In the judgement, details of the effect of C’s condition on his behaviour was outlined: ‘C could be extremely challenging; his behaviour was sometimes aggressive and dangerous. In 2011, it was necessary for C to move out of his family home.’

The Times column Julie is responding to didn't mention this inconvenient fact. But even if it hadn't been true in the particular case that led to the judgment, the simple fact is that men with disabilities can pose all kinds of threats to women they use for sex. What about the right of the woman to be safe?