Rule 13: the last nail in NAS's coffin?

It is worth noting that the NAS had a gross income last financial year of approx £ 95.6 million, of which roughly £77m comes from government contracts. Its main  "business " is a third-sector service provider. It has 2527 employees, of whom 33 earn over £60k. [Charity Commission data] As a provider it is not without controversy - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/07/national-autistic-society-escapes-prosecution-over-care-home-bullying. | https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/national-autistic-society-leicestershire-croydon-jeremy-hunt-prime-minister-b942084.html | https://www.eppingforestguardian.co.uk/news/18303320.parents-slam-anderson-school-chigwell-ignoring-safeguarding-complaints/ | https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/national-autistic-society-reports-staff-and-safeguarding-challenges.html 

I was aware of Winterbourne View, but it appears the issues highlighted in the Adult Safeguarding Review of Mendip House were very similar. Quis custodiet? (Who oversees the overseers.) https://www.autismeye.com/national-autistic-society-nas/  | How can a major care provider claim to offer "independent" advice?  Maybe the decision is correct and the NAS should stick to its business and leave the advocacy to another, truly independent service.

As for this forum ...  as a general principle, using a site like this for basic research into an issue is OK, but anybody who relies on websites or social media for advice on anything important is taking a chance. There is no substitute for professional advice based on a knowledge of the specifics of each case ... and one should not post medical, legal or other sensitive information on a public site.

The rule is specific to small claims track cases. Which is where a lot of discrimination cases end up. If you’re interested this is the legal statutory instrument www.legislation.gov.uk/.../made

Yes, there are McKenzie friends who can support litigants in person, but they are not supposed to give legal advice, nor are they allowed to address the court.They are allowed to take notes and offer "suggestions" but their main role is emotional support.

Some Tribunals allow non-lawyers to represent both appellant and respondent. I have represented a friend's child at SENDisT and apeeared against the SEN officer from the LEA. But unless it is a straightforwad case (as this was) it is best to getlegal advice. The local authority officer will probably have been briefed by their legal department.

Perhaps naively, I have sufficient faith in our volunteer human guardian angels (aka MODS) to not be so worried about this new rule.

Firstly, I presume they have good cause to introduce the rule.  They might have felt it necessary, even if they really didn't want to.  Personally, I have no cause to challenge or question their decision on this matter.

Secondly, I presume that they have good enough sense not to "wield" this rule against anyone who displays a modicum of care and disclaimer with advice and opinion that they proffer here.  Most of us amateur well meaning "real" people seem to always make our non-professionalism clear in our posts.

I will continue to spout the same old bol locks to whomever solicits opinion in this place.....if I feel I may have something useful to say.

If I find that I am being unreasonably censored, I will review my contributions and presence in this place.

I've tried replying but my post are being flagged at the moment - no links or abusive language so I'm not sure what is going on. Hopefully they will be reviewed and released in the morning.

Most professions require significant training, often at the postgraduate level. Psychotherapy is a bit unusual in that most courses require the learner to undergo personal therapy as well as "supervision". This can be expensive. Another concern is the rise of "pseudo professionals" using non-regulated titles like "coach" or "counsellor". Whilst many belong to reputable professional bodies, have a Code of Conduct, and have to be insured, this is not true of all of them. Of course, to quote Shaw, "all professions are a conspiracy against the laity". (Just throwing a biscuit at the conspiracy theorists, sorry.)

@Nata I can only speak for my own profession, social work. The statutory guidance issued under the Health and Care Act 2022 requires all social workers to complete mandatory autism and learning difficulty awareness training but roll-out has been slow, possibly fallout from Covid. "The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training packages are standardised and delivered by approved trainers. This means that the health and social care workforce develops a common understanding of key issues and that the same language is used across health and care organisations. " [https://www.prospects.ac.uk produced 32 results, not all of which I would consider strictly relevant, e.g. a course on NLP. (Although NLP can give insight into behaviour based on non-verbal cues.)

On the topic of rules, I happened to stumble across a discussion earlier which had consisted of an exchange of mock insults between a couple of regular members. This resulted in one of the moderators intervening with a reminder of Rule 5 (be kind to each other).

One might ask how I knew these mock insults weren't intended as genuine insults. Well, whilst I might not be as active here as I used to be, I feel it is fair to say that these members have a good rapport with each other and share a similar sense of humour. From my perspective, they are well-known for playfully winding each other up.

I appreciate that humour is subjective. Something that one person finds utterly hilarious might seem downright offensive to someone else. Also, I'm aware that some people really struggle to understand humour. However, I suppose that because I was 99.9% confident that the exchange of banter was completely harmless, I couldn't help but feel that the moderator's intervention had been unwarranted. It's a tricky one because whilst Rule 5 does indeed state that personal jibes won't be tolerated, I felt confident that those insults were not intended to be taken literally.

As far as Rule 13 goes, I think NAS needs to specify exactly what they mean, as I feel it's open to interpretation. I feel it would be a sad state of affairs if the people who come here seeking advice are left to feel as though they are banging their heads against a brick wall, due to the advice we are permitted to give now being to point them back in the direction they may well have come from.

