Grant scheme should pay for prostitute visits

1:00pm Wednesday 2nd January 2013 in News Sarah Hickinbotham By Sarah Davies

CAMPAIGN: Chris Fulton wants a Government-funded scheme that will pay for disabled people to visit prostitutes, similar to a project in Holland CAMPAIGN: Chris Fulton wants a Government-funded scheme that will pay for disabled people to visit prostitutes, similar to a project in Holland

A CAMPAIGNER is calling for help to allow disabled people to have more choice over their relationships.

Chris Fulton, of Wensleydale Drive, off Bilford Road, Worcester, wants Government to adopt a grant scheme which would entitle disabled people to visit prostitutes.

A similar scheme is already in operation in Holland, where disabled people are entitled to have sexual relations funded by the government up to 12 times a year.

In the UK, paying for sex is not against the law but it is illegal to solicit sexual services, kerb crawl and pay for sex with women who have been coerced into prostitution.

One council has used taxpayers’ money to pay for the services of a prostitute in Amsterdam for 21-year-old man with learning difficulties as part of his care package under new policies which transfer funds directly to those who receive care from social services.

Mr Fulton, who has cerebral palsy and muscular dystrophy, said such a scheme would allow greater freedom for disabled people and help to break down barriers.

The 29-year-old said: “The idea is to give disabled people more of a choice. There’s still a lot of stigma attached [to disabled people having relationships] from research I’ve done and experiences I’ve had.

“I think it would be good to bring the Dutch scheme over here to take away that stigma about disabled people having sex.

“But it’s not just about that. It’s about disabled people being accepted when they have relationships. It’s 2013, it’s not the dark ages. I’m well aware it’s controversial.

“It needs to be brought out into the open in a managed and constructive way.

“I’ve tried other more conventional ways of meeting people.

“It would give disabled people more freedom if that was a route they wanted to go down.”

Mr Fulton added that prostitution would need to be regulated if such a scheme were to be introduced in the UK.

Neil Coyle, director of policy and campaigns at Disability Rights UK – a charity which provides help and support to over 500,000 people each year – said the topic was not something that had been raised as a priority by those it represents.

He said: “There would need to be a wholesale change of the law and then the means of people using public money to purchase these vouchers.

“Were it to be changed, then it would be within the person’s power to use existing benefits such as Disability Living Allowance and direct payments to cover the cost.

“At Disability Rights UK, we have a lot of other issues that are priorities at this time and the main concerns are around getting any benefits at all.”

Worcester News comment

Comments(33)

jb says...
2:01pm Wed 2 Jan 13

My son is disabled and needs care support 24/7, we have no funding at present as what was offered in a budget was insulting and the cost was grossly disproportionate so I care for him myself. In trying to be respectful to this chap I find it quite incredible that he believes that the government should fund his sex life. When individuals are struggling to get funding to stay in their own homes or try to access activities in the community this issue should never even be considered as viable in any way. Mr Fulton speaks of not being able to form relationships by conventional means, paying for sex from a prostitiute is not trying to form a meaningful relationship.

Report this post »

mayall8808 says...
2:33pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Totally agree JB, we as taxpayers pay enough for someone else's sex life now when fathers do not live up to their responsibilities and the state has to help keep there kids, this is big NO from me, i do think i understand the difficulty disabled people may have to form a proper relashionship but that's life as they say.

Report this post »

jaybnell1988 says...
2:40pm Wed 2 Jan 13

I hadn't realised it was April 1st already...........

Report this post »

katieharrison says...
3:07pm Wed 2 Jan 13

It just seems wrong to pay for someone else's sex life. Considering the article states about disabled people gaining relationships, getting tax payers to pay for someone else's sex won't create a relationship for them. The money should be used more wisely in other areas such as supporting disabled people in everyday life, instead of thinking of funding something which is not considered a necessity.

Report this post »

Arthur Blenkinsop says...
3:18pm Wed 2 Jan 13

12 times a year? Where do i sign up? :-)

Report this post »

Ballymoss says...
3:19pm Wed 2 Jan 13

I'm a disabled person and I certainly wouldn't expect any taxpayers to pay for my sex life. Even though I'm disabled I'm still able to form relationships like any able bodied person and certainly wouldn't expect anyone to pay for me to pursue a sex life. As long as a disabled person is personable then they should still be able to form intimate relationships if that's what they seek. There are many able bodied people who are unable to form relationships and we don't expect taxpayers to pay for them to enjoy a sex life so why do disabled people expect it?

