I have been reading the case of ‘DD’ as she is known, yet another excellent example of the thinking applied to decisions made by the Court of Protection.
There are several comments in the judgment that create unease in my mind, since they are based on assumptions. I acknowledge that those who live in the UK must and should abide by the UK law, and a judge is the last person to pass obvious (note: I did say obvious!) comment on whether UK law is right or not.
The case itself is yet another in a string of cases, here and here, as to whom, effectively, may have sex – or not. That a court should be making such as decision, regardless of whether it is in respect of a man or a woman (the two cases linked to are of a gay man and a woman respectively) is a result of the Feminist movement.
We used to believe that sex was a basic and enjoyable animal instinct. As a direct result of the ‘women’s rights’ movement, that has become insufficient reason to be allowed to have sex. Now you must give ‘informed’ consent, and ‘informed’ consent requires that you are fully cognisant of both the health implications and the possible consequences.
Surely that is a good thing, you cry? It is wrong that women can be raped when they are drunk, or too stupid to appreciate that they might get pregnant. Surely those with learning difficulties must be protected from predators? Weeeell, yes, if they are predators, but what if they are not? What if they are genuinely caring partners? The law has effectively said that if you cannot tell the difference you are to be denied a sex life. So because some predators prey on some people with what is euphemistically known as ‘learning difficulties’ these days, then any person with ‘learning difficulties’ who comes to the attention of the court, will be denied a sex life.
As for not ‘appreciating the consequences’ of sex – show me a council estate in South Wales, and I will show you several hundred women who failed to appreciate the consequences. Are they all to be denied the right to have sex (not a bad idea as it happens, would save a lot of money, but offends my libertarian sensibilities!) Stick a pin in any Weatherspoon’s on a Saturday night and you will pierce a rich cache of people failing to appreciate the consequences, nay, not giving a damn about the consequences. Why should not appreciating the consequences be such a benchmark where the learning disabled are concerned? Surely the benchmark should be where it is for the rest of us – do you enjoy sex or not? If there is evidence that sex has not been enjoyable, then the disabled should – and do – have the same right as the rest of us, to complain bitterly and involve the police if there is evidence of rape.
The Left will point to cases where the individual concerned is not capable of complaining, and should be pro-actively protected; that is true, I am merely pointing out that in trying to make a legal judgment to protect one or two cases, or even a hundred cases, we have ended up with judgments which effectively bar anyone within that potential category who comes before the courts from having sex. Hard cases never make good law is not just a trite saying.
Since we have already seen that lots of people fail to appreciate the consequences of sexual activity, what we are actually saying is that if you also cannot calculate that going to bed with ‘x’ will result in you being swept off to the South of France on his yacht, whereas choosing ‘y’ will only get you a VIP pass to some Godforsaken nightclub, then you are too stupid to be allowed sex at all.
The case that I was reading, that of ‘DD’, is, in a plain English nutshell, that of a young Bangladeshi girl with learning disabilities, who was having sex within marriage. She hadn’t complained to anyone; she still lived in her parents house, along with her husband; it was an arranged marriage, part of that culture which we make such efforts to uphold. Her parents didn’t speak English, neither did she, nor her husband. Although they lived in England, they lived in a Bangladeshi ‘bubble’ – as do most English ex-pats live in an English bubble when they move abroad.
The first thing which made me raise my eyebrows, was the words of Mrs Justice Parker:
It is unfortunate that the social services department of XCC had not been previously alerted to the fact that a woman with severe learning difficulties had been married abroad, and that she had needs with which she and her family required assistance.
“With which she and her family required assistance”. Now there is a fine phrase – for the whole reason, the entire reason, that Social Services didn’t know of her existence, was that her family had no idea that they required assistance! They had shouldered the burden, although they didn’t see it as a burden, of having a disabled child, themselves. This is seen as ‘unfortunate’. That is a massive assumption – that if you have ‘needs’ you require assistance.
‘DD’s parents had brought her up without the assistance of the State. They had asked for none and received nothing. There was no suggestion whatsoever that she had endured any the less enjoyable life for not having an army of Social Workers in attendance, nor Disability Living Allowances, Carer’s allowances and all the rest of the paraphernalia. As she came of age, they had consulted the family GP on the subject of birth control and some other health issues – he had found no reason to report this family to the authorities.
