NationStates Jolt Archive

A councillor who sold his girlfriend for sex to help pay the mortgage was given a 12-month suspended sentence today.

Alan Burkitt, of West Bromwich, West Midlands, advertised his girlfriend on the internet.

More than 20 men paid for her services at the couple's home, while Burkitt sat in the room next door.

Prosecutor Stuart Clarkson told Wolverhampton Crown Court the woman had an IQ of 52 and mild learning disabilities.

"She is easily led and was not able to give informed consent to sexual activity in return for money.

"Men would come to the house, pay her and she would surrender the money to the defendant."

Clients paid her £50 for intercourse after seeing her on a website which was "a glorified advert site for escorts", Mr Clarkson said.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=41937&in_page_id=34

While I think we'll probably all agree that the guy guy involved is a pretty unpleasant individual I'm more interested in the comment "She is easily led and was not able to give informed consent to sexual activity in return for money."

Does this mean that mentally diabled people are unable to give consent to sex and should they be protected by laws similar to those in place to protect minors or is there a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to sex for money?

Thoughts please.

I think that if you cannot make an informed decision about sex due to a mental disability of some sort then you should be protected by laws similiar to those that protect minors. Similiarly, people who violate such laws should recieve harsher punishments.

I would not say there is a difference between accepting money for sex in this instance. Normally I have no problem with prostitution, but in this case, much like in cases of prostitution of minors, it's simply unacceptable. If the person cannot make an informed decision then they cannot be a prostitute, and anyone who attempts to force them/mislead them into being one is violating them sexually.

or is there a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to sex for money?

According to the laws of many countries - yes. The age of consent for prostitution is often higher than that for unpaid sex.

Of course, what constitutes prostitution can be debated. Is it "paying for sex" if one gives gifts and pays for dinner ? Or is it only paying if cash is directly involved, but not e.g. when a man gives a girl a packet of cigarettes in exchange for a blowjob ?
These examples are extreme, but the boundaries are vague.

According to the laws of many countries - yes. The age of consent for prostitution is often higher than that for unpaid sex.

Of course, what constitutes prostitution can be debated. Is it "paying for sex" if one gives gifts and pays for dinner ? Or is it only paying if cash is directly involved, but not e.g. when a man gives a girl a packet of cigarettes in exchange for a blowjob ?
These examples are extreme, but the boundaries are vague.
I would say that the method of payment is irrelevant: it is whether the act is meant as business or pleasure. If it is business, they can be paid however they wish and it should be considered prostitution. If, on the other hand, it is pleasure, be it romantic or simply for the fun of it, then any "gifts" or what have you matter not.

Either way, being able to make an informed decision is necessary.

what a asshole

I think that if you cannot make an informed decision about sex due to a mental disability of some sort then you should be protected by laws similiar to those that protect minors. Similiarly, people who violate such laws should recieve harsher punishments.

I would not say there is a difference between accepting money for sex in this instance. Normally I have no problem with prostitution, but in this case, much like in cases of prostitution of minors, it's simply unacceptable. If the person cannot make an informed decision then they cannot be a prostitute, and anyone who attempts to force them/mislead them into being one is violating them sexually.

How would we judge at what level one becomes unable to give consent to sex though? Who gets to decide and what if the people the law is supposed to protect want to get into a relationship?

How would we judge at what level one becomes unable to give consent to sex though? Who gets to decide and what if the people the law is supposed to protect want to get into a relationship?

You simply have to prove you are capable of making an informed decision about sex. A basic understand of the risks, gains, possible consequences, ect ect should be enough, and is easy enough to demonstrate for any of us. It's a fair test, at least, I would think.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=41937&in_page_id=34

While I think we'll probably all agree that the guy guy involved is a pretty unpleasant individual I'm more interested in the comment "She is easily led and was not able to give informed consent to sexual activity in return for money."

Does this mean that mentally diabled people are unable to give consent to sex and should they be protected by laws similar to those in place to protect minors or is there a difference between consenting to sex and consenting to sex for money?

Thoughts please.

An IQ of 52? Damn!!!

And to answer your question, what do you considered mentally disabled?

An IQ of 52? Damn!!!

And to answer your question, what do you considered mentally disabled?

That's kind of where I hope this thread would go. Where should the line be drawn? Should there be a line at all?

That sort of thing.