Report this post »

iamthebinman says...
3:52pm Wed 2 Jan 13

I think that at the age of 29 sex would be a very important aspect of this mans life and I am shocked that Neil Coyle from Disability Rights UK doesn't understand this. Taxpayers pay millions in helping disabled people particapipate in recreation and if there is really no other way to fund this why not provide him with a Christmas cracker!

Report this post »

Harry The Spider says...
4:15pm Wed 2 Jan 13

I think this guy is a bloody idiot!

He should tot up whatever benefits and other income he receives, prioritise his requirements and then decide what to spend it on. That's what the rest of us do with our money. And if he then wants to allocate part of it to his sex life then fair enough.

But don't expect those of us who pay income tax to fund it!

Report this post »

gmoore1207 says...
5:41pm Wed 2 Jan 13

if he wants what they get in holland move there then simples wish i had big screen like he has can not afford one ups im not dissabled

Report this post »

spider666 says...
5:48pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:
12 times a year? Where do i sign up? :-)
Brilliant,your comment has made my day,so so funny.

Report this post »

gmoore1207 says...
6:06pm Wed 2 Jan 13

spider666 wrote:
Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:
12 times a year? Where do i sign up? :-)
Brilliant,your comment has made my day,so so funny.
12 times a year greedy

Report this post »

DarrenM says...
6:18pm Wed 2 Jan 13

"In the UK, paying for sex is not against the law"

We're giving the unemployed free bus travel for a month to presumably give them the opportunity to improve their quality of life so whats the difference?

Is the objection solely a moral one? and if so who's morals, yours or mine?

Report this post »

Jabbadad says...
8:31pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Before some of our posters here tear their hair out I am trying to look at prostitution from a completely therapeutic angle, and NO I HAVE NOT VISITED A BROTHEL OR PROSTITUTE. (never had the courage)
And While being aware and disagreeing on the terrible treatment some poor Girls & Boys endure when they are snatched from their families and forced into prostitution, not all prostitutes are forced into what is one of the oldest professions in the world. And when we look around the world we see nations who are obviously not shackled by the Happy Clappers of religions who have legalised brothels.
Then there are the few who are in a totally satisfying relationship but who could be among a much smaller percentage than those who are not.
A point made jokingly by Arthur about 12 times a year, there are people out there in marriages (so called for whatever reason) where 12 times a year would be great. Wherever one partner or the other lay down rules or objections to the amount of nuptules allowed, would be in my humble opinion, where a prostitute could well be considered as a therapeutic option, to fulfill a desire / need of the other person going without the natural satisfaction of sex. Because that is what it is, a natural desire. I also feel that if we had legalised brothels we would see the illegal dens close,and less people forced into prostitution.
But the legal availability in agreement by both sides (customer & prostitute) could well satisfy the needs of many people, who are sexually denied and inwardly unhappy.
I will now offer myself to be nailed to the Church doors in retribution.

Report this post »

melissajane says...
9:30pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Couldn't agree more about how wrong this is. I for one work extremely hard for my money and know people who could benefit from my taxs a lot more than this cause. This is a personal issue not a tax payer issue. Give our money to the people who actually need it for care, support and access to activities.

Report this post »

pinkfluff says...
10:39pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Jabbadad wrote:
Before some of our posters here tear their hair out I am trying to look at prostitution from a completely therapeutic angle, and NO I HAVE NOT VISITED A BROTHEL OR PROSTITUTE. (never had the courage)
And While being aware and disagreeing on the terrible treatment some poor Girls & Boys endure when they are snatched from their families and forced into prostitution, not all prostitutes are forced into what is one of the oldest professions in the world. And when we look around the world we see nations who are obviously not shackled by the Happy Clappers of religions who have legalised brothels.
Then there are the few who are in a totally satisfying relationship but who could be among a much smaller percentage than those who are not.
A point made jokingly by Arthur about 12 times a year, there are people out there in marriages (so called for whatever reason) where 12 times a year would be great. Wherever one partner or the other lay down rules or objections to the amount of nuptules allowed, would be in my humble opinion, where a prostitute could well be considered as a therapeutic option, to fulfill a desire / need of the other person going without the natural satisfaction of sex. Because that is what it is, a natural desire. I also feel that if we had legalised brothels we would see the illegal dens close,and less people forced into prostitution.
But the legal availability in agreement by both sides (customer & prostitute) could well satisfy the needs of many people, who are sexually denied and inwardly unhappy.
I will now offer myself to be nailed to the Church doors in retribution.
I agree, legislation would be a big step towards making the industry safer, cleaner and fair. If that happened then maybe they could offer discount for people on disabilities.

