This probably isn’t wise, no, really

A charity for child abuse victims, sex workers and gay men given more than £2m by the government, councils and police has told its staff they are allowed to have “sexual relationships” with the often vulnerable people they meet through their work.

The organisation, based in Leeds, is being investigated by the city’s child safeguarding board after The Sunday Times obtained a copy of its “workers’ conduct policy” which states: “Sexual relationships are acceptable with service users initially met during work time”.

Facepalm.

16 comments on “This probably isn’t wise, no, really

  1. Sorry–the police??

    Unless you are talking about the musical trio then WTF is Plod doing handing out–presumably our cash rather than a whipround –money to some catchall sex charidee?

  2. Do we have a number for how much of our money the government hands over to charities?

    I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that almost all charities are a racket. A friend of mine worked briefly for a small charity in HK but left because most of the money it raised was spent on admin (ie cushy jobs for middle class wives).

    A couple I know are headed to somewhere in SE Asia to build homes for the peasantry. Yet the money they spend on this virtue-signalling, self-congratulatory holiday could employ more than a few local craftsmen to build better houses.

    And these cases are nothing compared with the big charities, even those which do not allow their staff to sexually abuse vulnerable people.

  3. So, not only does it attract predators who know they will get easy access to prey, but they pay the predators too.

    What could go wrong?

  4. Hang on,

    > child abuse victims, sex workers and gay men

    They won’t be having sexual relations with the first group until they’re adults, otherwise it would be illegal. Nor with the second group, unless they’re paying. So that leaves the third group, gay men. It’s not clear why they shouldn’t have sex with them; although it’s not clear why they’re in need of charitable assistance either.

  5. A charity for child abuse victims, sex workers and gay men

    Have I just not had enough coffee, or is this a strange combination?

  6. I can’t read the whole article because it’s behind a registration wall. But the sentence quoted is rather odd. It almost reads as if there is a ‘not’ missing. Also, it’s the opposite of any other organisation’s policies I’ve ever heard of.

    Deliberate policy or unfortunate typo?

  7. So that leaves the third group, gay men. It’s not clear why they shouldn’t have sex with them; although it’s not clear why they’re in need of charitable assistance either.

    Up the workers!

  8. Andrew M – “They won’t be having sexual relations with the first group until they’re adults, otherwise it would be illegal.”

    With people they met as clients. So they can meet a 13 year old. Groom him or her for a few years. Then slip her one.

    “Nor with the second group, unless they’re paying.”

    Traditionally a lot of policemen ended up marrying former-ish prostitutes. Especially in America. So I am not sure this follows. But it probably does neither side much harm.

    “So that leaves the third group, gay men. It’s not clear why they shouldn’t have sex with them; although it’s not clear why they’re in need of charitable assistance either.”

    Indeed. They can be depraved on their own dime. Why should I pay for their drama?

  9. “although it’s not clear why they’re in need of charitable assistance either”

    They’re an HIV and hepatitis prevention charity.

    I dunno. Apart from (potentially) the sex abuse victims, neither of the other categories really falls into the “emotionally vulnerable” category. And I’d think sex abuse victims are by now well aware of the dangers and methods used by the predators, too.

    The problem is, what if you meet your ideal partner, fall in love, and start a fully consensual, non-abusive, joyful relationship, start to get your life turned around… and then get some bureaucrat with a clipboard and a one-size-fits-all set of rules appears telling you “no you can’t”. You’re an adult. You’re on your own time. But they’re going to assume you’re a predator just in case, because they can’t refine their rules to be able to distinguish between good people and bad people and therefore treat everyone as bad, and they’re going to poke their noses into your private life, tell you what to do, who you’re allowed to have relationships with.

    Well, easy. Just resign from the organisation. There are no rules then.

    I think that if I was trying to come up with a “worker’s conduct policy”, rather than banning things I’d instead try to avoid driving it underground and keep it under monitoring instead. Staff are allowed to have relationships, but clients judged to be “vulnerable” get a regular interview with a counselor to check that the relationship is not abusive. Or they put lines of communication in place to be able to confidentially report such relationships, and make sure any clients know about them. Did they do so?

    The abusers in abusive relationships ought to be stopped, but non-abusive relationships should not.

  10. MC,

    “I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that almost all charities are a racket. A friend of mine worked briefly for a small charity in HK but left because most of the money it raised was spent on admin (ie cushy jobs for middle class wives).

    A couple I know are headed to somewhere in SE Asia to build homes for the peasantry. Yet the money they spend on this virtue-signalling, self-congratulatory holiday could employ more than a few local craftsmen to build better houses.”

    I know a bloke who does a “teach kids to swim in South America” charity. So, instead of being a highly skilled software developer and handing over £5K to some locals who can teach kids to swim (and that would buy a lot of swimming lessons, even here) he does it. Methinks the real point is that it’s what he likes doing and gets to travel.

    I give to small charities now. In a nutshell, can you put all the staff in a photo? Can I see what everyone does? The local air ambulance gets some money each month from me because they tick those boxes. I’ll give some money to some local parents who want some non-NHS treatment.

  11. Traditionally a lot of policemen ended up marrying former-ish prostitutes.

    Wot.

  12. I;m increasingly wondering why so many people have to be explicitly told: don’t do this obviously silly thing. I first noticed it in university in the 1980s when there were notices in the toilets saying “put used toilet paper in the toilet not the bin”. What? But! How on earth does it occur to you to put a parcel of poo in the bin instead of the toilet. It’s called toilet paper for a reason.

    I then started noticing things like “do not spit on the bus” – why do need signs *telling* us this?
    “Do not put tissue paper in the urinal” – why do need signs *telling* us this
    “Do not have sex with your sex-abuse clients” – I mean, what????

  13. jgh,

    “abuse of our staff will not be tolerated”

    “M’lud, in my defence, there was no sign up saying that abuse of the staff would not be tolerated, so I beat her up”
    “Case dismissed”

  14. “put used toilet paper in the toilet not the bin”

    Here it’s largely the other way round because people have septic tanks outside metropolitan areas.

  15. In Greece and Cyprus there’s a bin next to the toilet because the pipes are small bore and signs saying to put toilet paper in it.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.