In 2003, DD’s parents had started to consider her future, what would happen to her when her parents were no longer alive to help care for and protect her? The answer to them, within their Islamic culture, was that she should, like every other Muslim girl, have a husband to care for and protect her. When your Father and your Brothers are no longer around, it is your Husband who takes care of you. Our Western culture says that it is the State which has responsibility for you. There is an unspoken assumption that this is the better system.
We could argue that our western system is better because we can point to cases where husband’s have beaten wives up, or brothers have molested sisters, and say that the State is more trustworthy and impartial – but then again, we can point to cases where the State has totally failed in its task of protecting.
They found DD a husband, someone within their community who wanted to come to Britain. Someone who was prepared to live under their roof and help care for DD as the price of admission to Britain. You may rail against such a system; I cannot see that it has any more or less moral worth than leaving your daughters to select their future husbands under the strobe lighting of the local nightclub. You can point to forced marriages against the girl’s will, indeed it does happen, it doesn’t negate the entire system in my eyes, any more than the occasional disasters that befall a marriage that commenced under the influence of drugs at an Ibiza rave.
So it came to pass that DD was in hospital for an unspecified complaint. There was no suspicion that anyone had harmed her. Justice Parker found that DD’s husband ‘had been physically very rough and abusive to DD on two occasions, smacking her head, shaking her, and yanking her eyelid, even though I accepted that he acted in this way in a misguided attempt to assist medical staff. I accepted also that AA told hospital staff that this kind of behaviour was the usual practice at home to make sure that DD did as she was told.’
Sounds very shocking doesn’t it? ‘It’ being totally unknown within Western culture for this sort of behaviour to ever occur…especially within the hallowed walls of ‘State care’. So there is DD’s husband, attempting to get DD to cooperate with the nursing staff, they have been married now for six years, and he ‘slaps her’. Terrible. Shouldn’t happen, but did it really warrant what occurred next?
The fact of DD’s marriage eventually came to the attention of the learning disabilities team, which had only recently been created, of the local authority where DD lives (XCC), and very significant concerns arose as to DD’s welfare as a result of which the Police obtained a Forced Marriage Protection order, which order continued pending an application by XCC to the Court of Protection. Within those proceedings the Official Solicitor was appointed as litigation friend for DD. Dr Milne, consultant psychiatrist in learning disabilities, was instructed to assess DD’s capacity to marry and have a sexual relationship, and her capacity generally.
As a result of that activity, DD, who remember, wouldn’t pass the test established in the case of AB, as to the consequences and health risks involved in sex, was thus ruled not able to give informed consent to sex, albeit that she had been married for 6 years. It was further ruled that therefore the marriage was invalid. She will never be able to have sex again.
Her husband, or should I now say ex-husband, has been banned from going anywhere near her. Her parents are devastated, for they now have a daughter who has had illegal sexual relationships – an absolute no-no within the Bengali community. The tax payer now has an individual to support for life, both financially and socially. Her husband has been rendered an illegal immigrant.
I don’t argue with the ruling – I understand the law and how it is applied. It is the law. I understand also that the mores of the Bengali community cannot take precedence with the UK.
I simply don’t understand how we ever came to the point that a Judge is required to, or able to, decide that a girl who has to all intents and purposes – for no evidence was put forward – been happily married for six years, no burden on the state, well cared for by her parents, is told that she may never have sex again. In her judgement, Justice Parker quoted from the case of KC.
‘[45]…a profound difference in culture and thinking between domestic English notions of welfare and those embraced by Islam. This is a clash which this court cannot sidestep or ignore. To the Bangladeshi mind…the marriage of IC is perceived as a means of protecting him, and of ensuring that he is properly cared for within the family when his parents are no longer in a position to do so.
[46] To the mind of the English lawyer, by contrast, such a marriage is perceived as exploitative and indeed abusive. Under English law, a person in the position of IC is precluded from marriage for the simple reason that he lacks capacity to marry. No English Registrar of marriages could or would have contemplated celebrating a marriage between IC and NK, for the simple reason (amongst others) that no such Registrar could have issued a certificate of satisfaction that there was no impediment to the marriage. Furthermore, as IC is incapable of giving his consent to any form of sexual activity, NK would commit a criminal offence in English law by attempting to have sexual intercourse, or indeed having any form of sexual contact with him.”
What really bothers me is that DD has been denied a basic human need, that of having sexual intercourse, on the basis of legal rules rather than her own wishes. The decision follows previous rulings that ‘understanding the consequences of sex’ are the criteria by which we judge informed consent – yet the country is full to the brim of people demonstrating that they don’t understand the consequences or health risks.
You could say that DD’s predicament is a direct result of women demanding the right to dress as they please and drink themselves into oblivion and still cry rape. I find the end result exceedingly sad. What say you?
Ms Raccoon lives in the Monbazillac area of South West France, renowned for its fine wines and gourmet food, so she frequently finds better things to do than sit in front of a computer all morning. She is liable to take off traveling at a moment's notice. Consequently this blog only gets updated these days when it is raining - and it doesn't rain very often round here...
{ 24 comments }
I may take issue with “..show me a council estate in South Wales, and I will show you several hundred women who failed to appreciate the consequences”. Those fecund Welsh lasses fully understood the consequences, or should we call them ‘benefits’, of their actions – a council house, as much money as you need, free everything, no questionas asked, no stigma – in the context of Port Talbot, that counts as far more upside than downside.
On the case of DD, that’s not easy. The family were clearly aiming to do the right thing long-term, not only by providing a husband to care for her once her parents had died, but undoubtedly hoping she would have a son, whose own wife would then become responsible for DD’s care in old age. That’s the way the sub-continent’s culture works, even when it’s transferred over here. It’s worked fine for centuries, so why change it now ? But then the ‘caring’ UK State gets involved, bringing its ‘anything but the family’ approach, a clash is inevitable.
I live in an area with a large immigrant population, some of whom I count as friends, and whose family bonds of responsibility are admirable when compared to how such traits have been lost amongst native Brit families within a generation or two. Some of their family behaviours are directly responsible for some of their problems (inbreeding defects etc.) but, in their own culture, they accept and accommodate that risk within the family. Again, it is only when it meets with Western standards that a clash is inevitable.
I don’t know the answer, perhaps it will only remain a problem for the ‘cusp generation’, those with substantial remaining ties to the ‘old country’. Once those ties have diminshed and the later generations become more Westernised, the issues may naturally decline. But until then, they will continue to emerge and prove challenging to resolve sensitively.
As with many such hysterical feminist-led interferences, this ‘forced marriage’ bizzo assumes that a woman is forced to marry against her will in an ‘arranged marriage’ but that the chap isn’t. Yet this particular chap in the case above seems to have been saddled with a ‘disabled’ girl he had not met and was expected to provide for and protect her for life. The ‘forced marriage bizzo does not just cover mentally retarded ladies whetever their origins, but any woman in an ‘arranged’ marriage. The man is not the intended ‘beneficiary’ of the legal concerns. It is the same with the rape when under the influence of alcohol and therefore unable to give informed consent. One drink is enough it seems, but only if the woman drinks it. A man is assumed to be quite able and willing to consent no matter how many pints he has downed. That she may be randy and seduce him with her charms is not taken into account at all.
Further inroads have been made in the ‘abuse’ issue you raised. Where I live in Tasmoania, a man simply buying a new set of sheets for the marital bed without consulting his wife, is prima facie guilty of economic abuse. She can buy what the dickens she likes without consulting him and even expect – demand – his pay packet every week, but just has to pick up the phone and ‘accuse’. But ‘economic abuse’ is not applied to her. If the chap phoned the cops to complain he would be laughed at and arrested for making a prank call. Same with the children’s clothes. If Dad went into a Target and purchaced the sort of uber-sexual clothing for his small girl that mothers buy (and let’s recognise reality here – it is always mums who buy kiddy clothes for their little jail-bait princesses), he would be deemed a paedophile abuser, kiddy fiddler. But Mum, who does it, doesn’t get the same approbation at all let alone five burley plods breaking the door down, and can do it with the applause of her mummy pals.
It isn’t about ‘protection’ of the vulnerable. It is about the constraint of men.
A while back Anna, you brought us the sorry tale of the young disabled boy separated from his dad by a local council. I contend that it never would have happened if dad had been mum. It was because he was the father, a man, that the social services acted so outrageously. And so in this case.
Some years ago, in Australia, I saw a TV advert where a man and woman walk into a very rowdy bar. The man, hunkily handsome with the fashonable 3 days stubble looks around the room at the young women while the young, very pretty, sexy, woman does the same at the men. You then see the room from their eyes, in turn, and everyone in the room has a sign above their heads such as ‘Chlamydia’, ‘sexual predator’, ‘uses rohypnol’, ‘alleges rape after sex’, etc. It then goes on to warn about the dangers of drinking too much and striking up sexual relations with someone you don’t know. A very hard hitting advert from a joint group including the Police, the medical profession and the alcohol industry. However, following very quick complaints from various political and feminist groups, it was withdrawn and I only saw it the once. Shame really. Can’t see anything like that being shown here though. Too many interested parties to stop it.
