You try finding a witty, intelligent chap who's kinky for crutches!

This story is not about Bonking on the Rates - more about the ongoing negative stereotypes of the Angelic Disabled who have to be looked after by others. Heaven's help us - have a priest getting his ration on the side and it's seen as regrettable, but to be forgiven. Have a crip do it and there is moral outrage!

You and I were both born criminals - and many disabled people are treated just the same way by the people who took some 25+ years to catch up last time!

Remember the media coverage then? Ah well - should I hand over the pieces of silver?

D. Quail (expat) said...

It's clear that what needs to be done is strictly control what these so-called disabled people are allowed to spend their money on.

I don't want my tax pounds being spent on hookers. Neither do I think it's right that these people buy Taste the Difference range food from Sainsbury's instead of cheaper options. What's wrong with Basics? And why squander taxpayers' cash on expensive newspapers when they could be buying the Star for only 20p?

What we need is complete transparency. It's not cool that the state just hands over vast wads of money to 'minority or vulnerable groups' only to turn a blind eye to where it's being spent. A sure-fire way to breed a whole generation of wheelchair-bound terrorists and blind money-launderers if I ever heard one.

Demand to see disabled shopping lists now!

Old Holborn said...

It's a fake charity supported by taxpayers money (without our consent)

Check accounts page 28

Anonymous said...


Wot 'bout us the aged brewers who are vertically challenged?

Should we not get "have it away" week-end in Amsterdam or Montréal?

Unknown said...

Saw that story as well. Though what concerned me most was the fact that the woman pictured has the physique of Julian Dicks.

Charlotte Corday said...

Sorry but I'm getting tired of this "Let's all knock disabled people because they are getting so much in hand outs and most of them aren't really disabled" meme.

Possibly there are a few cases such as the one cited in your post where this has happened. But are you seriously suggesting most of the £520 million is spent like this? You say there is little detail of what the money is spent on. Possibly because social service departments believe in client confidentiality.

When David Cameron was in opposition, a lot was made about him having a disabled son and the strain it puts on a family. Now the coalition is in power all we hear is crap like this about how disabled people are getting all these handouts.

There seems to be developing a very nasty strand of victimising some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Salmondnet said...

It will be interesting to see how the sisterhood reacts though, won't it? If prostitution is male oppression and customers should be criminalised, does this apply to those of the disabled who can't find satisfction elsewhere? There is no PC answer

Hexe Froschbein said...

There is a big difference between an able-bodied person and a paraplegic. Your mentioned 30-year old virgin can walk into a brothel, the paraplegic can't.

And yes, the latter should have the ability to hire a prostitute if it benefits them, just like they should have modern equipment to compensate as much as is possible for the loss of their body.

If the paraplegics of your acquaintance don't want to do that, then they don't have to(maybe use the money for other things instead?), but they should have the option if they choose to -- they are not collecting alms from us (like the longterm unemployed), but an income, and rightly so. Life is bad enough for them, without busybodies deciding how they spend their money.

We sure have a problem with freeloaders ripping off the alms we offer up, but the solution is to police properly and use common sense to cut those shysters off, not nanny the people we should help. Besides that, if we can do that we will save o much money that we can also afford to look after the real disabled properly.

Unknown said...

I'mn sure there are many non-disabled 30+ "World of Warcraft" players out there desperate to lose their virginity. Can they now apply to the government for assistance

(and no, I'm not one of them!)

Anonymous said...

Leg-Iron has composed yet another masterpiece on this issue.

A screaming waste of money.

Many of us have had long periods of illness during which time we didn't "get any".

That's life! The bleeding hearts whose hands are stuffed with fists full of our money are likely to have deep pockets and short arms when it comes to donating their own cash for their causes!

Unknown said...