Whether you disagree or agree with the article I have to say well done Chris, must take courage to discuss such a difficult subject. Appreciate your honesty.

Report this post »

Vox populi says...
10:55pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Hang on I always used to pay for it....bottles of Smirnoff Ice, glasses of wine, vodka and cokes and when really trying hard champagne....

Report this post »

Olga says...
11:06pm Wed 2 Jan 13

Vox populi wrote:
Hang on I always used to pay for it....bottles of Smirnoff Ice, glasses of wine, vodka and cokes and when really trying hard champagne....
.............I feel used - I thought we shared the bottles and glasses because you loved me, and all you really wanted was.................
.......

Report this post »

Respectable says...
9:59am Thu 3 Jan 13

Please.. No more... I can't afford to pay Shag-Tax...!!

Report this post »

Vox populi says...
11:14am Thu 3 Jan 13

Olga wrote:
Vox populi wrote: Hang on I always used to pay for it....bottles of Smirnoff Ice, glasses of wine, vodka and cokes and when really trying hard champagne....
.............I feel used - I thought we shared the bottles and glasses because you loved me, and all you really wanted was................. .......
oh the innocence of youth....

Seriously though if he is struggling with his mental wellbeing due to lack of this social activity then wait until he gets married…..

Report this post »

Rosey of Worcs says...
11:19am Thu 3 Jan 13

NO!! this is utterly ridiculous and wrong on EVERY level!!!!

Report this post »

alfiepie says...
11:42am Thu 3 Jan 13

A few different points raised here - however some seem to talk about the legality of brothels - I couldn't care less about that - but getting benefits to PAY for disabled people to visit them ?? This ridiculous article must sadden most campaigners for equality for the less able - the blokes a muppet.....

Report this post »

Respectable says...
11:48am Thu 3 Jan 13

It's incredible how some things make it to print sometimes.

On a lighter note maybe Lord Coe could organise a Para Swingers Club or something.

Report this post »

lettysmith says...
6:59pm Thu 3 Jan 13

I would not be happy to pay for someones sex life! I have a disabled son and would not expect anyone to pay for this for him.I agree with the comment earlier. How is sleeping with a prostitute going to help him to build a relationship with someone?? I dont get it. I am all for the disabled getting as much help as They need but this is just daft.

Report this post »

Windywilliams69 says...
7:28pm Thu 3 Jan 13

Tax-funded "rumpy pumpy" with prostitutes? Whatever next? Free booze on the NHS? Now that's an idea ...

Report this post »

laidback says...
7:17am Fri 4 Jan 13

Surely the process would require an officially approved prostitute sponsoring system with witnessing of the act by a social worker to ensure value for the taxpayer?

Report this post »

Respectable says...
8:06am Fri 4 Jan 13

Can you imagine the Job Description !
Bet you'd have to work a week in hand as well !

Report this post »

catcostume says...
9:32am Fri 4 Jan 13

The "everybody owes me something" culture has hit a real new low...

Report this post »

laidback says...
12:17pm Fri 4 Jan 13

"On-the job" training would also be required Respectable.

Report this post »

ChrisSmithUK says...
12:30pm Fri 4 Jan 13

As a non-disabled person bought up around people with disabilities, I would feel uncomfortable making a blanket statement about the quality of life for disabled people in respect of their sex lives - and I think a lot of people both sides of the fence would.

Controversially though, might I suggest it might be Chris' unhealthy attitudes towards sexual partners, such as not being able to tell the difference between having a service provided and being involved in a meaningful relationship, which is actually obstructing the potential to enjoy the physical company of others?

Report this post »

Flomay says...
12:54pm Fri 4 Jan 13

I'm sure there are plenty of women out there who would give him one for free... all he needs to do is sign up to a dating site! lol

Report this post »

worcesterlass says...
5:01pm Fri 4 Jan 13

Respectable wrote:
Can you imagine the Job Description !
Bet you'd have to work a week in hand as well !
working a week "in hand" might be a better answer to his problem :)

Report this post »

katiekins says...
9:05am Sun 6 Jan 13

gmoore1207 wrote:
spider666 wrote:
Arthur Blenkinsop wrote:
12 times a year? Where do i sign up? :-)
Brilliant,your comment has made my day,so so funny.
12 times a year greedy
More like lucky :)

Report this post »

thebest1 says...
8:42am Mon 7 Jan 13

it's giving disabled people a bad name and degrading for disabled people and for the call girls. Like I agree with.the person who said that able bodied find it hard forming relationships. It's part of life.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree