How much would one have to pay one's GP to get diagnosed with

Printable View

10-03-2019, 08:34 AM
Monty92

How much would one have to pay one's GP to get diagnosed with

autism and impaired cognition? :rubchin:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ex-court-rules
10-03-2019, 08:38 AM
Burney

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

autism and impaired cognition? :rubchin:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ex-court-rules

I can't help but feel that to say people have a 'fundamental right to sex' represents something of a can of worms.
10-03-2019, 08:41 AM
Monty92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burney

I can't help but feel that to say people have a 'fundamental right to sex' represents something of a can of worms.

A fundamental right to "pursue" sex, no? That's a very different thing to a fundamental right to sex.
10-03-2019, 08:44 AM
Burney

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

A fundamental right to "pursue" sex, no? That's a very different thing to a fundamental right to sex.

No. That's what the headline says, but the actual quote from the judge refers to "a fundamental right to sex", which strikes me as carte blanche for Johnny Rapist.
10-03-2019, 08:45 AM
Sir C

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

A fundamental right to "pursue" sex, no? That's a very different thing to a fundamental right to sex.

You've just conjured the end sequence on a episode of the Benny Hill Show. (Ask an adult).
10-03-2019, 09:14 AM
IUFG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

autism and impaired cognition? :rubchin:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...ex-court-rules

Ah, to stop the person being sent to a low or medium secure hospital because of his 'offending behaviour', no doubt.

He only touches women (or men) up because he's autistic. And has a fundamental right to sex. Obviously a greater fundamental right than that of a woman (or man) not to be molested by a mentalist.

Lawyers and judges should be embarassed to take their salaries and fees for supporting this sort of nonsense.
10-03-2019, 09:15 AM
IUFG

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir C

You've just conjured the end sequence on a episode of the Benny Hill Show. (Ask an adult).

:yaketysax:
10-03-2019, 09:18 AM
Sir C

Quote:

Originally Posted by IUFG

Ah, to stop the person being sent to a low or medium secure hospital because of his 'offending behaviour', no doubt.

He only touches women (or men) up because he's autistic. And has a fundamental right to sex. Obviously a greater fundamental right than that of a woman (or man) not to be molested by a mentalist.

Lawyers and judges should be embarassed to take their salaries and fees for supporting this sort of nonsense.

I don't think they're called mentalists any more, i.

The PC term is 'loonies'.
10-03-2019, 09:28 AM
Monty92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burney

No. That's what the headline says, but the actual quote from the judge refers to "a fundamental right to sex", which strikes me as carte blanche for Johnny Rapist.

But this fella has never actually been charged with any criminal offence. Are you really arguing that we should be restricting freedoms on socially awkward but law abiding people?
10-03-2019, 09:31 AM
Sir C

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

But this fella has never actually been charged with any criminal offence. Are you really arguing that we should be restricting freedoms on socially awkward but law abiding people?

How was your tasting menu?
10-03-2019, 09:43 AM
Monty92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir C

How was your tasting menu?

Usual w*nkery.

That's me done with that sh*t. And I mean it this time.
10-03-2019, 09:45 AM
Sir C

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

Usual w*nkery.

That's me done with that sh*t. And I mean it this time.

But the turbot? With the clams?
10-03-2019, 09:48 AM
Monty92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir C

But the turbot? With the clams?

They changed the menu :-(
10-03-2019, 09:51 AM
Sir C

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

They changed the menu :-(

The dirty bástards. :-(
10-03-2019, 10:17 AM
WES

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

Usual w*nkery.

That's me done with that sh*t. And I mean it this time.

Welcome to the club :wave:

I decided some time ago not only to never have a tasting menu again but never to eat at a restaurant that offered one.
10-03-2019, 10:17 AM
Burney

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

But this fella has never actually been charged with any criminal offence. Are you really arguing that we should be restricting freedoms on socially awkward but law abiding people?

Where does his freedom to pursue sex end and the right of others not to be sexually threatened by him begin?

Clearly he represents a sexual threat or the case would never have been brought. Whether that is his fault or not isn't really the point. If he represents a substantive threat, his freedom ought to be restricted. After all, we effectively do this via the Mental Health Act with sectioning, etc.
10-03-2019, 10:25 AM
Monty92

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burney

Where does his freedom to pursue sex end and the right of others not to be sexually threatened by him begin?

Clearly he represents a sexual threat or the case would never have been brought. Whether that is his fault or not isn't really the point. If he represents a substantive threat, his freedom ought to be restricted. After all, we effectively do this via the Mental Health Act with sectioning, etc.

But given that he's never been arrested, there's reason to assume he doesn't represent a substantive threat, certainly any more than your average joe who may act socially inappropriately but lawfully in the pursuit of sex.
10-03-2019, 10:33 AM
Burney

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monty92

But given that he's never been arrested, there's reason to assume he doesn't represent a substantive threat, certainly any more than your average joe who may act socially inappropriately but lawfully in the pursuit of sex.

But a clinical psychologist has made clear that he represents a moderate risk of sexually offending against women because he is mentally impaired, horny as fúck and cannot understand consent. If he then goes on to commit such a sexual offence, how would you justify the decision to give him that chance to his victims?

As I say, the principle of precautionary restriction of freedom already exists within the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Not to apply it here seems extremely rash.