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 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 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
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