52 ?? :eek: the lower limit for "human" is at 85

You simply have to prove you are capable of making an informed decision about sex. A basic understand of the risks, gains, possible consequences, ect ect should be enough, and is easy enough to demonstrate for any of us. It's a fair test, at least, I would think.

You're assuming a lot there I think.

How many young people get pregnant and ruin their lives showing they didn't fully understand the implications of what they were doing? Would you want to run this as some kind of government scheme where we all have to get a license before we can have sex? What if a 10 year old passed the test? Should they then be able to go get laid on a Saturday night if they want to?

That's kind of where I hope this thread would go. Where should the line be drawn? Should there be a line at all?

That sort of thing.

Of course there should be a line otherwise people will be taking advantage of the helpless.

Of course there should be a line otherwise people will be taking advantage of the helpless.

There is no line in place now. The guy could have as much sex with the woman as he wanted, the only problem came from him selling her for sex.

You're assuming a lot there I think.

How many young people get pregnant and ruin their lives showing they didn't fully understand the implications of what they were doing? Would you want to run this as some kind of government scheme where we all have to get a license before we can have sex? What if a 10 year old passed the test? Should they then be able to go get laid on a Saturday night if they want to?

Its not just young people who get accidentally pergnant tho, my parents told me i was an accident and my mum was 37 at the time with two other children!! Should you have to re-take the test for every time you have sex just to make sure?

There is no line in place now. The guy could have as much sex with the woman as he wanted, the only problem came from him selling her for sex.

And if you bothered to read, not able to give informed consent to sexual activity

She could not give informed consent. So basicly the people were paying to rape the poor girl.

Let us also not forget: was arrested on March 5 last year after the woman told her family of her ordeal.

Apparently she told her family and it was her family that acted and he even admitted to doing it.

You're assuming a lot there I think.

How many young people get pregnant and ruin their lives showing they didn't fully understand the implications of what they were doing? Would you want to run this as some kind of government scheme where we all have to get a license before we can have sex? What if a 10 year old passed the test? Should they then be able to go get laid on a Saturday night if they want to?

I would say it's the responsibility of parents to teach their kids properly about sex, contraceptives, and all the information available. Parents should be held accountable in such cases if a kid goes off and gets pregnant because their parents did not fully educate them. By held accountable I mean they should take care of any expenses when it comes to supporting the child and/or getting an abortion for the young woman, which would probably be the better option to take when it comes to young pregnancies.

I would not go anywhere near as far as saying a license. Sex is a personal activity and the government has no place in the bedroom per se in that regard. A ten year old could probably not truly pass such a test in any case, because of their natural immaturity due to a lack of brain development. We also should not allow that simply due to such a young age.

If I were to set an age limit for sex, I would set it at sixteen, as I feel that is the earliest one can fully understand all of the consequences when it comes to sex. Of course someone a bit younger can fully understand it as well, but sixteen is a good average standard. Any younger than that and. on average, they cannot truly demonstrate an understanding of the overreaching consequences.

The key is education and knowledge. Also, remember we are talking about protection of those unable to understand sex from those who would seduce or otherwise manipulate them into it, not about prohibiting those who do understand sex from having it if they so choose.

I would be more than willing to support educational programs in schools when it comes to sex as well. We could certainly use more sexual education and less of the irritating puritanical bullshit that is abstinance programs. Free contraceptives available at clinics would also be a good idea.

Its not just young people who get accidentally pergnant tho, my parents told me i was an accident and my mum was 37 at the time with two other children!! Should you have to re-take the test for every time you have sex just to make sure?

On top of that, no birth control is 100% effective.

And if you bothered to read, not able to give informed consent to sexual activity

She could not give informed consent. So basicly the people were paying to rape the poor girl.

Let us also not forget: was arrested on March 5 last year after the woman told her family of her ordeal.

Apparently she told her family and it was her family that acted and he even admitted to doing it.

If you'd quoted the whole sentence it would have read She is easily led and was not able to give informed consent to sexual activity in return for money. This was said by the prosecutor and not the judge.

You fail Corny.

If you'd quoted the whole sentence it would have read She is easily led and was not able to give informed consent to sexual activity in return for money. This was said by the prosecutor and not the judge.

You fail Corny.

HA! Your the one that is failing here. I happened to read the whole article. I only took that line there because it is the part that is most key here. Was she able to understand and thus give informed consent? That is the question. My gut instinct is no.

HA! Your the one that is failing here. I happened to read the whole article. I only took that line there because it is the part that is most key here. Was she able to understand and thus give informed consent? That is the question. My gut instinct is no.

That's "you're" Corny ;)

You only took part of the line to suit your point and in doing so, changed the meaning of it.

That's you're Corny ;)

You only took part of the line to suit your point and in doing so, changed the meaning of it.

No I changed no meaning whatsoever. The part I highlighted, the part about informed consent is the most important part of the whole thing. That is why I focused on it.

No I changed no meaning whatsoever. The part I highlighted, the part about informed consent is the most important part of the whole thing. That is why I focused on it.

So in your mind paying for sex is the same as two people who love each other getting it on?

That's "you're" Corny ;)

You only took part of the line to suit your point and in doing so, changed the meaning of it.

I'm strangely with Corny here *shudders*

While the judge made the statement in regards to sex for money I have serious doubts that the woman was able to give informed consent to regular sex.

At least - I have severe doubts that she is any more able to give consent than a regular 15/16/17 year old, and as it would be illegal for them to give consent I can't see how this woman can give it.

So in your mind paying for sex is the same as two people who love each other getting it on?

:confused:

I'm strangely with Corny here *shudders*

While the judge made the statement in regards to sex for money I have serious doubts that the woman was able to give informed consent to regular sex.

At least - I have severe doubts that she is any more able to give consent than a regular 15/16/17 year old, and as it would be illegal for them to give consent I can't see how this woman can give it.

It wasn't the judge who said it, it was the prosecuting lawyer. You could say the the judge agreed with the statement as he found the chap guilty but there is no direct quote from him saying it.

The age of consent in the UK is 16 years old.

:confused:

She is easily led and was not able to give informed consent to sexual activity in return for money

not able to give informed consent to sexual activity

The part you quoted implies that the prosecutor said the woman was unable to give conset period. The full quote shows that he meant only that she is unable to give consent to sex in return for money.

Thus you the meaning of the sentences are different.

Thus if you believe them to mean the same thing you must think that paying for sex and having sex with a partner are the same thing.

It wasn't the judge who said it, it was the prosecuting lawyer. You could say the the judge agreed with the statement as he found the chap guilty but there is no direct quote from him saying it.

Oops.

The age of consent in the UK is 16 years old.
And the point still stands - I find it very hard to believe an average 15 year old is less able to give informed consent than a woman with an IQ of 52.

*snip*

I was confused by: So in your mind paying for sex is the same as two people who love each other getting it on?

And now you are stating something that I have already stated several times already.

The case revolved around informed consent. With what I'm reading here, she did not have the capacity to GIVE IT!!!

Thus if you believe them to mean the same thing you must think that paying for sex and having sex with a partner are the same thing.

Paying for sex and having sex with a partner are essential the same thing as either way, paying or otherwise they achieve the same end.

So in your mind paying for sex is the same as two people who love each other getting it on?Paying for sex is the same as two people who not love each other getting it on. Why?

There are individuals who are physically adults but who have mental capacities equivalent to those of minor children. Since consent is a mental function, the important element is obviously the mental abilities of the individual.

Simply having been alive for 18 years doesn't magically bestow the ability to consent to sex. Setting age of consent limits is about recognizing that some individuals are not able to give consent by virtue of their immature mental state. If a physically-adult individual is still mentally a child, then this clearly impacts their ability to consent.

There are individuals who are physically adults but who have mental capacities equivalent to those of minor children. Since consent is a mental function, the important element is obviously the mental abilities of the individual.

Simply having been alive for 18 years doesn't magically bestow the ability to consent to sex. Setting age of consent limits is about recognizing that some individuals are not able to give consent by virtue of their immature mental state. If a physically-adult individual is still mentally a child, then this clearly impacts their ability to consent.
Exactly. Hence why we need some way of showing one's understanding...though in all probability we would need to do it on a case by case basis rather than trying to institute a standard as by instituting a standard we interefere with civil liberties.

I was confused by: So in your mind paying for sex is the same as two people who love each other getting it on?

And now you are stating something that I have already stated several times already.

The case revolved around informed consent. With what I'm reading here, she did not have the capacity to GIVE IT!!!

If she didn't have the legal capacity to give consent to sex full stop then why wasn't the councillor charged with rape?

The charges were 4 counts of causing prostitution, the same things pimps are charged with, and so didn't revolve around where she had the ability to consent or not. The quote from the prosecuting lawyer was just something he said during the trial and I found interesting, causing me to start this thread.

Do try and get your facts straight mate.

There are individuals who are physically adults but who have mental capacities equivalent to those of minor children. Since consent is a mental function, the important element is obviously the mental abilities of the individual.

Simply having been alive for 18 years doesn't magically bestow the ability to consent to sex. Setting age of consent limits is about recognizing that some individuals are not able to give consent by virtue of their immature mental state. If a physically-adult individual is still mentally a child, then this clearly impacts their ability to consent.

Exactly.

If she didn't have the capacity to give consent to sex full stop then why wasn't the councillor charged with rape?

You really, really don't want me to answer that question.

If this woman does have an IQ of 52, then what happened was rape. She was sold to men to be raped.

If you want to know why rapists are not charged, convicted, or punished for raping "expendable" women, then you are going to find yourself in a particularly dark and depressing area of discussion. Because there are a shitload of reasons why this crap is not only permitted but often condoned or encouraged, and every single one of them will make you question the sanity of our species.

If she didn't have the capacity to give consent to sex full stop then why wasn't the councillor charged with rape?

Well that is an interesting question. He probably was not charged with it because he in reality was not actually raping her. I'm sure a lawyer can explain it better than me.

Do try and get your facts straight mate.

All we have here is what you posted. Luckily, most of us knows what informed consent is and that is what this discussion is about.

Exactly. Hence why we need some way of showing one's understanding...though in all probability we would need to do it on a case by case basis rather than trying to institute a standard as by instituting a standard we interefere with civil liberties.
Well, in a perfect world we would evaluate the ability to consent on a case-by-case basis for everybody. But since that is simply not a realistic option for us, we set up general standards like the age of consent.

The idea is that we set our limit at a point where we can be pretty sure that everybody will have developed the ability to consent. Now, many people will be able to consent BEFORE this point, and in that sense it's unfair to them. But the idea is that we are trying to err on the side of caution.

With mental ability standards, we can do much the same thing. Individuals who test below a certain IQ can be pretty definitively assumed to be unable to consent. There's simply no way that somebody with an IQ of 40, for instance, is functioning at a normal adult level, no matter how old they are.

There are individuals who are physically adults but who have mental capacities equivalent to those of minor children. Since consent is a mental function, the important element is obviously the mental abilities of the individual.

Simply having been alive for 18 years doesn't magically bestow the ability to consent to sex. Setting age of consent limits is about recognizing that some individuals are not able to give consent by virtue of their immature mental state. If a physically-adult individual is still mentally a child, then this clearly impacts their ability to consent.

How does one make that judgement and where do you draw the line?

While part of me agrees there should be protection in place for people with mental disabilities I find it hard to reconcile it with the part that questions the right we have to decide what other people can or can't do with their lives.

The guys who fucked her had to be pretty creepy and desperate.

How does one make that judgement and where do you draw the line?

While part of me agrees there should be protection in place for people with mental disabilities I find it hard to reconcile it with the part that questions the right we have to decide what other people can or can't do with their lives.

We can't but we must protect those that are unable to defend themselves like this woman here.

Well, in a perfect world we would evaluate the ability to consent on a case-by-case basis for everybody. But since that is simply not a realistic option for us, we set up general standards like the age of consent.

The idea is that we set our limit at a point where we can be pretty sure that everybody will have developed the ability to consent. Now, many people will be able to consent BEFORE this point, and in that sense it's unfair to them. But the idea is that we are trying to err on the side of caution.

With mental ability standards, we can do much the same thing. Individuals who test below a certain IQ can be pretty definitively assumed to be unable to consent. There's simply no way that somebody with an IQ of 40, for instance, is functioning at a normal adult level, no matter how old they are.
Aye, aye. Question is, do we institute testing of all people when they turn whatever age limit we set for consent? How exactly would we go about it?

The first line to be drawn has to be drawn by the guys who were going to fuck her.

Jeez, how do you fuck someone who is obviously out of it, or has an IQ of 52.

A chimpanzee has a higher IQ.

How does one make that judgement and where do you draw the line?

As I described above, the current idea is to set an absolute minimum limit. With age, the idea is that you pick an age at which you can be sure that every (normal) person will be able to consent. Some people may be ready sooner, but since we simply cannot realistically test every individual for ability to consent, we have to put a limit somewhere.

With the mentally disabled, we have a wide variety of methods to test mental function. Clinical standards can be used to determine the minimum point to set for this population.


While part of me agrees there should be protection in place for people with mental disabilities I find it hard to reconcile it with the part that questions the right we have to decide what other people can or can't do with their lives.
Do you question our right to decide what children can and can't do with their lives? We don't recognize a 4 year old as having the ability to consent to sex, so why should we assume that a 40 year old with the brain of a 4 year old can consent?

Do you believe that a 40 year old with the mind of a 4 year old should be charged as a fully competent adult if they commit a crime? Or should their mental state be considered?

You really, really don't want me to answer that question.

If this woman does have an IQ of 52, then what happened was rape. She was sold to men to be raped.

If you want to know why rapists are not charged, convicted, or punished for raping "expendable" women, then you are going to find yourself in a particularly dark and depressing area of discussion. Because there are a shitload of reasons why this crap is not only permitted but often condoned or encouraged, and every single one of them will make you question the sanity of our species.

The reason he wasn't charged with rape was because there is no law in place that would make this rape, she was over 16 and so legally able to give consent and the fact the prosecuting laywer was arguing the point of inability to give consent seems to imply that no-one is claiming she didn't.

I would be interested, however, in your opinions on why this law isn't in place and the extents it should go to.

The reason he wasn't charged with rape was because there is no law in place that would make this rape, she was over 16 and so legally able to give consent and the fact the prosecuting laywer was arguing the point of inability to give consent seems to imply that no-one is claiming she didn't.

Actually, that is not 100% true. If one is unable to give inform consent to a person who wants to do her, then it is constituted as rape and should be charged as such.

I would be interested, however, in your opinions on why this law isn't in place and the extents it should go to.

It is here but in the UK, I do not know.

Actually, that is not 100% true. If one is unable to give inform consent to a person who wants to do her, then it is constituted as rape and should be charged as such.

There are laws here that cover inability to give consent due to inebriation however they don't apply to mental disability so there is no standard by which a rape trial could be judged in this case.

shit Wolverhampton; i was born there. i always new west brom were scum.

the problem is that this is a whole murky road to go down, "protecting" people with learning disabilities from making there own choices and not allowing them to have sex is a/ an infringment of there human rights and b/ not allowing them the option to breed; isnt that eugenics, thats what the nazis did and is not cool.
however in this case i think the guy got off really lightly with a suspended sentence. All i can say is it wouldnt happen in Simmoa where prostitution is legal and heavily regulated to stop idiots like this.

The guys who fucked her had to be pretty creepy and desperate.Or just bored...

There are laws here that cover inability to give consent due to inebriation however they don't apply to mental disability so there is no standard by which a rape trial could be judged in this case.

very interesting.

The reason he wasn't charged with rape was because there is no law in place that would make this rape, she was over 16 and so legally able to give consent and the fact the prosecuting laywer was arguing the point of inability to give consent seems to imply that no-one is claiming she didn't.
Just because there is no law saying she was unable to give consent does not mean that she was able to give it.


I would be interested, however, in your opinions on why this law isn't in place and the extents it should go to.

Can of Worms territory, difficulty of quantifying who can and cannot consent and the rarity in which such cases come up I imagine.

I suprised with an IQ of 52 she can even function to have sex, let alone give consent.

I suprised with an IQ of 52 she can even function to have sex, let alone give consent.

Take a long loaf of bread, slice it lengthwise, and put some mayonnaise inside.

Then wrap that around your member.

Probably not too different...

I suprised with an IQ of 52 she can even function to have sex, let alone give consent.

Is it just me or does every single post by this guy further reinforce the idea that he has no idea what sex even is?

Just because there is no law saying she was unable to give consent does not mean that she was able to give it.

Legally it does.

Morality aside, if there is no law covering what you are doing then it can't be illegal.

I would say that the method of payment is irrelevant...most of my friends pay with nice dinner at a luxury restaurant.. and roses.

the woman had an IQ of 52I say women with an IQ of less than 60 should only be able to have sex with the permission of their Psy/doctor..
no en serio
and the minimun IQ for males should be 0.

Is it just me or does every single post by this guy further reinforce the idea that he has no idea what sex even is?

A distinct possibility.

I say girls with an IQ of less than 60 should only be able to have sex with the permission of their Psy/doctor..

and the minimun IQ for males should be 0.

:rolleyes:

dp

Just because there is no law saying she was unable to give consent does not mean that she was able to give it.

The way the law works in both the UK and the US is that any and all conduct is legal unless there is a law that makes it illegal. Without a law stating something is illegal, it's legal.

So unless the law clearly states that she is unable to give consent, as a matter of law, she is able to give consent.

This may not be practically true, or morally right, but as a matter of law, unless there's something that says she cant, she can.

The way the law works in both the UK and the US is that any and all conduct is legal unless there is a law that makes it illegal. Without a law stating something is illegal, it's legal.

So unless the law clearly states that she is unable to give consent, as a matter of law, she is able to give consent.

This may not be practically true, or morally right, but as a matter of law, unless there's something that says she cant, she can.

Hence why he was only charged with prostitution and not rape.

:rolleyes:talk to me baby.. talk to me. ;)

Hence why he was only charged with prostitution and not rape.

Effectively, yes.

Anyone wanna lay money that there is a law against this within 2 months?

The way the law works in both the UK and the US is that any and all conduct is legal unless there is a law that makes it illegal. Without a law stating something is illegal, it's legal.

So unless the law clearly states that she is unable to give consent, as a matter of law, she is able to give consent.

This may not be practically true, or morally right, but as a matter of law, unless there's something that says she cant, she can.

To clarify - I know that is the position of the law. Legally she can give consent, but I do not think that reflects the reality of the situation.

Legally I can levitate myself 10 feet off the ground with the power of my mind, but in reality I am not capeable of doing such a thing. Legally this girl is able to give consent, but in reality I seriously doubt she has the capacity.

Anyone wanna lay money that there is a law against this within 2 months?a Law on sex.. based on IQ?
:confused:

Effectively, yes.

Anyone wanna lay money that there is a law against this within 2 months?

THat's a sucker bet. I'm not taking it :D

There are situations where high-functioning mentally-disabled people can give consent - they are clearly intelligent enough to know what sex is and have a notion of what the consequences can be - a high-functioning person in this category has an I.Q. in the neighborhood of 70 or better. They can hold down low-level jobs, live on their own with some supervision, handle small amounts of money and manage within a well-established routine.

This girl is clearly not high-functioning. She has the mental age of a 5-6 year old. At this level, she should be in a protected environment and her "boyfriend" should be shot - starting with the genitals.

52 IQ huh? Maybe she'd go out with me.

I kid, I kid...

Do you question our right to decide what children can and can't do with their lives?
I dont make a blanket assumption that it is always right to decide for children unilaterally. I do however, believe that for the most part someone else should make decisions of consequence for children but this is in large part based on issues of their being immature. 4 things are important here, 1 is the capacity to make decisions, 2 is the impact of the anticipated increased capacity a child is expected to attain at some latter time, and 3 is the autonomy that a child is expected to attain at some latter time, and the fourth is the physical state of a child.

We don't recognize a 4 year old as having the ability to consent to sex, so why should we assume that a 40 year old with the brain of a 4 year old can consent?
Because we are in the case of a 4 year old recognising a temporary condition, further we have every reason to believe a 4 year old is at greater risk of harm from sexual engagement and little reason to believe they will be harmed in the absence of sexual engagement. In the case of those who are physically immature we are not talking about denying them a right for all their lives, but rather, of restricting their behaviour and the behaviour of others towards them in anticipation of a time when we hand over responsibility of the behaviour at issue to the person themselves. We are not in essence denying them the right to sex for their entire life.

Do you believe that a 40 year old with the mind of a 4 year old should be charged as a fully competent adult if they commit a crime? Or should their mental state be considered?
Of course not and of course yes. But that doesnt mean I am willing to condemm him to a life without sex, regardless of his will, without giving a great deal of thought to the matter and his individual circumstances.
A duty to protect is not the same as a right to deprive.

It's a well known fact that people born south of the tyne are mentally subnormal, so I don't really see where the outrage comes from.

Wait... the guy's a councillor... as in a member of local government...?