“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 Ordinary Life Too exposed, 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 consult.gov.scot/health-and-social-care/9d506ce6/ .

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 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

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


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 – www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-XTGeC4jSQ [ 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








MeToo Men Too

Sky News Newsdesk tweet
A Sky Data poll has revealed 55% of women and 22% of men say they have been sexually harrassed at least once.

A figure that high for men totally explodes the bigotry and misguidedness of the recent #MeToo campaign on social media, in being only for women to do, and a message that only women suffer and men are the villains. Instead of the common sense that there is good and bad in both genders.

How the hell do you think that felt to the 22%? simultaneously denied and treated as an irrational mob’s suspects? The following shocking exchange on Facebook shows MeToo dangerously stirring up bigotry against believing in false accusations –

  • While not dismissing any individual’s experiences, the evidence is that such malicious accusations are very rare. Implying that it is an issue of equal magnitude to harrassment or violence by men against women seems really irresponsible, given how widespread the latter is. So I disagree.
  • (a woman) X, thank you.
  • X, Read the comment by “Thought Criminal”, first in the Disqus comments list when sorted by Best, and the comment by “Riggah”: [shared link: Guilty until proven innocent: life after a false rape accusation. www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11912748/Guilty-until-proven-innocent-life-after-a-false-rape-accusation.html ]
  • Skim reading the summaries of reports in the wikipedia article (link below), the percentage of “unfounded” accusations reported by a police force never seems to break through 10%. And there are lots of discussions to be had around how the accusations get labelled “unfounded” (e.g. sometimes this is the outcome when they are just withdrawn, without anything having been proved either way). So I think the female criminologist cited by “Ribbah” sounds pretty credible. [Gave link to Wikipedia article “False accusation of rape” – now look up what Fairness Watch has to say about Wikipedia.]
  • 10% is high. It’s one in every 10 of a lot of reports, that’s high odds and a lot of real lives.
    It is more logical to take the term “unfounded” as being used when it is demonstrated, than to clutch reinterpretations of it that clearly are not on the side of the principle of innocent until proved guilty. After those reinterpretations, Thought Criminal’s list of 48 cases is still there, with the reinterpretations making life worse for the folks in those cases and their families.
  • No one needs to clutch at anything. It’s a genuine problem with how the data is recorded.
    Anyway, at no point have I said that false accusations never happen or that it isn’t a horrendous experience for those caught up in them. I simply said that it was irresponsible to make out that that happens on the same scale as harrassment/assaults against women. And this is borne out by all these figures. The number of unfounded accusations is always far smaller than the number taken seriously or successfully prosecuted.
  • So I find irresponsible to call rare any serious injustice that really exists, and needs real guarding against and conscientious alertness to its possibility in every situation.
  • But doesn’t doing that risk victims of harrassment/violence not being believed?
  • Support services who are not going to have any effect on the accused’s fate can base their private relationship with their client on accepting all their client tells them. That can happen while at the level of judiciality and anything that impacts the accused person, the oldest human rights principle for everyone’s safety is that accusations must never be believed on word, only on evidence.

It is caught as a totally offensive sexism for MeToo’s organisers to assume that no male victim incidence exists, the same as out-of-favour Germaine Greer did on domestic violence.

The men’s figure is likely to be conservative and an underrepresent, exactly because the toxic masculinity mates culture and this feminist PC prejudice against men both together make men feel not socially accepted in stating a harrassment experience. Straight men are likely not to feel socially safe or comfortable with peers to admit a gay harrassment experience. Or, The Big Bang Theory‘s many scenes of women thrusting unconsented kisses onto men they hardly know, are a barometer that unjustly this behaviour is still not getting perceived as sexual harrassment when it is woman to man. How does that sit with MeToo?

PC prejuduce against men has impacted on aspie men who struggle to connect socially.

#MeToo #skynews #everydaysexism #bigbangtheory

a clicktivist cult: Korean Dogs


A warning against a high demand cult. This not an autism organisation, but it could certainly be a particular danger of entrapment for spectrumites whose literal mindedness includes feeling a tie of conscience to keep following a moral cause at its literal face value, and take literally seriously the campaigning actions asked of them.

In any moral or political campaign, we need to apply critical thinking to actions asked of us by leaderships. Do we agree that the actions are sensible. e.g. if you do canvassing in a referendum, you will find it is not sensible, it annoys voters and can lose votes, to pester them with reminder gimmicks to get them to pledge to vote at a particular time so that your leaders can monitor turnout through the day. Baulk at that task if you don’t want to be a emotionally exploited volunteer.

It is tragic, but has an air of inevitability, to find that an online political campaign in the leaders-and-followers style, nicknamed “clicktivism”, can be a high demand burdener and exploiter of its followers, as many followers as whose loyalty is kept hooked by the morality of its cause. They are hooked to strive to follow a scale of demands that swamps their lives, swamps out the issues and causes in their own lives, reduces them to a resource serving this one cause’s leadership – THAT MEANS THEY ARE IN A CULT. It’s the cult style of life control.

Korean Dogs is a campaign on a particularly moral cause, rightly particularly able to get a hook on civilised consciences. It is about barbaric evil use of dogs and cats for meat, quite dietarily pointlessly, and with the scale of cruelty that proves humans an evil species on a meteoric course of self-destruction, and the dreamy space age optimism of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos an offensively unreal wishful delusion.

No wonder Korean Dogs has over time attracted enough willing supporters to slip into temptation to ask more of them, and to grow greedy.

Already on its contact page, at koreandogs.org/contact-us they have a FAQ answer to supporters who have felt unreasonably swamped. “The online petition platform we have chosen to use is change.org because, not only are they a free resource, but they are one of the largest and most successful. They provide functions that are useful for our campaign, but they do not offer the functionality of allowing you to sign multiple petitions at once. Each petition should be individually read and then signed and although we recognise that, as we have so many petitions, it is very time consuming for our supporters, we are not able to change this. However, your voice is very important ”

– And signing petitions is by far the easiest of their demands. They choose to make their answer only be about that. But they also ask for writings of letters and emails, to government departments, to Olympic teams all over the world because of the forthcoming Winter Olympics in South Korea, and to city officials and long lists of councillors and senators all over the US and Canada seeking to stop cities twinning with Korean ones. No normal person has time to send so many personally worked-on messages. Anyone who tries to do it all has had their life taken over.

As soon as you have signed one of their petitions, you get swamped by far more frequent updates from them announcing new campaigns, than you can even have time to read, let alone act on, and you need to create an email folder specially to park them all in. Their latest one has crossed a line. In a layer that you only reach when you are already acting on the third of the links they have sent you, you find them asking for personally written long messages to a vast list of 255 contacts that fills the screen ! It would take you a month, with a headache just contemplating its utter impossibility and absurdity.

It is supporter abuse to arrogantly write “we are not able to change” a life swamping pressure upon all who are mugs enough to take it on, that obviously, counterproductively publicly many of their cause’s supporters have found unacceptable. It clinchingly makes them a cult and a dangerous exploiter organisation, such that the animals actually need that folks reject and denounce Korean Dogs’s monstrous scale of demands. They are only making enemies for the animals by it. If you are a supporter, feeling oppressed but feeling trapped by conscience towards the animal atrocities, reflect on tbis: unless loss of supporters matters to them, they can’t really be a campaign following the right strategy at all, and worth supporting. Knowing that the animals’ cause is there, you can choose your own reasonable scale of actions among all the other equally morally important things you care about. The animals are not helped at all by an organisation thst makes enemies by oppressing its supporters with a greed that has gone to its head.

This is a case of an online campaign organisation the morality of whose cause has worked to grip some supporters into a weary drudge silent loyalty and has tempted it to keep upping its demands on them, until it has gone way too far, turned into a cult and out of control monster. It now needs denouncing for it and saying loud no to.

17 Oct 2017

Nov 21: Overworked supporters may be making an impact – Korean Dogs is doing some activity through change.org without using its name. If you get a message in the name of Angela Jeong, most likely asking for an action of writing to some politician or ambassador, following up a petition, that’s them.

survey on bad treatments and therapies

The Westminster Commission on Autism is not as parliamentary as it sounds. Its name seems to be a way of stating that its interest is at all-British level. It is a self-constituted group of professionals.

Its aim to influence policy and practice mirrors the Autism Network Scotland‘s, but the key difference is that this Commission lacks any regular belonging participation by ordinary aspie grassroots. It is a point from where that model could be started, to do for grassroots voicing in England what ANS has in Scotland – but is it interested?

It is showing a good interest at present in getting some grassroots voice by doing this survey, into bad treatments and medicines. Good to pass on the link for it: it’s a very worthwhile campaigning study.

autisticinclusivemeets.com/fake-therapies-for-autism-survey/ – their blog page introducing it
www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/WestminsterAutismCommmission3 – the actual survey.


But there is a rather silly problem with this survey. It expects short answers in boxes the questions which in fact will take long answers and serious thinking time, for any caring participant to answer properly. So they are quite wrong to estimate doing the survey in 15 minutes !

Doing the survey properly will require: dipping into it first to appreciate what the questions are, thinking out and writing your answers saved in draft somewhere, then going back to the survey and copying them in.

It’s not quite designed right to enccourage easy and informative responses for them.

28 Sep 2017

Abellio Scotrail: skipping small stations

TRY THIS FOR A TRAINS ENQUIRY. Now that I have momentum going with telling a range of public bodies, that it already stands witnessed to many of their own kind, that for reason of effective communication with minorities, they can no longer give certain too-familiar bad types of answer. Reference to the contents of Autism Network Scotland‘s Ordinary Life Too book, issued through Strathclyde university linked to our autism strategy, have helped with asserting this.

So to encourage train enquiries written with this introduction, to be made ANYWHERE.

As you can see mentioned, the company presently running Scotrail, Abellio, has been controversially practising cancellations of trains’ stops at smaller stations, which obviously matters for reliability for the folks who use those stations, which in Clyde commuter country are busy. Abellio has just expected them to get a train back the other way, after a train they they are already aboard! announces it will miss their station. But what if you are in trying to make a bus connection in a less busy region? and what if you read timetables literally, not with a gut instinct for local non-observance of them, because you are autistic?!

to Scotrail:

This is an enquiry about cancellability of calls on the Borders line. Particularly in order to make it on behalf of autistic passengers, I first share an important new item about responses to definable needs. The rail enquiry follows it. 2 asterisks to distinguish them easily.

The Autism Network Scotland is based in Strathclyde university and is a body engaged with the national autism strategy and with grassroots of able autistic people, connecting their concerns with the professionals. I was on the compiling team, when through the university it issued the resource document An Ordinary Life Too on the coping concerns needing to be in autism workers’ knowledge. It is one of the publicly linked working materials for the national autism strategy and local autism plans.

The OLT document helps, with its real life evidence, to establish a principle which has arisen in the grassroots engagement with the autism strategy process, and which has been circulated and asserted a lot recently based on that engagement. It follows as a duty in successful and non-exploitative communication with a vulnerable group whose problem is principally with communication. This responsibility includes because they must not be placed in an exploited relationship in terms of adult support and protection. Knowing that an incidence of suicidality also has been associated with autism, from social exclusion suffered from failed communications and from the anxiety commonly accompanying the condition’s communication challenges, the responsibility to practical communicating includes by reason of not giving them any potential trigger causes for those feelings. It follows that this responsibility bars giving any types of answer that are avoidant of meeting the definite defined needs that exist in any enquiry about any vulnerable group.

You see how effective and well arranged it is, that this point is asserted entirely by reference to other people’s suicidalities, folks less able to communicate than is the person writing it. The person writing this point never has to have any suicidality themself, hence the impact of writing it never gets lost in the mental health response there would be to that. It is never wrong to discuss the existence of other people’s suicidalities for the purpose of prevention, but it is always wrong to give them the triggering experiences contrary to prevention. The point establishes that all parties delivering any service, including all public offices and caring agencies, and businesses serving the public, cease to be allowed to give any of the following specified types of answer:

  • Be noncommittal,
  • Use the word “unfortunately” or any synonyms of it,
  • Deny that they should do anything or answer substantively until an indefinitely deferrable eventuality,
  • Ignore, or omit to answer, any of the entire content of the evidence available from the person being answered,
  • Declare unilaterally that any step not reasoningly accepted as upholding personal fairness is “their decision”,
  • Declare unilaterally, even if with formal apology for it, that any of these types of answer, or any answer not standing up to reasoning, is a last word,
  • Make a tough assertion that these are what people will do,
  • Give no answer at all because of being prevented from giving these types of answer,
  • Declare any matter of fairness closed, or unilaterally close down contact, before its entire content has been fairly answered, and at a stage preventing this from being ascertained from logical scrutiny of answers given.

The circulation of this proof that all of the above types of answer have to cease ever to be given to anything, has encompassed: social care departments across councils, the police, autism services, LGBT organisations, and anti-suicide. It is a fact widely done.

So I make my rail enquiry from the angle of working in autism, and that the condition includes reading information literally and following it literally, without having any cultural instinct to guess at certain times not to do that. So this applies to their reading of train timetables.

What shall I tell them about reliability of calls at the smaller stations, for travel planning?

Question arises from experience of the Borders line’s 0625 from Edinburgh on Aug 19. It was only trivially late, couple of minutes: yet it was announced that on grounds of lateness its calls at Brunstane and Newcraighall were cancelled.

I have read in the papers that a practice of cancelling calls on grounds of speed exists at working day peak times on the Clyde branch lines, and is much criticised by commuters. It is a totally new idea to see it happen on the Borders line, and on a Saturday and early morning. Visibly not peak time at all, and this is your major new-build line whose success everyone is watching.

The question is: have you confined call cancelling to trains that have no time-critical connections with infrequent rural transport? Is it possible to suppose that the railway has, and updates, enough knowledge of the Borders’ bus, and any taxibus/flexibus, services, to apply it to decisions on train call cancellations?

I was on that train as a result of care to travel early enough to recover from problems: it was the next one 0651 that I really needed. So could a cancelling of calls happen on the 0651? and could it be decided on too late for passengers who are checking for problems to get the previous train?

The 0651 is the train that connects to a once-daily bus to a remote location, for that is where I was travelling. To Belsay, in Northumberland. The train is the only service from Lothian that makes that connection. This applies 6 days per week. It goes: Perryman’s 68 at 0805 from Galashiels to Jedburgh arr 0855, then once-daily Peter Hogg’s 131 at 0910 from Jedburgh to Belsay, or to many places along the same road.

If that bus is too remote from the railway to be in your awareness, then if you cancel any calls on the 0651, and particularly if you cancel them too late for passengers to get the 0625 instead, then passengers planning to join the 0651 at a cancelled station get deprived of their entire journey.

You see why I have preceded this with a proof that there is no longer the option of the types of answer listed above: to use the cynical concept of “unfortunately”, or assert a power of blunt last-word decision, or be noncommittal. Have you built in, that for the reason of a very infrequent bus connection, call cancellations can not happen on the 0651?

Maurice Frank
21 Aug 2017

[ A good bit from the reply Sep 5, which however did not mention the key issue of connections with infrequent rural bus routes: – ” Whenever a train fails to call at a station, it automatically fails its public performance measure. It is classed as a part cancellation, in the sense it has failed to call at all of its booked stops. As you can imagine, from a performance perspective we never want to incur an automatic public performance measure fail, so we won’t ever remove stops from a train unless our train graph identifies multiple conflicts with other on time trains if we don’t take action. All of our customers have plans and quite rightly expect to arrive on time, which is why we have to try and strike a balance between allowing late trains to impact on other on time services where we don’t intervene, with those where we do intervene to protect the experience of all of the customers travelling on these other on time services. 

As part of the performance improvement plan, we’ve issued fresh guidance to our control centres that will, we believe, lead to a reduction in its use. This guidance will ensure that we develop better customer communications at times when it might be needed so that detailed, earlier information can be given to customers about their journey.  ]

This is Belsay border lookout castle, Northumberland. The later “hall” (grand house) there was built by a family thought (by the guide) to be Asperger affected, it’s exactly 100 feet across, and with such perfectly regular fitting stone bricks that they needed no cement.

the Post Office travel card: pitfalls

Retail Stock

A much promoted new card issued by the British Post Office. It is like the modern replacement for travellers’ cheques, which are disappearing and getting harder to use. It is supposed to be the new safe way to carry money on holiday, with the money always in your card account even if the card itself goes. You can put spending money on to the card, in up to 13 different currencies, and use it like a debit card, but because you can pay in the local currency which you have preloaded onto the card, you avoid the exchange charges that go with using an actual bank debit card. Also there is no creditworthiness involved in getting this card, only a photo-identity check, so folks could get it who can’t get a debit card.

That must be a good thing. But there are potential pitfalls with this card.

There is one that is a fault in the way it is sold. It does not come with any forewarning explanation of how the process works to top it up online; you only see that when you first actually do it. It requires you to create an online account for the travel card, then to register on that account any other card you want to use for topping it up. It does not take Paypal. So you need to know all the other card’s details. For that you need to carry all details that you don’t remember, unless you are carrying the other card itself – and carrying details is not what we are encouraged to do usually.

Your autistic mind might have taken and followed literally the advice that this travel card can be used instead of your debit card, and hence chosen not also to carry your debit card, thinking that feels safer. BUT, that carries the danger that you reach that decision overlooking something that you will need your debit card for, but your mind had already ticked off as dealt with, say something you had already fixed up before your autistic local group promoted the travel card idea enthusiastically to you. e.g. when organising some group travel. A particular danger here is with the bad system of paying only on arrival for hotels that you have already used your card to prebook online.

Hotels can actually have the wrong setting shown on a booking site, re whether a prepayment will be taken: a friend actually asked an hotel that does not prepay, after making a card backed booking on booking.com indicated a 1 day prepayment. That system, of making bookings backed by a card but with no payment taken and consequently still needing to carry to the hotel whichever card you intend to pay with, when an option of paying in advance online would have averted that risk – is such a bad culture, illogical and badly worked out, when any number of things could go wrong for the traveller before they reach the hotel: and now this can too. Then carrying the new travel card won’t have made you safer on that journey.

Yet it may work out exactly the same as that if you do carry your debit card or either carry or remember its number. Because – this happened to me, hence this post – the first time you try to top up the travel card by online transaction, your bank’s fraud system reads it as a suspicious “unusual activity” and blocks your debit card! Leaving you adrift abroad without either the use of your debit card or the money you wanted to top up from it onto the travel card.

Are the banks doing this deliberately, to make the travel card hard to use because it is a rival? Are they trying to make it fail? I was stuck with needing to make a bank security phone call from Ireland to Britain before this piece of my own funds was available to me, and kept hanging in a call queue for half an hour when the first person put me through to a second person. The bank security system being utterly selfish for itself and impractical for the cardholder. If you have a mobile phone this would he a prohibitively expensive or credit draining use of it. I happen not to have one, with said autistic difficulty with phone speech – I needed not to be unlucky with the hotel, which means it needed to be a proper hotel and not to be a b+b in someone’s house or one of these new no-frills Asian economy hotels like the Tune chain.

But what if I had done that top-up transaction at home just after buying the travel card and just hefore travelling? Then if the same card security issue hit, that would be my debit card hit just hefore travelling and could I get through to card security in time, before I had obviated the need to carry it, the blocked transaction exactly being intended to achieve that! In the recent post on hooligans on TripAdvisor with an aggressively uncaring hard attitude on “personal responsibility” in airport problems, that type of attitude is equally as out of order and illegally violatory to the safety of vulnerable groups, over this card problem too. Unmet responsibilities here by the card providers, and pitfalls to watch for for all involved in planning travel for or with us.

It’s complicated enough that you need 3 different types of password for the card! That is not explained when you buy it, either. You get an “access code” number that you need to quote any time you phone them about the card, and when you create an online account to work the card especially for checking your balance in each currency and topping up. Then of course this online account itself requires a password. Then separately to either of these, the card itself has a PIN number!

Meanwhile, if you have 2 cards, most typically if you have 1 bank desbit card and now a POTC too, travel insurance presses acutely on you the dilemma: is it safer to carry only one, leaving the other at home not to get lost, or to carry both (or if more, all) your cards in case you need the funds in either of them, especially if the other gets lost? I venture to share that the experience quoted gives the answer, which can help all aspies be confident towards your travel insurers, of the right choice. You might overlook a spend, or find an extra spend present as needed. This establishes clearly that the right choice is
yes take them both.

Maurice Frank
1 Jun 2017

Aug 5: Another aspie reports that he found you are not allowed to do something that is common sense and anyone would expect to do, and which he was not informed of at time of buying the card. This confirms that its info and directions are incomplete to the buyer and it is sneakily far more complicated than it advertises as being.

You can’t pay in any other currency than the pound to top it up. Even though the whole point of the card is to hold balances of other currencies on it, and to top them up, you can only do it by conversion from pounds. After returning from a holiday in the Eurozone he went to the Post Office and tried to pay his leftover euros onto his card. It would have been a good way to solve the problem of unexchangeable coins too. The Post Office said no.

Bureaucratic nonsense like that, upsetting your common sense planning, throws you. Throws a logical aspie mind especially. This is not an aspie friendly product, tricky, full of petty barriers and potential pitfalls, and not greatly consumer friendly at all. Not what it is claimed to be on bright billboards in post offices, not easy. Not a great advance. Even if you do use it to save on bank currency exchange fees, it clearly needs extra care taken when using it. This info which they don’t advertise to you needs keeping a note of.