The best thank you is people signing up and using it that way there was a point to it all.

As for NAS there is no general assembly as such and only one of the trustees self identifies as autistic. None of the leadership team have self identified as autistic on the website.

apparently ‘nothing decided about us without us’ doesn’t apply to NAS’s executive structures.

There are very few legal professionals with any experience of discrimination law outside of employment or children’s education. As a specialism it just doesn’t really exist. Largely because the majority of cases of that sort legal aid isn’t available.

there may be a small number who specialise in judicial review cases who have enough of an overlap with disability to handle disability cases generally.

But by and large even if they were willing to work pro bono there just aren’t many with the expertise.

Number said:

May I ask - was your hate received in open forum, or via PM?

It was in a forum post which the mods deleted as you would expect. The person in question had a severe reaction to anyone offering advice which escalated into abuse.

Happily it is a very rare occurrance and the mods did a great job of allowing the opinions to be aired with the abuse removed.

Iain said:

I've had people on here telling me to go kill myself,

Say what now ?!

I seem to not see that level of hate on these pages - I don't know why not, but I am pleased that it is so.  May I ask - was your hate received in open forum, or via PM?  There seems to be a whole side of this place that I don't see.

Respectfully, I understand why that would affect you personally. I don’t think it will be relevant to the vast majority of people on this forum. You’re not bound by a professional bodies guidelines or subject to its investigations if you’re not a member of that professional body. Certainly practising without a license is a crime. I don’t know about medicine but for law at least it’s quite a narrow definition.

for example did you know that in legal cases there is such a thing as a lay representative? The courts allow individuals with no formal qualification or accreditation in law to stand up and speak on behalf of someone else. It was intended to allow a friend to speak in civil court for another friend who is perhaps nervous or not very good at being  organised. That said there are lay representatives who even charge money for it. Even though they’re not registered with any kind of professional body.

you could be sued of course for giving someone bad advice. But I doubt it would be a big concern if you were very clear that the advice was not meant to be a substitute for professional advice. That the advice was not being provided on a professional basis, Pro bono or otherwise. And again I can’t see NAS being sued. Especially if they have their own disclaimer making it clear that opinions and advice offered on this forum are not endorsed by NAS.

Peter said:

It took time to put all that together you know.

Thank you.

Peter - the largest risk is not litigation but the prospect of a complaint to a professional regulator. These can be very messy, stressful and expensive.

I think most of us who are professionals are well aware of the need to be cautious when using media such as this.  I already pay a substantial premium for my professional indemnity insurance!

I have said before that the rule on anonymity means there is no way of checking if users are actually who or what they claim to be. If you knew my name you could check with my regulator.  There is some protection, in that designations such as "social worker " and "educational / clinical / counselling psychologist are protected by law. But anybody can call themselves a coach or a counsellor.

What would be helpful  NAS Moderator please note, would be if those of us who are professionally qualified and willing to do some pro bono work could let this be known. (But don't overload us!)

On the matter of the helpline, I think this is a retrograde step. As far as children and young people are concerned there are organisations such as IPSEA, Young Minds, Mencap etc. Not to say an autism-specific helpline for CYP is not helpful, but there is a huge problem for adults with issues around employment, housing and other issues where autism-specific knowledge would be helpful. Even a list of neurodivergent-aware solicitors, social workers and other professionals who people can consult would be helpful.

I will look on the website at the governance of NAS and how members can influence these decisions. There must be an AGM or something where members can have a say on policy.

The only real legal threat, I imagine, would be if anyone giving advice here claimed to have relevant medical qualifications. Otherwise the situation is the same as if anyone got medical or legal advice from 'someone down the pub'. The pub landlord is not liable, neither is the NAS, especially if they employ a disclaimer.

I'm unconvinced about the likelihood of such lawsuits but placing that aside I respectfully disagree about resourcing. Charities like NAS exist to promote the interests of autistic people. At this stage I feel the average autistic adult has it far worse than the average autistic child. I believe this emphasis on children is driven by NAS's shift from being a charitable advocacy group to a charitable services group acting as a government intermediary providing social care / education type services. Because of course most of those government funded services are aimed at children. So no I don't really think it's about need at this stage. They are just following the (government) money.

Anyway you can find my solution at areyoualien.uk. It took time to put all that together you know.

Peter said:

My feeling is that all this demonstrates is that NAS is more concerned with covering their ass legally than ensuring autistic adults get the support they need.

The BIG problem with this is that going after NAS with lawsuits will take away resource from those who need the support way more than adults do - i.e. the childred.

They have finite resources and are quite rightly (in my opinion) chosing to focus on the most needy and those who are not able to advocate for themselves in the same way that most adults can.

Lack of funding is not likely to change anytime soon so I believe we need to take responsibility within the community and do all we can (within sensible legal guidelines) to try to assist others.

I would like to see more people become a part of the solution.

I'm more concerned with the effect than how it's meant.

My feeling is that all this demonstrates is that NAS is more concerned with covering their ass legally than ensuring autistic adults get the support they need. If that seems harsh, Well I would be less harsh if more of the services they used to offer to autistic adults were still in place.