The Policing and Crime Act 2009, makes 'Paying for sexual services of a prostitute subjected to force' illegal. There was a big hoo ha ha when this act came into force because of the risk of prosecution for something you couldn't know. The possibility that a civil servant has paid for someone to have sex with a prostitute that may have been under the control of a pimp. Would the disabled person using the service or the civil servant paying for it be prosecuted? It shouldn't be any business of the Government what people agree to between themselves so long as there is no great danger of death, however I would be somewhat amused with left leaning civil servant being prosecuted with a left leaning act.

Shaun said...

"perhaps every virgin over the age of 30 should take the government to the European Court of Human Rights."

I'm sure A&E will be delighted to see you after you put that suggestion to Ann Widicombe!

Anonymous said...

I feel my bad back coming on again ...

Anonymous said...

surely it can't be right for anyone, disabled or not, to use taxpayer's money to fund trips abroad to have sex with a prostitute.

Well it depends. I don't think the state should give money to people specifically for them to pay prostitutes. But onece people are given money, it's theirs and they can spend it how they like.

Surely you are not arguing that it be a crime for anyone in receipt of money from the state to go to Amsterdam and hire the services of a prostitute?

Unknown said...

Perhaps I could point out that all registered disabled people have equal access to employment by law and are therefore not necessarily economically disadvantaged.

I support funding any equipment that assists mobility and daily living, it is the civilized thing to do. That does not include equipment in Amsterdam though.

There are lots of other groups in society who don't get there fair share of sex, the chronically shy, those brought up with very strict moral codes, people living in very sparsly populated areas, the ugly, those with emotional problems, the old, couples with kids: The list is endless. Why should the taxpayer make special contributions to one group when there are many others who are similarly drought struck?

Carl Eve said...

Perhaps they should be allowed to become MPs... they appear to be able to get extra totty other than the wife at the drop of a hat.

I mean, if unremarkable gimps like Prescott, Norris and Major can all get laid, then it opens up a lot more opportunity for someone in a wheelchair.

AND they can then claim it on expenses...

Houdini said...

What about ugly people who are not physically disabled? What about those with chronic BO? People too shy to meet others? Any one of a myriad of people who cannot get laid?

This is about giving into a vocal and visual minority with tax payers money. This is NOT about thinking about the sexual needs of the disabled, and this is not a taboo subject.

Soldiers dying through lack of kit, but that's okay because the disabled can get shagged..the elderly dying through lack of resources but that's okay because the disabled get shagged with that money.

This isn't taboo, and it shouldn't be anyway. They can't get sexual gratification...tough shite, welcome to the real world where even able bodied people can't get laid and have their sexual needs gratified.

I thought New Labour was done.

kasou said...

Iaain I think you will find that in Holland its legal, in Sweden and England they are Victorian prudes

Raedwald said...

Sex and disabled people, profoundly subnormal people and mentally ill people is a moral minefield. As has been pointed out, the staunchest defenders of their human rights are the first to run for the hills when prostitution is mooted as the only way many of these can get their rocks off. Personally, I'm easy about it - but not on my taxes.

One of my drinking buddies in Dublin is an ex-Trinity man who's also a gay spastic (or cerebral palsic in old money). He'd like a relationship with a 'normal' man but relies on rent boys, as there are few fetishists for spazzs. He poo-poohs my advice to eschew his perversion and lusts for a life of prayer and contemplation.

Apart from being an invert, he's a man of great wit - and his story of soliciting a street boy for sex with neither mouth nor body at his command eventually had me (it took some time) in stitches, though covered in spittle.

And I suspect the reason they go to Amsterdam is that Labour's anti-sex laws have made some vital aspect of the transactions illegal in the UK. So much for 'British jobs for British workers' the balance of trade and export earnings ....

Bloomingpouf said...

It may be helpful to some readers if the following is made known.

There Is NO Such Thing As A Registered Disabled Person - There are poorly devised and managed registers, operated by Local Authorities covering certain areas of disability, particularly visual impairment.

It is an Historical Hangover from The National Assistance Act 1948 - Section 29 - "Welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons, etc".

It is best to not use the term Registered Disabled, as it often raises the hackles of disabled people who are after all a person first and as a secondary issue may have a disability!

Many wonder at the feelings involved - but just change the language to Registered Racial Minority and consider the reaction that would get!

Lawless Anarchist: said...

prostitution is illegal over here- Isn't that the reason he had to go to Amsterdam?

Moreover, perhaps he wanted sex with someone who, under a tightly regulated system, could prove they weren't riddled with aids nor had to operate out the back of a ford escort?

Cinnamon Marine said...

It appears that some of your commentators do not understand what this pot of money actually is, Iain. Under the last Government's changes to social care provision, people who are in need of social care are being given the option to manage their own budget allocation It's not part of the benefit system per se, it's the money that is used to pay for carers, mobility equipment, care homes, day centres, etc. The idea of the personal budget is that the individual has autonomy over the way that their allocation is spent, but the personal budget must be approved by the local authority before the money is paid out. Therefore it isn't simply that people are being given a pot of money to do with as they wish, the local authority responsible for their social care provision has to approve where the money is going.

There are huge problems with the personal budget system which I don't think have been completely thought through. For example, if someone uses some of their allocation to pay a carer, then they become employers with all the attendant responsibilities that entails such as paying for maternity leave, sick pay, etc. I have not been able to find out whether the pot of money they are allocated is increased to cover such additional payments in the event that a paid carer goes on sick leave or maternity leave, but if not then the person being cared for is going to be left with no support while their personal budget for social care is being paid as sick leave or maternity pay. Any enquiries on the subject have met with very vague and unclear responses.

blemster said...

Ian are you going green with envy lol
a bit tongue and cheek i know!!!
all the best Cromwellian Northants B.N.P. a certain member of the labour party springs to mind i`ll give you a clue "Nipples!,Nipples!!"
get your answers in folks

Matt said...

I think I agree with Liz...

javelin said...

A major factor in the breakdown if society are the second generation of divorced BOYS.

What generally happens in divorces is that single mums fall in love with their children - they do this as a need to be loved because they are not getting in love with their partner.

The situation then becomes the mother and the children playing the role of the family in-love and the single mother then may find a boyfriend to become a secondary player who provides the sexual role for the mother.

The mother effectively shifts the lines between parent and child love up to the children. The new boyfriend is then confronted with a relationship where they feel like appendages and the children are jealous of the new boyfriend who also directly competes by being in love with mother.

Eventually in the case of boys they realise that the love the mother has given them is inappropriate and must go through a process of rejecting the mother as a fantasy partner. This process should normally happen to boys before the age of 6, but when left to teenage years the boys feel shame and anger and supress this feeling. It often leads to subconscious mistrust of women.

Divorces have been falling in a straight line. Alot of people think this is because fathers tell their sons not to marry, but this is not true. When you are in love you are in love and you want to marry - ask Iain. The problem goes much deeper. Men simply have problems because their mother has "abused" their love for their mothers selfish purposes.

Anonymous said...

Just a response to Cinnamon Marine - yes, the budgets are increased proportionally to allow for sick pay/contingencies and holiday pay when users become employers. I think what this post shows us is how little understanding and knowledge there is of the movement in social care to individual budgets.

These are not benefits payments.

The money has to be justified and accounted for at every stage.

As for me, as a social worker one of my jobs is to arrange these budgets but I work with older adults and it's a struggle even to get the personal care needs (washing/dressing) met - let alone anything at all for 'leisure' but the 'pot of money' decreases exponentially when you hit 65.

I'd also say that I'd feel quite uncomfortable about the role I might be expected to play in arranging sex services for someone else although there would have to be an assumption of capacity in order for the decision to be made.

Page With A View said...

It’s a far stretch from helping those with disabilities to assuming that everyone has the ‘human right’ to some good old rumpy pumpy.

What about the unlucky, the unlovely, the shy, the Wayne Rooney lookalikes – are we supposed to pay for all of them to lap it up at some dodgy foreign massage parlour too?

As to how these sort of decisions might be made by councils, my thoughts are here: