HobbitFeet wrote:Vam wrote:Niv wrote:Vam wrote:HobbitFeet wrote:oh my beautiful thread
I'm reading it whilst trying to swerve past the fuckwittery.
The topic has saddened me, tbh. It kind of makes my mind veer towards envisaging someone who's helpless/vulnerable as a result of deteriorating mental health, being caused visible distress by someone else's sense of 'entitlement' ...
Social services have obviously stepped in for a reason. There are very few facts mentioned in the article in relation to what brought it to light. It all centres very much on the judges crass comments. As the case unfolds hopefully it will bring clarity. It's a case that could potentially set a very dangerous precedent if rulings are made on his views as they stand.
Exactly. And that's what set my mind to wondering ...
they would most likely always have been involved as the woman has a learning disabilty
now she also appears to have something that diminishes her capabilities further, hence the inability to give consent, when consent could be given previously
it doesn't follow there is any question of an abusive relationship
Until more details come to light, as Niv said, there can only be conjecture. But yeah, it's no surprise she would have Social Services monitoring her. Maybe in a prelude leading up to her current inability to give consent, she may have indicated that sex with her husband was causing her some distress. Who knows?
To me though, the Judge's comment was, well, ill-judged really.