Place2Be hidden wall against critical email

The child mental health charity Place2Be basks in media approval through the PR endorsement of royalty. Yesterday it was in TV news, pushing for kids troubled at school to turn to it.

Despite all of Savile, this is a present case of the media acting dangerously towards kids. They don’t mention the danger in turning to any proffered source of mental health support – the danger of loss of liberty, of coming under arrogant doctors with power to apply for compulsory treatment powers, and who can consider it healthy that they should take over the child’s whole personality and dictate for personal changes that are nothing to do with why the child came to them.

So to be seen taking care for child safety, Place2Be has to be open to enquiry from the public. It gives an appearance of so being, by having this whole pageful of email contacts.

No one else than the number who are personally driven to actually mail them, will know that these addresses bounce! They return emails as, it’s even a really rude wording: Email rejected due to security policies.

By this invisible wall it is protected, unless you spend money on recording a paper mail, from ever being recorded to receive questions about safety from forced treatments for the kids who turn to them.

p2                               download (1)

Look at this #BeingOurselves ! That is exactly what doctors too often have not let troubled kids be. THAT’S WHY THIS MATTERS !

27 Apr 2018


Hans Asperger controversy necessitates fair forums

The new Nazi scandal burst around Hans Asperger gives a critical importance to this site’s cause: uncorrupted fair functioning of forum sites + the whole autistic scene. (1) Because the personal decision what medical labels each spectrumite is now willing to carry is a highly ethical issue of deep wellbeing when it involves what each feels their label to state connection to. (2) Because what hss been called for? a debate.  “We expect these findings to spark a big conversation among the 700 000 autistic people in the UK and their family members,” as the British reports quote NAS’s Carol Povey  who herself committed a stopping of answering upon me concerning NAS’s duty to publicly acknowledge the existence of wronged child authors.

It is a matter of wellbeing and abuse if any misuses of power, and any personal backstabbings, happen anywhere in this conversation. THE CONVERSATION HAS NOT HAPPENED PROPERLY OR HONESTLY UNLESS EVERY ITEM EXPOSED ON THIS SITE, ABOUT ANY AUTISTIC SITE OR GROUP, HAS BEEN STOPPED !

Thus  it can not happen ethically safely and validly on any site that has Gerry Duffy as a moderator and has parked as pending perpetually the question of removing him: or on Asperclick whose owner never answered after promising to concerning this approach to moderating.


So that now stands an undeniable worldwide law interest + significance for the self-voicing autistic scene’s fairness standards.

21 Apr 2018


Fairness in every situation ever! stands cited

The following statement, about the national autism strategy, NOW AND FOR A WEEK PAST stands publicly flyered around in the Bridges region of Edinburgh:

By making a crime report by this route: the autism strategy workers are responsible to report it to the authorities but also responsible themselves, for the strategy work to meet the protection items raised.

This clearly ties the strategy, and through it the authorities, TO AUTOMATIC HAVING TO ACT ON THIS CASE. And with it, and as part of it, TO PURSUE EVERY CORRUPTION CASE IN the Ordinary Life Too book. This is obviously far better than just to report this case directly to authorities having a choice not to act on it. It establishes this obligation as part of the pattern of organising + planning the services for all social groups with needs – that the police, social care depts, OSCR, all the authorities to do with safety + vulnerability, stand in perpetual duty TO ONLY EVER ALWAYS GIVE THE ANSWER THAT UPHOLDS PERSONAL FAIRNESS, TO EVERYTHING EVER. They cease to have discretion not to.

See what that cites publicly? The police cease to bave discretion to choose any other way than the way that upholds and defends personal fairness, in ANY SITUATION EVER. Let’s see that widely recorded shared passed on and cited, so that it’s known so that the state stands held to it in practice.

They cease to be entitled to: be noncommittal, use words like “unfortunately” to assert an unfair position, or call it “their decision”, or declare a logically faultable position their final/closing word, ABOUT ANYTHING EVER FOR EVER, and the suable and world human rights statuses of groups with needs places it beyond governments’ or parliaments’ power ever to undo this: it binds them successively. It becomes constitutional.


Imagine excitedly what this means for the safety of liberty – already just at the stage of citing and circulating the claim, this action makes us all an increment safer. Then imagine when this is fully functional, what it means for forcing that something fair actually gets done about all the cases of bad sites that are reported on this site. The type of future safety it promises you, is that no forum site could keep Gerry Duffy as a moderator and play the trick of leaving the question pending to answer perpetually so that it never gets answered. ANY SITE THAT DOES THAT KNOWS IT IS AN OFFENCE OF ENDANGERING VULNERABLE EMOTIONS.

2 Mar 2018

common sense in evidence – justice mill?

We are a communication affected group. We need communication to make logical sense. If something establishes something else as a fact, our communication can only go with that. It can never be expected to be communicated to us logically, that illogically a demonstrated evidenced fact shall not be allowed to count as one.

The good practical effect of this for civil liberties, is to entitle everyone to the same, in public situations that both we and everyone else can be in.

62d527c347b001b2b0144621cafe9a71          The Justice Mill is a Wetherspoon’s pub in Aberdeen, and some name it has. An industry producing justice it is not. In an aspie party, one of late twenties age got refused service there on grounds of suspected under 18 – late twenties, and has never had that happen before at this age. The manager held that it stood despite his adulthood being an obviously provable fact, from his concessionary bus pass. They are photographic, and only adults have them without Young Scot logos on. That is an item never issued to a child, never to anyone under 25 in fact, so it proves the holder is an adult. But he held that it a not valid age identifier by law.

Now this is not a simple matter of obeying the law, because law on a pub checking ages for service only arises when factual doubt exists. The question of law does not kick in at all until, and because, the pub has doubted the age. When the age is IN FACT FACTUALLY PROVED, BY ANY MEANS, the cause for tbe law to arise ceases to exist. It is counterfactual, a nonsensical behaviour in the face of facts, to hold that a factual proof of a fact does not count if it is not one of the forms of age identifier defined as “valid” by licensing law, and the person must still be treated as if they might not be adult !

This is not a line that you can make a successful logical communication of to us a communication troubled group, because it is illogical. It asserts that a known fiction must continue to be adhered to contrary to a known fact, because something had previously been suspected which is now disproved ! You were suspected therefore you must remain treated as if a now disproved suspicion is true, unless you have a particular valid identifier, though that would not happen if you had not been wrongly suspected in the first place !?!
Because that does not work as logical communication, it is completely unacceptable and a breach of care for our communication needs for anyone to call it “the way it is” or “legislation you can’t argue with it”.

Bookmark this or save its url, and use it as a resource, to cite against that system’s own VALIDITY and against anyone who argues for fatalism towards it. Use it against licensing authorities, or use it in support of anyone who comes up against an authority determined to be pigheaded against definitely demonstrable fact of adulthood, in such a situation. The point of rules setting standardly valid forms of identification is to define for cases of borderline uncertainty a set of types of document that carry no doubt. Anything that is in fact certain evidence results in the age not being in doubt and the possibility of breaking the age law not existing, ceasing to arise.

This is directed against workability of the licensing system in that unjust way, wherever this may happen and however often, more than against that particular pub. To balance the story, the manager there when we were leaving did seek to part politely and with apology for the more heated moments of logical clash there had been, it had not ended in a shouting match. But set against that is it being the only pub that has raised an age doubt at all to a man of late twenties age, and saying that common sense does not count.

28 Jan 2018

don’t fund actively causing youth homelessness

” A national helpline for young homeless people. Phone, app, online 24/7 365 days a year” sounds like it must be a good cause. It was a petition on, specifically for Wales, for creating this service there. Today it sent to its signers sent out an update linking them to a crowdfunder money appeal on “raising funds to launch the first out-of-hours helpline for young homeless people in Wales”, urging a burst of support to enable it to be open at all times not just working hours, for availability to folks in time of crisis.

Which is all good. But the appeal and crowdfunder page have been written in a way doing great evil – a way that could ACTUALLY CAUSE PREVENTABLE YOUTH HOMELESSNESS TO HAPPEN !! Cause youth not to know their rights in a housing emergency. It is obvious moral priority to prevent and not be part of it, over creating a new service shockingly tainted with doing that.

