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.
Red light district in Amsterdam: Councils pay for prostitutes, exotic holidays and trips to lap dancing clubs for 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.
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”.
Source
It sounds like someone is catching on to men's needs and taking our mental health into consideration. Hats off to those that came up with this plan. It's about time the government did something for men instead of screwing us over like they usually do. May this catch on on a global basis.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
FIRE denounces SB 967
FIRE Statement on California “Affirmative Consent” Bill
By FIRE on February 13, 2014
Campuses nationwide are struggling to combat sexual assault while respecting civil liberties. However well-intentioned, California’s Senate Bill 967, introduced by Senators Kevin de León and Hannah-Beth Jackson, is a serious step in the wrong direction.
In recent years, legal complaints regarding the response to allegations of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses have proliferated. The majority of these complaints have been filed by students who believe that their campuses failed to properly respond to reports of sexual assault. Of late, an increasing number of accused students have also sought legal recourse, alleging that campus tribunals unjustly held them responsible for an offense that constitutes a grave felony off campus. Unifying the complaints from both sides is a deep frustration with the administration of campus policies and practices.
While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations. Student conduct administrators simply lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training, and legal knowledge required to reliably adjudicate sexual assault cases. This is no surprise; sexual assault allegations are among the most difficult to handle even for the criminal justice system, which possesses far greater resources and expertise. Yet instead of recognizing that college administrators are unqualified to serve as investigators, finders of fact, and sentencing authorities in campus sexual assault cases, SB 967 entrusts them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result.
SB 967 codifies the use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard (50.01% likelihood) in sexual assault cases on campus. While this standard is used in most civil lawsuits, the reality is that civil lawsuits and college sexual assault proceedings differ in several critical ways that make the preponderance standard inappropriate for campus hearings. First, those facing civil penalties in real courts under the preponderance standard are afforded many fundamental protections that are typically absent from campus tribunals, including impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, mandatory “discovery” processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Those accused in campus tribunals are generally denied these protections—but nevertheless are subject to life-changing sanctions based on nothing more than a feeling by campus court participants that they believe one person’s story slightly more. Second, the preponderance standard is inappropriate in light of the considerable ramifications of being labeled a rapist on a student’s educational, professional, and personal prospects. Whereas defendants in civil lawsuits have the option to settle out-of-court and keep the matter private, students found guilty by campus tribunals have no such option, virtually guaranteeing that a negative outcome will have a lifelong effect. By codifying the use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in campus sexual assault hearings, SB 967 erodes a crucial due process protection for students accused of serious criminal conduct.
Further, SB 967 massively compounds the problem of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred by mandating “affirmative consent,” a confusing and legally unworkable standard for consent to sexual activity.
Affirmative consent posits that sexual activity is sexual assault unless the non-initiating party’s consent is, as SB 967 puts it, “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions.” (Indeed, as a practical matter, only explicit verbal communications are acceptable; the bill warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”) Consent must be continuous and “present throughout sexual activity”; if “confusion” over consent arises, “it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.” The bill forbids the accused from pleading confusion over consent as a defense if he or she “did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.”
Should SB 967 become law, there will be no practical, fair, or consistent way for colleges (or, for that matter, courts) to ensure that these newly mandated prerequisites for sexual intercourse are followed. It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage of a physical encounter, and to later prove that attainment in a campus hearing. Under this mandate, a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he obtained explicit verbal consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. In reality, SB 967 would render a great deal of legal sexual activity into “sexual assault” and imperil the futures of all students across California.
We note that the concept of affirmative consent was first brought to national attention when it was adopted by Ohio’s historic Antioch College in the early 1990s. When news of the college’s policy became public in 1993, the practical difficulty of adhering to the policy prompted national ridicule so widespread that it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. (Indeed, the fallout from the policy’s adoption has been cited as a factor in the college’s decline and eventual closing in 2007. It has since reopened.) The awkwardness of enforcing “affirmative consent” rules upon the reality of human sexual behavior has continued to be a popular subject for comedy by television shows such as Chappelle’s Show and New Girl. The humor found in the profound disconnect between the policy’s bureaucratic requirements for sexual interaction and human sexuality as a lived and various experience underscores the serious difficulty that passage of SB 967 would present to campus administrators across California.
FIRE harbors additional concerns about other aspects of the bill. For example, SB 967 in several places refers to students alleging sexual assault as “victims,” effectively presuming accused students’ guilt instead of innocence. The bill does have the positive feature of encouraging colleges to work with outside groups to “make services available to victims, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance,” but California colleges are free to take these steps already and should be encouraged to do so regardless of the disposition of SB 967.
A recent survey found that just 14% of Americans believe that colleges do a “good job” of handling reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. This distressing result is a symptom of the demonstrated inability of campus administrators to effectively and fairly adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, a failure documented by headline after headline in media outlets nationwide. Colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring the well-being of their students; they should be well-equipped to provide resources and counseling to students reporting sexual assault and to take necessary administrative action while criminal complaints are pending. To the extent that the criminal justice system ill-serves sexual assault victims, changes to that system should be considered so that Californians both on and off campus can benefit. But rather than fixing the readily apparent deficiencies of the current campus response to sexual assault, passage of SB 967 will worsen the problems. Indeed, SB 967 would inevitably usher in further litigation from all parties involved, exposing an over-stressed campus judicial system to still more liability and expense.
FIRE hopes California lawmakers will take our concerns, and the concerns of civil libertarians more generally, into consideration as they evaluate SB 967.
Source
SB 967 is in committee at the moment however we should remind California politicians that this is an unfair and unconstitutional bill. You can contact the California legislature: Senate and Assembly. If you are a California resident contact your elected representatives in both houses. If you are not contact the leaders of both houses and tell them you won't do business with the state or any businesses in California or tell them you won't vacation nor spend money in California. If you are a California resident or not you can contact the Governor. Tell him your displeasure about SB 967 and that you want him to veto it if it comes before him or you won't spend your money in California. This is a horrible bill and must be nipped in the bud.
By FIRE on February 13, 2014
Campuses nationwide are struggling to combat sexual assault while respecting civil liberties. However well-intentioned, California’s Senate Bill 967, introduced by Senators Kevin de León and Hannah-Beth Jackson, is a serious step in the wrong direction.
In recent years, legal complaints regarding the response to allegations of sexual assault on our nation’s campuses have proliferated. The majority of these complaints have been filed by students who believe that their campuses failed to properly respond to reports of sexual assault. Of late, an increasing number of accused students have also sought legal recourse, alleging that campus tribunals unjustly held them responsible for an offense that constitutes a grave felony off campus. Unifying the complaints from both sides is a deep frustration with the administration of campus policies and practices.
While campus administrators are in many cases doing their best, they are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to sexual assault allegations. Student conduct administrators simply lack the investigative ability, impartiality, professional training, and legal knowledge required to reliably adjudicate sexual assault cases. This is no surprise; sexual assault allegations are among the most difficult to handle even for the criminal justice system, which possesses far greater resources and expertise. Yet instead of recognizing that college administrators are unqualified to serve as investigators, finders of fact, and sentencing authorities in campus sexual assault cases, SB 967 entrusts them with still greater responsibility. Injustice will inevitably be the result.
SB 967 codifies the use of the low “preponderance of the evidence” standard (50.01% likelihood) in sexual assault cases on campus. While this standard is used in most civil lawsuits, the reality is that civil lawsuits and college sexual assault proceedings differ in several critical ways that make the preponderance standard inappropriate for campus hearings. First, those facing civil penalties in real courts under the preponderance standard are afforded many fundamental protections that are typically absent from campus tribunals, including impartial judges, unbiased juries of one’s peers, representation by counsel, mandatory “discovery” processes to ensure that all parties have access to relevant information, restrictions on unreliable evidence like hearsay or prior bad acts, and sworn testimony under penalty of perjury. Those accused in campus tribunals are generally denied these protections—but nevertheless are subject to life-changing sanctions based on nothing more than a feeling by campus court participants that they believe one person’s story slightly more. Second, the preponderance standard is inappropriate in light of the considerable ramifications of being labeled a rapist on a student’s educational, professional, and personal prospects. Whereas defendants in civil lawsuits have the option to settle out-of-court and keep the matter private, students found guilty by campus tribunals have no such option, virtually guaranteeing that a negative outcome will have a lifelong effect. By codifying the use of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in campus sexual assault hearings, SB 967 erodes a crucial due process protection for students accused of serious criminal conduct.
Further, SB 967 massively compounds the problem of determining whether a sexual assault has occurred by mandating “affirmative consent,” a confusing and legally unworkable standard for consent to sexual activity.
Affirmative consent posits that sexual activity is sexual assault unless the non-initiating party’s consent is, as SB 967 puts it, “expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions.” (Indeed, as a practical matter, only explicit verbal communications are acceptable; the bill warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”) Consent must be continuous and “present throughout sexual activity”; if “confusion” over consent arises, “it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.” The bill forbids the accused from pleading confusion over consent as a defense if he or she “did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.”
Should SB 967 become law, there will be no practical, fair, or consistent way for colleges (or, for that matter, courts) to ensure that these newly mandated prerequisites for sexual intercourse are followed. It is impracticable for the government to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage of a physical encounter, and to later prove that attainment in a campus hearing. Under this mandate, a student could be found guilty of sexual assault and deemed a rapist simply by being unable to prove she or he obtained explicit verbal consent to every sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. In reality, SB 967 would render a great deal of legal sexual activity into “sexual assault” and imperil the futures of all students across California.
We note that the concept of affirmative consent was first brought to national attention when it was adopted by Ohio’s historic Antioch College in the early 1990s. When news of the college’s policy became public in 1993, the practical difficulty of adhering to the policy prompted national ridicule so widespread that it was lampooned on Saturday Night Live. (Indeed, the fallout from the policy’s adoption has been cited as a factor in the college’s decline and eventual closing in 2007. It has since reopened.) The awkwardness of enforcing “affirmative consent” rules upon the reality of human sexual behavior has continued to be a popular subject for comedy by television shows such as Chappelle’s Show and New Girl. The humor found in the profound disconnect between the policy’s bureaucratic requirements for sexual interaction and human sexuality as a lived and various experience underscores the serious difficulty that passage of SB 967 would present to campus administrators across California.
FIRE harbors additional concerns about other aspects of the bill. For example, SB 967 in several places refers to students alleging sexual assault as “victims,” effectively presuming accused students’ guilt instead of innocence. The bill does have the positive feature of encouraging colleges to work with outside groups to “make services available to victims, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance,” but California colleges are free to take these steps already and should be encouraged to do so regardless of the disposition of SB 967.
A recent survey found that just 14% of Americans believe that colleges do a “good job” of handling reports of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. This distressing result is a symptom of the demonstrated inability of campus administrators to effectively and fairly adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, a failure documented by headline after headline in media outlets nationwide. Colleges have a vital role to play in ensuring the well-being of their students; they should be well-equipped to provide resources and counseling to students reporting sexual assault and to take necessary administrative action while criminal complaints are pending. To the extent that the criminal justice system ill-serves sexual assault victims, changes to that system should be considered so that Californians both on and off campus can benefit. But rather than fixing the readily apparent deficiencies of the current campus response to sexual assault, passage of SB 967 will worsen the problems. Indeed, SB 967 would inevitably usher in further litigation from all parties involved, exposing an over-stressed campus judicial system to still more liability and expense.
FIRE hopes California lawmakers will take our concerns, and the concerns of civil libertarians more generally, into consideration as they evaluate SB 967.
Source
SB 967 is in committee at the moment however we should remind California politicians that this is an unfair and unconstitutional bill. You can contact the California legislature: Senate and Assembly. If you are a California resident contact your elected representatives in both houses. If you are not contact the leaders of both houses and tell them you won't do business with the state or any businesses in California or tell them you won't vacation nor spend money in California. If you are a California resident or not you can contact the Governor. Tell him your displeasure about SB 967 and that you want him to veto it if it comes before him or you won't spend your money in California. This is a horrible bill and must be nipped in the bud.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Woman rapes boy,sues for child support and gets it
A 15-year-old boy who was raped by a 34-year-old woman now faces child support in Nebraska. After the rapist was release from Nebraska’s state prison system in 2012 she was able to regain custody of her child. The child had been a ward of the state for the first 13 months until the rapist sister Diana, was able to gain custody. After the rapist was reunited with her child, she promptly filed for Aid and Government assistance which in turn landed Jeremy the male victim with a subpena for child support.
Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments. As incredible as this case sounds it’s not the first nor the last of its kind. Unfortunately, men are victimized as much as women over child support these days. It’s an unpopular topic but one that should be addressed.
Source
Jeremy had his day in court and was ordered to pay $475 a month in child support to Linda Kazinsky as well as a whopping $23,000 in back Child Support payments. As incredible as this case sounds it’s not the first nor the last of its kind. Unfortunately, men are victimized as much as women over child support these days. It’s an unpopular topic but one that should be addressed.
Source
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Man killers
Imagine if this were 3 men killing women you know what the outrage would be. Feminists protesting in the streets. Yet when it comes to men we are fair game. I'm fucking tired of this shit. I'm tired of the male bashing,the demonization of men and the male disposibility that is common culture. This fucking pissing me off. Fuck this.
Friday, February 21, 2014
What's wrong with me?
Those thoughts in your head:
What's wrong with me? I keep thinking that things are not right. Something is wrong. I see men being abused yet it doesn't count but there must be a reason for it. That is what they tell me. They tell me that 100% of the male population rape and commit domestic violence yet I don't nor does any guy I know of does. They tell me that young men are more prone to violence but I've seen a lot of violent young women but they say that doesn't count. I guess it doesn't because they say so and no one argues with them. I feel like I'm the only one who thinks this because no one else is mentioning it. Since they don't care why am I stressing on it? Am I the only one who feels this way?
No,you're not. A lot of men are starting to wake up to what is really going on. They've gotten a taste of the red pill and now they are starting to see things for what they really are.
I didn't question feminists or feminism. Why should I? I read a lot of '70's books about them and they said they wanted to help men too. They've done a lot for women so I know they'll eventually get around to us men. Right? I mean look at those '70's books about them. They'll help us right?
A lot of men got sold a pack of lies about what feminism truly is. Feminism is a female supremacist movement out to destroy men. They been that way since the suffragettes. Read for yourself if you don't believe me.
I see a lot of women acting like they don't need men yet there are times they appear vulnerable. I feel like I want to help.
Don't. They're not worth it. What has she ever done for you? Going through life as a captain-save-a-ho is no way to live. She will see you as an emotional tampon not as a sexual partner. Besides,she's a big girl. If she got herself in this she can get herself out of it.
You don't owe her a damn thing. In fact if you want to get down to it she owes you big time. All she's done is act like a spoiled 3 year old to get her way and when she does does she do anything for you? No. Why is that? She says she's a strong,independent woman. That's why? Yet when things go wrong you're supposed to help her "because you're the man and she's only a girl". Notice the double standards?
Welcome to the red pill world,it's going to take some adjusting but you can do it.
What's wrong with me? I keep thinking that things are not right. Something is wrong. I see men being abused yet it doesn't count but there must be a reason for it. That is what they tell me. They tell me that 100% of the male population rape and commit domestic violence yet I don't nor does any guy I know of does. They tell me that young men are more prone to violence but I've seen a lot of violent young women but they say that doesn't count. I guess it doesn't because they say so and no one argues with them. I feel like I'm the only one who thinks this because no one else is mentioning it. Since they don't care why am I stressing on it? Am I the only one who feels this way?
No,you're not. A lot of men are starting to wake up to what is really going on. They've gotten a taste of the red pill and now they are starting to see things for what they really are.
I didn't question feminists or feminism. Why should I? I read a lot of '70's books about them and they said they wanted to help men too. They've done a lot for women so I know they'll eventually get around to us men. Right? I mean look at those '70's books about them. They'll help us right?
A lot of men got sold a pack of lies about what feminism truly is. Feminism is a female supremacist movement out to destroy men. They been that way since the suffragettes. Read for yourself if you don't believe me.
I see a lot of women acting like they don't need men yet there are times they appear vulnerable. I feel like I want to help.
Don't. They're not worth it. What has she ever done for you? Going through life as a captain-save-a-ho is no way to live. She will see you as an emotional tampon not as a sexual partner. Besides,she's a big girl. If she got herself in this she can get herself out of it.
You don't owe her a damn thing. In fact if you want to get down to it she owes you big time. All she's done is act like a spoiled 3 year old to get her way and when she does does she do anything for you? No. Why is that? She says she's a strong,independent woman. That's why? Yet when things go wrong you're supposed to help her "because you're the man and she's only a girl". Notice the double standards?
Welcome to the red pill world,it's going to take some adjusting but you can do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)