And we know why the feminists howled. False accusation is in their arsenal. It is their Family Court mobile nuclear cannon.
A great man once said:
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”" also “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.”
He rightly had a great disdain for government interference, which this case exemplifies. The landlady is masterful (mistressful somehow does not work) at pointing out how government wants to control every facet of our lives, one day, speech and texting, the next control of surface water, now a persons sexual choices and ability to exclude an intrusive welfare state from our lives.
When I see this, I see only a massive make-work programme for the type of women who cannot be absorbed into a productive job, this is pure overhead on a massive scale, unwanted by the family and funded by an unwilling populace. Jobs for the girls, with no visible benefits to a beleaguered country.
Lets look at this another way: Family produce a disabled daughter with mental issues (possibly aided by the genetic problems in islamic groups caused by consanguinity). To avoid the stigma of having an unmarried and indeed unmarriagable daughter, they foist her off on some goatherder who would not normally get into this country in a month of Sundays. When the busybodies in the apparat get to know of this, the conclusion is made that this girl is so far gone that she is barely able to function and stick a spanner in the works (what would any children be like? I would suggest a liftime drain on us poor bloody taxpayers, plus a multi generational repeat of the problem). Why don’t they all just go back to Bangladesh, where the remit of the court does not run, and all live in happy squalour far away from my pocket.
Unkind? Quite possibly, but there is neither happiness nor familial peace here for them. It would not surprise me if family ‘honour’ resulted in a young woman vanishing.
“What really bothers me is that DD has been denied a basic human need, that of having sexual intercourse, on the basis of legal rules rather than her own wishes. The decision follows previous rulings that ‘understanding the consequences of sex’ are the criteria by which we judge informed consent – yet the country is full to the brim of people demonstrating that they don’t understand the consequences or health risks.”
Spot on Anna
A thoughtful post on your key subject as ever Anna, but I always relish seeing THAT pub group name mis-spelled especially since the only thing that would drive me inside their plastic emporia is bad ‘wether’.
Going off at a slight tangent, what has happened to that pub group? I remember a few years ago when they were a welcome breath of fresh air. Places where you could have a pleasant drink with a decent choice of real ales, with no blaring music and no children. Ok, so the food obviously came out of a microwave and could never compete with a local that did a half-decent Sunday roast, but in a world dominated by pubs serving nothing but lager and nitrokeg, they were a godsend.
It has been said that the most feared words in the English language are “I’m from the government, I’m here to help”. I think this case exemplifies it.
It was said by Ronnie Raygun.
If there can be a “best president of the USA”, he was that man.
Apart from Jefferson.
You write “Our Western culture says that it is the State which has responsibility for you” Now I have significant (20 years) experience of France than you but the idea of the state taking precedence over family, where the family is genuinely and successfully taking care of a “challenged” person, is a very British idea not generally found in France for example and therefore not a Western idea.
I am not suggesting for one moment that those in danger should not be protected but this is an illustration of where we British are not genuinely European, only here do we blame the state for so many failings that are really down to lack of parental or family care. We are of course trying to export our mindset to other countries.
Are we reading the same case?
The disability was so severe – compounded by the caring attitude which fails to get developmental assistance while it might still make a difference – that she was incapable of giving consent to either sex or marriage. The marriage was valid in Bangladesh only because Islam permits the substitution of guardian authority for the person’s own wishes. The marriage could not have been performed legally here; any sensible registrar would have refused and called the social services.
In Western Christian-Judeo law we don’t require all that much brain to consent to either (the bar for marriage being higher than for sex) but we also don’t accept that anybody else’s consent can be substituted in these matters. We do for a range of things; medical treatment, applying for a bus pass, but we don’t in major legal ones: forming contracts, applying for a credit card, taking a driving test.
“What really bothers me is that DD has been denied a basic human need, that of having sexual intercourse, on the basis of legal rules rather than her own wishes.”
The judge dealt with this:
“DD cannot be considered to have capacity to consent to sexual relations on any basis. She does not understand the concept of sexual relations at all, or indeed the difference between men and women. Any sexual relations between DD and AA would lack consent at the most basic level. For reasons set out in my main judgment I was not sure that the marriage had been consummated as AA asserted. AA’s account, which I rejected, that DD herself initiated sexual relations with him was unconvincing in the extreme. I am still of the view that sexual relations, if they took place, are likely to have been bewildering and frightening and probably painful for DD.
I also heard from Dr Milne that pregnancy (if it could be achieved, and carried to term, which is a problem with persons with DD’s condition) holds a very high risk for DD during pregnancy, delivery, and after delivery, and is likely to cause considerable physical and mental suffering to DD. She has no concept of pregnancy and would not understand what was happening to her. She would not be able to co-operate with medical intervention and would find the whole process terrifying. She would not be able to care for a child, a fact which DD’s mother recognised in her evidence, even though she and the whole family had knowingly exposed DD to the risk of pregnancy and had sought medical advice as to why DD was not pregnant when a negative pregnancy test result was obtained, this being after AA had been told by the Circuit Judge that he must not have sexual relations with DD. “
Mr Justice Parker made it crystal clear that gender does not enter in to it:
“The communities where this is likely to happen also need to be told, loud and clear, that if a person, whether male or female, enters into a marriage when they do not have the capacity to understand what marriage is, its nature and duties, or its consequences, or to understand sexual relations, that that marriage may not be recognised, that sexual relations will constitute a criminal offence, and that the courts have the power to intervene. “
I’m at a loss to see what your problem is with this detailed judgment or what possible bearing feminism has on it. Capacity to consent is a much older concept which is woven in to Western Christian- Judeo law.
The last time I got married, nobody asked me whether I understood the concept of sexual relationships, I was only required to say ‘yes’ at the right point. Why should the disabled be subject to any higher bar than that? Particularly since post KC ‘understanding sexual relationships’ is held to mean the full panoply of of understanding health risks and consequences, not just whether you wish to have sex or not.
Nor is ‘not being able to care for a child’ or pregnancy being dangerous on health grounds a bar to having a sexual relationship for anyone else. Indeed, the case of KC was between two men…
The reason the marriage was annulled is that sexual relations are held to be integral to a legal marriage, and if she couldn’t pass the test applied for informed consent, then the marriage was null and void. Are we to annul every sexless marriage? That is a valid legal point for annulment if one of the parties request it, but there was no evidence offered that either party was unhappy with the arrangement.
Capacity to consent is an old concept, but it is feminism which has refined it to the current position, which is a high bar that half the country wouldn’t pass.
You requested the opportunity to make a declaration in public, in the knowledge of what that declaration meant and with the intention of this declaration having legal effect. Saying ‘yes’ is the public token of the commissioning of this oath. Nobody is required to do more than that but they can’t do less, either. If they don’t understand the declaration, they cannot meaningfully consent to it.
The marriage has not been annulled. (See para 95). He would have liked to, as that would stop any legal ghosts resurrecting themselves and claiming her estate or married status, but it was not within his power. He has referred it to the Official Solicitor to begin the process but who knows if it will ever take effect? It wasn’t written for this situation. He can’t solve the direct clash between our marriage requirements and the political decision to recognize foreign marriages which would not be allowed here, so he’s gone for the administrative position of not recognizing this particular marriage. That means the marriage stands – unquestionably in Bangladesh, and until further notice here – but it won’t be treated as a valid marriage.
If you had doubts about the court’s judgment in general, even Professor Rahman, who preferred to leave the legal structure of the marriage in place for social reasons, was blunt about the inability to make any sense of the marriage (96); her incapacity was obvious from the start and she should not have been allowed to be taken to Bangladesh for the purposes of marriage. I know you don’t like the Court of Protection but it may be that in this particular case they have in fact protected someone whose relatives, whilst well-meaning, are mistaken.
As for feminism…you still haven’t shown how that makes any difference, although you have asserted boldly that it does. What difference, precisely? In so far as the concept has been refined since the 1980s it is that bare consent was being abused in medical studies to obtain theoretically consenting subjects but really, they had no idea what they were signing themselves up for. Quick tour of the vocabulary:
The key to informed consent: Bobby Farsides
http://www.tbethics.org/conf18.htm
I think, if you read this case again, you will notice that the condition is not just a learning disability but may be a particular condition which has physical elements and always raises queries as to which capacities exist and which don’t. At one end of the spectrum they can live independent lives and can, and do, marry and have sex. Fertility is usually depressed, but for many very good reasons it is usually best to use contraception. However, for this possibility to exist, it is best if the difficulties are identified young and every bit of developmental help is given. Sadly for her, this lady has never had that.
Like Robert the Biker, if I had an English speaking young woman telling me that she wanted her husband back, that might be persuasive and I’d get indignant on her behalf but as it is it looks like a disabled person who has never had an appropriate education has been protected from being used as a passport-ticket for her own sake and as a matter of public policy. Good.
Anna: One presumes that at the registry office you were bouncing around beaming at everyone rather than lying in a heap drooling on the carpet, so the question never arose in anyones mind.
WoR: I had always thought that we could still have a proxy stand in for Bride or Groom if they were unable to get there due to distance or such. I know this was the case in the far past, did it change at some time?
I would have rather more sympathy if out of the four of them, one had bothered to learn enough English to ask their way in the street; this is not Bangladesh, and we do not do things to suit Bangladeshis here.
Robert,
In my experience, very few people with ‘learning disabilities lie in a heap drooling on the carpet. That is one reason why so few people question these things – most people assume that everyone with learning disabilities follows a standard profile. I have known many people under the court of protection who are fully capable of explaining themselves, hold down a job, and yet are still subject to these restrictions. We had a new chief executive once, who on returning from a number of visits to patients of the court said ‘I was surprised how few were in wheel chairs……some of them even told me why they were under the court’. (Patronising bastard!) Learning Disabilities is a wide scale, note the number of university students currently clutching brand new laptops courtesy of the tax payer because they suffer from a ‘learning disability’!
Anna: It was my assumption from reading the story that the girl in this affair was barely functional, rather than someone merely labelled as such for convenience by some faceless agency. The lack of empathy by her own culture (lock her away until we can get her married off) has not helped her in the least, nor will the cultural aftereffects of this.
Anna, although there are many problems with the MCA and although the resulting law is indeed very poor in some regards it is a little bit over the top to say that everyone with ‘learning difficulties’ is prevented from having sex if they come to the attention of the Court. The bar for sexual relationships is set very low although I still think it is too paternalistic.
I agree on the other issue you raise – CoP procedures for discharging a Deputy could be made a lot better – it is one of the issues we have asked Liberty to take up at our recent meeting.
If a person is unable to understand what sexual abuse is, can they in fact be sexually abused? Or do I mean, if they don’t know what sex is how do they know they shouldn’t do it? But I expect that someone can pick holes in that.
I can think of a few instances of people who might be deemed unfit to choose who actually thoroughly enjoy it. In fact I know of one case where once such young lady was subjected to a birth control device by consent of her mother so no one actually had to worry about her getting pregnant.
Or do they only do this sort of thing in France?
Look behind Mrs Justice Parker’s words. This is not primarily about consensual sex but about allowing the girl, who cannot express herself let alone comprehend the situation, out of an abusive marriage in an acceptable manner which must be to the relief of her family. This is an avenue of escape. Presumably the husband would not consent to a divorce. An expensive route for the taxpayer but at least our society allowed them, and social services, to resort to the justice system.
I’m not sufficiently informed to comment on this important issue.
I just wanted to observe that, despite the tension, this is damn good stuff!
So many conversations consist of people either agreeing with each other, or mindlessly attacking each other.
This is right on the edge, and it forced me to think.
Respect to all.
These issues are very difficult, the intention to protect needs to be tempered by the wishes and feelings of the person being protected. This is where I agree with Anna, there is a patronising ‘ blanket’ view of disabled people largely because they are so hidden from society. Those that do work do this in ‘sheltered environments’ mostly ‘ghetto’ enterprises, often government subsidised- so a ‘con’ in reality to the disabled person. We should not forget they are human beings with human basic needs- even physical contact, which they see on the TV and in society all the time. The expression of this need may not be apparent to those who are mostly ignorant of how to ‘read’ disabled people who do not express themselves eloquently..
Secondly, the fact this family had never contacted statutory services for help. Long experience has shown that people have been reluctant to have contact with ‘official organisations’, holding them in great suspicion. It was, and is now, mostly other professionals who start the process of contacting state agencies- without consent …. this is where Britain is today with the level of state interference in people’s lives. Once the machinery starts rolling…. it crushes life itself.
The problem is the state is also guilty of neglect and abuse of the vulnerable- just look at what is happening to elders and disabled people in hospital and care institutions, look at what are the outcomes for children in care… The lie is that either the CoP or the state actually protects… but it sure controls in Britain. I would suggest to anyone from Asia to either not come here or get out pronto if they want the family life as their culture provides.
Soooo…has anyone at all ever asked DD for her opinion ?
Lots of assumptions being made on both sides here.
Comments on this entry are closed.