This appeal has been written on the premise that 16 year olds are subject to arbitrary throwing out of family homes and making homeless, by their parents. It does not describe any restraints and limits. To write as if that is true can itself cause it to happen !!! and victims not to realise rights against it. So is an act of horrific endangerment of teenagers.


There are rights around the continuity of a tenure that is part of a household’s established routine. This was establishable from advice radio. Of course housing crisis support is needed to try to enforce this. But it is not true that any 16 year old is arbitrarily subject to throwing out.

wenallt-sp-01 In 1980s South Wales a teenage psychiatrist was working, Harri Pritchard-Jones, whose approach to deliberately driving wedges between teenagers and their parents included telling us, and really trying to make us believe, that there is an arbitrary throwing out power. It was part of his abuse of us to do that. 30 years later the writer of a PhD thesis on autism, Destination Unknown, by Ewelina Rydzewska, University of the West of Scotland 2013. wrote in it how upsetting it was to read that item, in an account of treatment by a troubled teenagers’ unit team including him, that includes other abuse too. If he was right, citing that he was wrong would not have got through the PhD writing supervision.

14 Dec 2017


“adult protection” and the absconding officeholders’ predation on the whole British aspie scene

As this affects the whole British aspie scene and its safety from unexpected predators within, it presses the question of equivalents elsewhere to the law of “adult protection” existing in Scotland since 2007. If spectrumites elsewhere perceive being less safeguarded, this case’s direct impact on you gives you grounds to demand parity.

This law is no panacea, because no law is, because of the problem of getting any law fairly enforced without the authorities having a choice at their own convenience. Vulnerable folks who the authorities have an admitted duty not to give reasonable motives for suicidality to, know that the police will often ignore things without even replying, and social work will form and follow its own view on a situation – published “adult protection” procedures envisage it doing that. As Autism Network Scotland’s book An Ordinary Life Too exposed, see chapter 12, social work itself is corrupt and has a history of wilfully obstructing action against abusive services funded by itself, even after the Fritzl cellar case whose repetition all social work corruptions make possible.

Hence fair enforcement that is genuine in keeping us safe from emotional or financial exploitation, the law’s main purposes, and without in the process handing over folks’ lives go social work, has to be pursued by citing the protection law in our direct engagements with standard of services, such as in that book and the network’s follow-up of its impact, and in the periodic autism strategy consultations like this timely present one .

But the protection law itself is a great thing to have as back-up for demanding fairness in groups and services. It is a recognition that unfairness is a damaging and sometimes exploiting thing able to affect health or state of life. It applies to folks who have a condition that increases the possibility of being harmed, and autism always increases the susceptibility to harm from social foul play. It is also defined as applying to folks “may be unable to safeguard their well-being, rights, interests, or their property”, but that is an “or” list, not an “and” list, it means any one of those things applying, not all of them. An able aspie who is fully able to run their own life, including property and “interests”, is still covered on safeguarding their wellbeing in the social context of relations, taking advantage of, pushing around, because with their aspieness they can’t interact skilfully or think of smart things to say quickly.

Thus IF UNCORRUPTLY ENFORCED it prevents other aspies from backstabbing or betraying us in the middle of supporting us, and ties to that standard all organised groups and societies of aspies. Uncorruptly enforced is what is formally put to the autism strategy consultation – A NOTICE OF HARM AND RISK, UNDER THE VULNERABILITY LAW, for all spectrumites affected by the case of these 3 jerks, CITING THAT ONLY WITH AUTOMATIC PROSECUTION OF ANYONE WHO BEHAVES LIKE THEM ARE ALL ASPIES SAFE FROM HARM UNDER THE VULNERABILITY LAW.

That is both for the blatant breaches of personal support trust, and for the sweeping exclusions done to most of an asperger society, in their actions.

3 aspies were the 3 officeholders, chair, secretary, treasurer, of an asperger society, only 6 months ago, and for 9 years past. They were active and keen in making countrywide links, joining up the British aspie scene, giving aspies in other locations solidarity with troubles, and proud of their society’s success as a model for others to follow. All 3 simultaneously, acting together, have left the society they used to run, cut off the whole rest of its membership, exposing that they had not genuinely cared for them all along, and abandoned that cause of national joining up. In the process they changed a regular meet of that society into their own meet held in secret locations openly hidden from the rest of that society’s members.

Everyone in the whole British aspie scene who had made links with them, received any hospitality from them, has now found they were predated on. They are kicked away with no trustability of any solidarity or links experienced before. Wherever in Britain they were, if what these have done to them is defined in Scottish terms it is that they have brushed aside that vulnerability law’s applying to them, trampled all over it.

  • Mark Keenan
  • Gerry Duffy
  • James Dick

                                        20170721_093701 And why did they choose to do this to the WHOLE British aspie scene? Because Keenan was present when one other person was treated nastily by an ex-workmate who made a malicious accusation. Because he decided to Judas on the other person to keep himself out of any trouble, and even after the accusation was easily proved false (hence it was a crime to make it), corruptly decided to refuse to withdraw the improper apology he had made to the villain dissociating himself from the victim. Which is an illegal breach of a support role entered into. For which these other 2 characters could have supported that whole aspie society by turning on him for it. Instead, after months of tension, they (+1 other) chose to join him in turning on the society and doing a runner on it.

Abandoned all they had worked for for years, abandoned the national Asperger scene and its interests and development, to run away from having to handle one personal incident fairly.  Their names will be dung in the British aspie scene’s posterity, representing unethical unreliability and fly-by-night self interest.

Folks can come to seem like trustable reliable figures in even the nationally joined up aspie scene, over years, yet turn out, to the scene’s surprise, to be just fairweather activists, able to throw the lot away in an instant. So don’t leave it to trust. For all our safetys, including safety from suicide triggering of suicides by dirty dropping of support, agree with pinning into place committal legal deterrents to conduct like theirs.

The whole linked up British aspie scene.
14 Nov 2017

They stand reported, by protection law report made within a submission to the strategy process as linked above, and cited in it as proof that by duty against suicide dangers, enforcement of a protection law standard against their actions IS IN FACT AN AUTOMATIC DUTY AND NOT DISCRETIONARY. SUICIDE ENDANGERMENT BEING COMMITTED BY ANY PARTY WHO TRIES TO CLAIM OTHERWISE. This makes part of the autism strategy that the protection law authorities get their hands forced and don’t get left having any discretionary choice. Now this gets referred to everywhere that there is any protection ethic to cite and any engagement with the autism strategy, until they are stuck with everyone visibly knowing A LIABILITY FOR THEM THAT THEY CAN’T AFFORD, of both risking suicidality and giving it a motive, unless they comply with the forcing of their hands and adopt the principle of AUTOMATIC action.

An item that forces this question for the safety of spectrumites outside Scotland, is that endangerment is done in the Aspie Village site unless Duffy automatically is removed from being one of its moderators.

13 Dec 2017


family courts

Leonardo Edwards with Robert SproulNovember 5 at 9:50pm shared from Facebook.

Published on 26 Aug 2017: It has long been alleged that family courts across the UK conspire with police and social workers, in order to steal people’s sons and daughters and put them into ‘care’ in order to generate revenue for the state. This has been written off by many as simply a bogus ‘conspiracy theory’.

However, for the first time, Robert Sproul proves this to be true.

The following video contains real footage of a confrontation between Robert and a man acting in the role of sheriff within an administrative hearing in a public building. In this hearing, Robert challenges the authority of the sheriffs whom had unlawfully put the son and daughter of Robert’s sister into care previously based on false allegations and fraud.

Despite no crime in law having taken place, no consent being given to any legislation whatsoever and not a single point of Robert’s argument being rebutted, the man acting in the role of sheriff ignored the law of the land and made a ruling under a legislative rule. In doing so, the sheriff perverted the course of justice in favour of the corporate agenda.

People’s sons and daughters are being unlawfully stolen and put into care across the country on a daily basis. It is important that this video is made viral so that people can see for theirselves the crimes that are occurring against the people.

With that in mind, please like and share this video and help make this video viral.

The information contained within it, is very important. Apologies for the shaky video, it has been stabilised as best we possibly could – [ where right now you will find “This content is not available on this country domain due to a defamation complaint”. Go figure? Hiding things evidences that it’s true. ]20170530_160819