NAS openly washing hands of child cruelty

THE NATIONAL AUTISTIC SOCIETY IS NOW, EXPLICITLY BY ITS OWN DECLARATION, LEAVING CHILDREN ENDANGERED AND NEGLECTING TO PROTECT THEM.

This holds right now for its Scottish section, and will hold for it Britishwide if it is not seen to make any immediate intervention against said section and its director Jenny Paterson. ANY DEALINGS WITH THE NAS ARE DEALINGS WITH HURTING KIDS. ANY OTHER AUTISM ORGANISATION WISHING TO SPARE ITSELF THAT TAINT HAS A DUTY TO TREAT THE NAS AS PARIAH AND EXCLUDE WORKING WITH IT.

Real families can see whether you do, and see the impact on their kids’ lives. Real school leavers can see the impact on themselves.

wash
After the aspie society ELAS pressed NAS Scottish section office on its reliability of answering contacts, only through the embarrassment felt by the office worker who had taken on our contact was it extracted that Paterson sent an answer to something she had been silent about for 7 months. Back on Feb 25 she had invited an aspie to contribute to the NAS’s latest campaign then had ignored his acceptance of the invitation and stopped answering. Her answer to ELAS now still ignores and never mentions that invitation, and she continues to, as has not answered a one-line enquiry about it sent on Sep 20 in prompt reply to her. Meanwhile, here is what her answer of Sep 20 says on the issue raised by demonstration at NAS’s last AGM in York 10 months ago:

< I understand the injustices you have raised, and sympathise with your situation. However, The National Autistic Society is unable to campaign about rights of child authors. As am I’m sure you appreciate, there are hundreds of things that we would like to change about policy and the rights of autistic people but, with limited funds to campaign, we have to prioritise to make sure we have as much impact as is possible.

We decide what to campaign about based on two key factors:

  1. The likelihood that a change will help autistic people and families: each year, we survey and consult with autistic people and families and ask what changes would make the most difference.
  2. The likelihood that we could persuade national or local Government, businesses or members of the public to make a change.

Based on the feedback we got from autistic people and families in our latest consultation, we decided to focus on:

  • reducing waiting times for diagnosis
  • increasing teacher training on autism
  • campaigning to improve local autism services
  • improving public understanding of autism (our Too Much Information campaign)

I hope this explains our position.

Please be assured that our charity cares hugely about building a better, fairer society for autistic people to live in, and I am very sorry if you feel this is not a case. However this is my final position on our campaigning plans and priorities, and I am unable to offer any further assistance regarding child authorship.  >

Now, this is a one-off answer extracted after months of silence obviously hoping to avoid answering, hence it does not follow a spurt of correspondence. Yet she is rude enough to write a bureaucrats’ closure, a proclamation of final answer. Even nasty bureaucrats usually only do that after a spurt of correspondence when they have run out of evasions. She does it in her one-off late answer to something she had simply sat silent on for 7 months. This is very aggressive. It exposes an extreme hostility, to an issue of maltreated aspie kids, an agenda the whole time against them and doing anything for them. Also she does this deviously so as never to actually answer what she was asked! For she was asked simply to mention that wronged child authors exist, in every literature that mentions or advertises successful child authors. That is not campaigning that needs any resources or time priorities allocated to it.

Single sentence mentions, incorporated into NAS writings that are already going to happen, expend no extra resources or work at all. They are a simple no-effort step to add into what NAS does already. Yet she answers only to the practicality of big extra campaigning then rudely shuts down all contact with her about child authors at all, KNOWINGLY LEAVING NEVER ANSWERED THE SIMPLE NO-EFFORT ACTION THEY CAN TAKE.

THAT IS VISIBLY CALCULATING AVOIDANCE OF KIDS’ NEEDS AND SAFETY FROM CRUELTY. THAT IS VISIBLE MALICE AGAINST HELPING TO PREVENT A CHILD CRUELTY, EVEN AFTER JIMMY SAVILE A VISIBLE WISH FOR SOME KIDS TO SUFFER INVISIBLY SO THAT THE BUSINESS PR USING OTHER KIDS CAN BE KEPT ROSY.

What’s more, even her timing is sneaky: she sent this email on Sep 20, just 2 days AFTER the Autism Europe conference in Edinburgh, which had NAS involvement, had ended. Avoiding this being out as an issue at conference time.

You can’t ethically afford any connection with an outfit that behaves like this.

Aspie contactors of NAS Scotland
23 Sep 2016

Advertisements

requiring typing into PDF forms + trying to email them by their own button

Technical obstacles that can happen if you try to fill in a form on a PDF document then to email it by a button provided within the form.

– These are bad enough, that it is excluding and wrong, against public accessibility, for a consultation to ask for use of such a form. They will have anyway to take ordinary email responses built around the form’s questions from folks for whom the actual form does not work. But the danger is of respondents not having the confidence to do that, so that they just never get a response in, never get their say, after they find that the way they have been literally instructed to do it, with the form, does not work.

This is the position for this consultation, whose time ends this week, on the new SIGN guidelines in Scotland, the medical reference guidelines for handling and treating autism. As you see on the page setting out the consultation (if it’s still there when you read this), they literally ask you to return the form which they provide in a PDF link, and this either to a postal address, which means a lot of spend per page on printing it, or “using the email button on the last page of the form.”

On at least some computers, this button produces no visible sign that any sending has happened. Wht do you do then? If you don’t get back any acknowledgement, you don’t know that the form has sent. Obviously your only option then is to resend your contribution in an ordinary email, built around the form’s questions copied into it, but not the actual form.

If you need to take time and thought to compose your answers, if they don’t all come to you with quick spontaneity as you sit at the screen reading the consultation, and if you have a lot to say, then you will have your answers saved somewhere outside the form, most likely in an email draft, where you composed them. Then it is more sensible just to be able to send them in that form, email – the way that most consultations in recent memory have accepted and expected submissions. The PDF form is not a welcome burden when you find: that the PDF form will not save with your answers, that if you save it as either a file or an email attachment then when you return to it any answers you had put in it are gone and only the blank form had saved, and when copy-+-paste does not work in it either. Yet this is what happens if you are on Chrome! popularly thought the most advanced browser. Then, if you are under instruction to use or try to use the form, you have to type all your already composed answers into it longhand. Without saving. That you can only do if you have continuous uninterrupted computer access for the typing’s duration, an hour or more, and without your web connection going down. If you have to leave the task unfinished, you may as well not have started, your work is wasted.

If after all that it seems a waste lf time anyway because the promised snding button does not work – then this is a process actively discouraging and losing folks unless they are particularly motivated to persevere. This is not a public user-friendly accessible way to do it. That is unjust.

On computers equipped with the 2 commonest browsers now, Chrome and Explorer, the technical position is curiously the reverse of what you might expect from their reputations. It’s Chrome where the form will not save with its content. Saving it as either a file or an email attachment, when you next open it you find that only the blank form saved and any answers that were already in it have disappeared. Copy-and-paste does not work in the form either, and finally, all effort is wasted because the send button just does not work, nothing happens. But in Explorer, a browser that some now regard as out of date, copy-and-paste and saving with content all do work! But the form still fails to send. The send button at least produces a result, asking you to select an email send address. But either this is followed by “An unknown error occurred while uploading the attachment”, or it allows you to sign it into your email account then has the unknown error.

Firefox, also got the experience of it allowing me to select an email address then giving the unknown error. In Firefox too, copy-and-paste and saving worked, when you try to send it allows you to select an email address then gives the “unknown error” message. Anyway, sending does not work on any of the 3 prominent browsers.

26 Jul 2016

crane 
They did answer this problem decently, and accept submission by email, Aug 22:
Thank you for taking the time to comment on our booklets and I apologise that you had so many problems with the online pdf form. Some others had problems with this and others were able to complete and send it without any problems. We will take all your comments on board in relation to the technical difficulties and for the next consultation we will advise people that they can submit comments in an email or on paper if they are having difficulty with the online form. We can also send hard copies of the declaration of interests form and the consultation form by post to make this easier for people.

Autistic Intelligence: TES child author award

“I have been in autism circles on the Internet for 10 years. I am aware of your beliefs and concerns.” When you receive that as a sum total reply, you know they are saying they are not going to do anything. You know it’s a refusal, proclaimed arbitrarily and not even reasoned to you. Effectively it admits already knowing that anything needs doing, and admits already not doing it.

It came from Barbara Jacobs, who you may have heard of from the book Loving Mr Spock. She answers for Autistic Intelligence. In messaging AI I had asked who was responsible for its site content, and out of their list of speakers I had guessed it might be her from the Barbara signature on the message of self-doubting crisis for AI that was the latest post in its blog section.

She had even posted there a feeling of self-doubt by AI at present and it not doing much. “We can’t put on the big conferences, because they cost our delegates more money than they have. They’re a nightmare to organise as I (Barbara) am a one-woman band, not an organisation or a ‘charity’ with tax-free status, donations, funding for overheads and some sponsorship for conferences”. So a shoestring cottage industry putting on a facade of grandeur, all along. Oh dear.

Why then does she want to damage AI and have it seen to be in the wrong towards maltreated children, aspies among them? The thing she is motivelessly refusing to do, by this rude one-liner, is – SIMPLY – SIMPLY – tell the readers of AI’s site that wronged destroyed child authors exist. That’s all! It’s so simple, it’s so easy to do. It’s just one extra fact to slip into the site.

It is made necessary by the presence on the site of a profile of Luke Jackson, as one of their list of speakers. So long as the existence of wronged child authors is not in prominent general public knowledge, an additional hammering of abused kids is done every time any autism organisation ever tells the public about a child author success, but does not also tell them that there are wronged child authors. The way AI’s site is now doing this is exceeding even the boundaries of cruelty to abused kids reached before by all the fervour around Luke back in 2002-3 . It is explicitly crediting him with winning “the TES child author award.”

There is no award called a “child author award.” In 13 years Luke’s award has never been called this by anyone before. It is directly a child abuse and child cruelty towards every kid, uncounted in number, who is suffering the ATROCITY of destruction of a child author chance by school homework or by any oppressive power behaviour of adults, and to every adult survivor of this, to credit a “child author award” to any trumpeted public figure on a pedestal without lifting a finger to say a single peep anywhere about wronged child authors. If Jacobs is aware of this she is aware it’s wrong to do it.

It is worse to do it around Luke than anyone else, for the “child author” credit is not accurate! The book he got an award for in 2003, Freaks Geeks and Asperger Syndrome, his mother Jacqui told the Times on 16 Aug 2002 was more her work. Luke denied on a now defunct forum site in 2004 that the report was accurate in its quote: that Jacqui did 6 hours’ work to every half hour Luke did, which would make the book 12/13 by the adult parent. But the fact was repeated in several profiles of them, that Luke only produced unformed unordered writings which took Jacqui’s intervention of editing and formatting to make into a book, in the case of both the books credited to him. THAT MEANS HE NEVER PRODUCED ANY BOOK WRITTEN UNAIDED AS A CHILD AT ALL !!! 

12075076_10153735432073854_8643912967540054028_n(Their first short book, on GFCF diet, even contained several chapters credited to Jacqui despite bending the book’s PR by crediting only Luke as its author on the front cover.) Yet there remains a PR industry, reviving now, who it profits to make him the most feted supposed child author in history. And why do they always determine to do it completely ignoring stepping over and spitting on the cruel child abuse issue of wronged child authors? If it increases their profits to make Luke sound more outstanding by minimising the number of child authors known, by choosing not to help the wronged but to kick us all back into the gutter, then THOSE ARE BLOOD PROFITS FROM OTHER CHILDREN’S BACKS. And all the time, the answer to avoid that is utterly simple. Simply tell the public that we exist.

Simply tell their readers that we exist.

leonardo-1058230-83460_b1_P-image

That is what AI has chosen not to do even after I stood outside its conference at Dalmuir near Glasgow on 2 Mar 2015, for 7 hours under bursts of hail and sleet, showing all-comers a placard “Jacqui Jackson events should tell you there are aspie child authors whose chance to write books was destroyed by abusive school homework – I was one.”

As I repeated in my recent contact with AI: my campaign has always acknowledged that Luke should have been allowed to put out an unaided book if he wanted to, it does not dismiss that he would have had the ability to. Raising that question is valuable because it brings him down to a level closer to where the wronged are, instead of on a pedestal. But knowing, from the forum denial, that the question is potentially hurtful to him, I had told AI: “The hurtfulness of pointing out this fact can be avoided and not done if wronged child authors get treated equitably. ” But as long as we are being oppressed and HURT by non-recognition, the campaign for our just cause must be helped and evidenced by citing available facts that help it, and that includes these public facts about the Jacksons. It follows: I’m willing civilly to wipe from this page every mention of Luke not being an unaided child author, as soon as AI puts even a brief, but of fair prominence, mention of wronged child authors onto its site.

Until then, would you want to pay to go to any of AI’s events? Knowing that it has pushed aside rudely a population group of cruelly suffering maltreated wronged kids, with neither the accountability of a stated reason, nor any logical motive?

Maurice Frank
25 May 2016

At Apr 2017: less than a year after posting the above, some of us noticed that Autistic Intelligence has vanished. No explanation to be found of why.
What a conceit by Luke Jackson, on his own blog, calling himself “world renowned” !?!?! Nobody else calls him that.

NAPAC is part of the TV scandal itself

NAPAC, the National Association of People Abused in Childhood. Since Savile was exposed, it has seemed, in the media, to be a voice for survivors of all the big media scandals. It comments on the impacts. It has even commented on the handling of court cases that hit the news. I had found NAPAC good several times, I had found them to be fitly what they say they are. In telling them of this post I have mournfully quoted back to them a particularly nicely written good response of solidarity they gave in 2012, when the TV scandals first gave me cause to share with them my issues about the balance of authority in adolescent institutions. Is it significant they have changed leadership since then?

The very moment of the Janet Smith report coming out is not the time when you wanted to find out that NAPAC has evolved into the same old sham as everything else in the victims’ lives has been. But in a wearied cynical time, no one will be surprised. NAPAC has gone native on the media elite. It has shown it actually does not want to tell all the broadcast media to stop all cultures of hushing up abuse issues, and to shine light into them. It wants its own institutional existence, bolstered by speaking to media about those hushings up that have already been exposed: but it will actually run from you if you tell it you are a survivor of something that is still under the hushing up culture.

wenallt-sp-01

I described previously here the Welsh TV channel S4C showing a culture of determined silence about the adolescent psychiatry bad practices of Harri Pritchard-Jones, a Welsh literary figure also practising that so-called medicine. How it dug in to choose not to add any coverage of those issues to the rosy approving obituaries it gave to a man who had himself belonged to the Welsh media world of that channel. How it left complaint correspondence unanswered as often as possible and had to be chased for even the minimum of procedural reply it could get away with.

Now, if you are a survivor reading and recognising this as more of the same culture of closing up in dirty silence around their own, as has been exposed in the BBC, you want to be spoken for by grassroots voices accountable to you who will call for it to be stopped whenever it arises. You will have no confidence in NAPAC knowing that it behaved the same as S4C itself. NAPAC actually ignored, its support line made no response at all, an email on Jan 7, referring to that post here about S4C and the need to call out S4C for having a hush-up culture of practice. Posting the printed email in to NAPAC on paper a month later, to bypass their support line and ask why its silence, also got silence. Both written methods of sending, totally ignored without a shred even of supportive explanation of their position.

Next necessary step was phoning. To be conscientious it had to be tried and chalked off. Phoning and simply asking for tips on what to do to ensure an enquiry is not ignored. If they are ethically sound, their answer to that should not be conditional on knowing what your enquiry had actually been, they should just have a procedural answer that solves all cases. Their phone line is supposed to be supportive same as their email line. It’s busy though, it’s a struggle to get through – which tells you how real their issue is and how many folks need them not to be a sham.

It was Thursday evening, exactly when the news was full of the Smith report and the BBC’s failings, it was actually then that I succeeded in making the call. After determining to ask what the enquiry had been, and without any apology for the ignorements, the worker took a line that because they can only listen they can’t respond to a case in any way like speaking out that S4C should show a more open responsive culture.

HOW COME, then, NAPAC has a press release archive here napac.org.uk/about-us/press-release-archive/ WHICH RECORDS THEM CALLING FOR ACTIONS ?! by government and investigators? Yet this worker dug in to a line proved a lie by that page, saying that all NAPAC ever does publicly is advertise its support service and nothing else. And he did this repeating in every sentence the word “unfortunately.”

Everyone has experienced many times the word “unfortunately” being the tool of unscrupulous bureaucrats, evasive businesses, and all types of moral betrayer taking calculatedly oppressive decisions. It is an instrument of violation, a device purposed to make it possible to default on fairness, to kick aside and walk over needs groups in society. Already for all of adult life before this latest experience of it, I have held that it is a lesson from abuse that the word “unfortunately”, and all synonyms of it that are or ever will be invented, are banned from existing. Now if I had had a prominent platform to share that..? Instead, you can phone NAPAC and get the word used to you, and about the same item as when sent in writing they ignored.

An aspie phoning NAPAC and struggling with the flow of speech, to be interrupted in mid sentence by the worker saying they won’t be able to answer. Thence continue to say it’s not a thing NAPAC can help with. Then start interrupting you, NOT LETTING YOU FINISH SENTENCES, openly by his anticipation of where they are going, and proceed to insist on ending the call without you having had the chance to complete your cut off sentence. Openly dodging answering anything whose logic will show that yes NAPAC could react to S4C.

THAT IS A SHABBY AND EMOTIONALLY COLD FOBBING OFF. ANYONE WOULD RECOGNISE THE EXPERIENCE. YOU CAN HAVE THIS EXPERIENCE ON AN ABUSE SUPPORT LINE. NO READERS IN NEED CAN HAVE ANY CONFIDENCE IN PHONING THEM FACING THAT POSSIBILITY.

They are perfectly able to post a comment below, committally disowning under blank cheque any circumstances ever that a phone worker ever does this, and telling us what they are going to do to prevent it. Watch whether they do. They must know that anyone operating a phone support line is tied to the ethic of callers having enough confidence to call, that confidence is critical for survivors of far worse abuses than any I was raising and whether they feel hope or suicidal despair in society, and that autistic troubles with conversation and speech flow stressfully affect confidence to use the phone. For the folks affected by these things it is an effort of mind preparation to pick up the phone and launch into the experience. So that exactly what they most vitally need to be sure can’t happen, exactly the worst response you can possibly give them on the phone, actively damaging to confidence, is exactly what this phone worker did. To cut them off in mid sentence, not let them complete a sentence, and prejudge where they are going with it before you have heard it all. To dig in and persist at this, when clearly by it avoiding answering the item you are stopping them saying.

Along with it, of course, watch whether they ignore again or answer, here, on S4C. For a start, they could explain logically, why they should feel not allowed to tell S4C to have an open culture of not hushing these topics up,  after they have been perfectly allowed to say the BBC should. If there is a sensible explanation for that, it would have been nice and supportive to give it in response to either written message.  So that the survivor they are dealing with actually knows they have taken any notice, as well as why they are deciding as they are. The phone worker would not have shooed me off the line to escape from saying any more if he had thought there was an answer. The entire pattern fits dodging an unanswerable.

That can give nobody any confidence. www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/video-napac-sir-edward-heaths-name-heard-quite-often-31425646.html – is a TV video clip of head of NAPAC Gabrielle Shaw saying there is a shift away from “embarrassment factor protecting the high and mighty”!  IT IS DANGEROUS DESPAIR FOR MANY OF THE FOLKS IN NEED WHO THEY SPEAK ABOUT, TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN EVER CHOOSE TO PROTECT THE “HIGH AND MIGHTY” THEMSELVES, INCLUDING POSTHUMOUSLY. THIS IS WHAT THEY STAND CAUGHT AS DOING UNLESS THEY MAKE A REACTION TO S4C, FOR THE SAKE OF BEING SEEN TO HAVE TO. To choose not to do it contradicts everything they have been saying.

It will not make them say anything about Pritchard-Jones at all. All that would be said would be about S4C, about how they react to any issue of child safety fair play. To whoever knew this had anything to do with Pritchard-Jones, all it would imply is that the practices of a medical team he belonged to, which as a fact of record existed, should be grilled for their deficiencies. There is no ethical uncertainty that this is the same as grilling deficiencies of the hospitals and schools in the BBC scandals. There is no historical uncertainty over stating the fact of cruelty, that he was a successful author, who in his doctor work, took part in destroying a child author’s chance. There is no factual uncertainty that S4C, and all Welsh media who gave him only good obituaries, make child cruelty stand if they determine not to cover the story that Pritchard-Jones, my Savile, could do that.

Maurice Frank
27 Feb 2016
  • 10 DAYS ON FROM POSTING THIS AND COPYING TO NAPAC, NAPAC HAS DONE NOTHING TO CHALLENGE OR ANSWER IT. THEY ARE LETTING THE UNANSWERED FACTS ABOUT THEM SIT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, TO ALL WHO MIGHT THINK OF USING NAPAC’S SERVICES OR NEED TO FEEL THEY CAN, AND WHO AFTER READING THIS HAVE NO CONFIDENCE TO PHONE NAPAC KNOWING THEY MAY GET FURTHER BRUISED BY IT..THIS IS NOW WHERE MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY AND RELATED SURVIVOR SUPPORT ARE AT, AFTER THE SMITH REPORT. IT MUST BE TOLD. THE PUBLICLY FUNDED CHARITY CLAIMING TO SPEAK FOR SURVIVORS IS IGNORING THE TV SCANDALS THAT HAVE NOT YET MADE A NEWS MEDIA IMPACT DOING NOTHING TO MAKE THEM MAKE AN IMPACT, LETTING THEM STAY HIDDEN. BY CHOICE THEY ARE LETTING SOME OF TV’S ROTTEN CULTURE STAY INTACT, WITH NO INVESTIGATIVE LIGHT SHONE INTO IT AROUND ANOTHER CULTURAL FIGURE WHO ENJOYED SUCCESS WITH AN UNHEARD AND LONG GAGGED CHILD VICTIM, IN THAT WAY ANOTHER SAVILE, AND SELECTIVELY TURNING THEIR BACK ON SURVIVORS EVEN WITH THE ARROGANT ENOUGH HUBRIS TO SELECTIVELY NOT ANSWER US. IT HAS NO ANSWER TO THIS. THE SHAM OF A SURVIVORS’ ASSOCIATION IS ACTING AS PART OF THE PROBLEM ITSELF, PART OF THE CORRUPTED TV CULTURE, COSIED UP TO ELITES. IT HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BY THEM. INSTEAD OF PART OF THE SOLUTION, IT HAS BECOME PART OF THE SAVILE PROBLEM ITSELF. THIS MUST BE GRIMLY SHARED AND TOLD, BY THE SURVIVOR SCENE AND THE TV SCANDALS TRUTH SCENE, AS PART OF THE POST-SAVILE STORY.
  • As late as Jun 15, a reply came from NAPAC by email. Yes, even after reading the above, it contained the word unfortunately”. Essentially all it said was: over 5 million adult survivors in UK, don’t have the resources to take up individual concerns about media coverage. Many requests from media to comment on adult survivor issues. Do their best to reflect survivors’ range of views. Link to their media guidelines on reporting ch abuse. Understand the constraints they are under.What did this answer not answer? – Anything to do with their phone helpline’s standards. Anything on the principle of telling all the broadcast media to stop all cultures of hushing up abuse issues, and to shine light into them.

It’s not goood enough to write “we simply don’t have the resources to take up individual concerns about media coverage”. It’s implausible that there is that big a quantity of individual concerns about hidden media figures like Pritchard-Jones. If there are, NAPAC should be saying a lot about the fact. It’s not. Who have you seen it protect, by this line? Obviously the “high and mighty”.

Harri Pritchard-Jones and Literature Wales

Harri Pritchard-Jones, an adolescent-specialist psychiatrist who was also a successful writer, in Wales, died on Mar 11.

Glowing obituaries for him as a writer and cultural figure have passed through the Welsh media and are still being left in place for him by Literature Wales, an organisation he helped to set up and was a vice-chair of. They are doing this, doing nothing and hoping for a quiet life, when they know all about his part in destroying a child author. Described here on Autism Network Scotland’s site. After he was never caught when alive to answer to the effects of his medical practices, he is being left unexposed even in death.

A writer called Peter Finch who used to work for Literature Wales passed the info to them recently. But so did its former joint chair John Pikoulis in 2012, when Pritchard-Jones was living, and now he has been willing to give him a praising obituary.

The story of how Pritchard-Jones’s adolescent unit closed ranks against letting teenagers take their own life decisions, with this consequence, is academically published in detail (but of course only anonymously without names) in an autism student’s PhD thesis. It was described as “heartbreaking to read” by child psychiatry critic Brenda leFrancois. In my submission on the Scottish parliament’s recent Mental Health Bill, I described the outcome from the All Wales Child Protection Procedure to looking at what that unit had done: “X’s position is that it is for Y to take further, while Y’s position is that Y can not take it any further except by X taking it up.” NHS in Wales remained totally noncommittal on the same adolescent treatment practices still being possible.

Because it is still big organisations instead of autistic people ourselves who the media listens to about us, I have not been able to force into any wide public knowledge before Pritchard-Jones’s death the story that he destroyed a child author’s chance while enjoying an author reputation himself. To see his success continue was exactly the same as it was for Jimmy Savile’s victims and they described how it felt. Now his death still in success and escaping from any accountability adds to that parallel.

TV channel S4C ignored 2 emails about it until I chased it up as a complaint. In outcome on Sep 15 they wrote:   “The programme in question was a portrayal of the life and work of Harri Pritchard Jones.” yet “did not deal with any matter of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy and therefore there was no requirement to present any alternative viewpoints.” “As a broadcaster, we take child protection matters very seriously and have a robust child protection policy in place” but it’s only to do with kids involved in programme making, which is not relevant here. For their current affairs output, which they buy in, “there is no obligation on S4C as a broadcaster to initiate any particular investigation.”

A media insider protected even posthumously. Their procedure’s last stage, an “S4C Authority Complaints and Compliance Committee” is discretionary, it has never responded and there is no sign it will to my return points of Oct 1 – that health services’ ethics are a political issue, that his “life and work” includes his psychiatry, that it impacts children to accept uncritically “a profiled person’s work with them, and the ideas and practices behind it”, that to be recorded continuing a culture of silence around it makes another post-Savile media scandal.

download

Adolescent psychiatry was still totally ignoring Asperger syndrome and rejecting awareness of it, in the eighties when my encounter with Pritchard-Jones happened.

download (1)

Maurice Frank
17 Apr 2015 (+ later updates re S4C.)

Susan Boyle: but a famous aspie does not mean all is right for us.

Let’s see. You’ve come for a look at what aspies are all about because you heard the news about Susan Boyle? Splendid: here’s what the media should be telling you. Are they?

  • Our heightened physical sensitivities, including to fabric and heat, are biologically incompatible with dress codes and make them an assault on our physical wellbeing. Our existence abolishes all work dress codes and school uniforms. This has been known for years and the big charities have not been choosing to push it.
  • Because some aspies find it easier to focus on the written word than the spoken, there is a correlation between aspies and child authors. There is a succession of books by aspie child authors, and there is a child cruelty offence done in long history of big charities’ total avoidance and failiure to publicise that there are WRONGED child authors, like me, whose chance to write was destroyed by harmful school pressures and homework.
  • With the big charities’ big failings to speak for us where needed, you can see how seriously we have needed the voice developed for us, to contribute into professional awareness and policymaking, by the AUTISM NETWORK SCOTLAND, developed out of Strathclyde University and now a part of the national strategy. It’s invaluable, and its creation is the great success of the scene in Scotland. So IT NEEDS COPYING IN EVERY COUNTRY. If you are outside Scotland do you think your aspies deserve not to have any ANS?
  • The NAS is to be complimented on attending properly to striking off its contact list a bent autism legal service that advised me to surrender in a dispute with a council tax malpractice where I was in the right by statute law and won. There needs to be a media consumer exposee of bent services that will prey on their clients instead of stand up to councils – you want to know more, you need it publicised.
  • Likewise you want to know that aspies’ local groups can’t be corrupted and seized control of by malpractisers bent on hushing up tbhe impact of a character who set folks up to experience discrimination. That is what happened to Phad’s now defunct group in Fife, see these posts from 2009 when it was starting to happen: A group’s members must never be censored from sending each other messages about any fairness problem and 2011 every aspie is free to remain in contact with the whole scene.
  • the same common sense that all the details should be published of the ways we have been harmed by schools and by child psychiatry. Aspie kids not safe until these things stopped, and how do you stop them unless you have heard widely what they are? In a safely non-deletable way on paper: for it’s no good putting them in an Amazon e-book where the site’s lawyers reserve a power to turn round and say, no no no, delete to be on the safe side. So the media are turning their backs on child safety unless they read this and chase after these things’ publishing.
  • Where competitive jobsearch utterly has never worked for us, the approach that works is to have aspie employment services who talk through both our strengths and our limitations with an employer to work out a working niche for us. But more ethical accountability upon these services is needed, to prevent the malpractice of them turning round and claiming that a third party problem that arises after you are in a job is not in their remit to deal with. By obvious definition, a remit to support employment automatically includes any problem that affects the work’s doability or the work environment’s justice in any way. 11351321_10153438742293854_251693088214416327_n This an item I am holding Edinburgh’s new local Autism Plan responsible to put right locally.

Maurice Frank
9 Dec 2013