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

[Monty92]

How was your tasting menu?

Usual w*nkery.

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

[Sir C]

Usual w*nkery.

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

But the turbot? With the clams?

[Monty92]

But the turbot? With the clams?

They changed the menu

[Sir C]

They changed the menu

The dirty bástards.

[WES]

Usual w*nkery.

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

Welcome to the club

I decided some time ago not only to never have a tasting menu again but never to eat at a restaurant that offered one.

[Burney]

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.

[Monty92]

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.

[Burney]

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.