Published on 12, July, 2020
All her life my daughter has fought the stigma that being Autistic was defined as, first a "learning disabilty" and now a "disability". It has destroyed her life, made her feel inferior and sapped her self confidence. Then to see the BBC describe autism as a "lifelong disability" made me furious. Then to find that the source of this bigotry is the definition on the NAS website makes me incandescent with rage. I too am Autistic. The NAS does not represent me or my daughter. The challenges which Autistic poeple face are not what we are but how we are misunderstood. For the NAS to insist on perpetuating these myths makes you part of the problem. I can only presume your definition of Autism was written and approved by a bunch of, perhaps well-meaning, poeple who suffer from Autism Deficiency Syndrome and who lack the flexibility of thought that Autism gives us and we, in turn, have given the world the technology which I am using to write this.
I do not think NAS discrimanates.They Give up their free time to help.I may have got this post wrong ( sorry if i have ) but this is a funded site who aim to help People like us.Please correct me if i am wrong.
It’s not free time - NAS is a big business - they turnover well over £1m a year (I can’t remember the exact figure but you can get accounts from the charity commission website) I agree they don’t discriminate but they have their priorities which can tie in with their business. It’s also worth remembering the society started as an autistic children’s society and a lot (most?) of its focus is still on children perhaps correctly as more can be done for autistic children than autistic adults.
Taltunes said:It’s not free time - NAS is a big business - they turnover well over £1m a year (I can’t remember the exact figure but you can get accounts from the charity commission website) I agree they don’t discriminate but they have their priorities which can tie in with their business
Correct me if I'm wrong, but NAS is a non-profit organisation which means the directors don't make much from their jobs ( source https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/National-Autistic-Society-Director-Salaries-E116773_D_KO26,34.htm ) so they are not a business in the conventional sense where they are trying to make money from us.
They have been a charity for 58 years and seem to be doing a bang up job to their core focus.
As the landscape of diagnosed people changes they seem to have done a good job in adapting to us adults, but we are much better suited to look out for ourselves than children (their focus) so it is only right that they focus where the help is needed most.
Yes, and no. If nothing else it gives an idea of the scale of the NAS. You could equally argue listing income and expenditure without a list of assets / debts is meaningless.
As far as I’m aware, the NAS has Royal Patronage (Princess Sophie and Prince Edward?) and as part of looking for support, I’d written to Sandringham via the Royal Family’s website outlining my situation after my diagnosis
Listing income without expenditure is meaningless.
Ian said:It depends on what you mean by "not for profit"
I mean a company that operates as a charity, not generating value for shareholders but rather puts all their money into the cause that they are stated to cover.
However much NAS gain in income, it is refreshing to know that it is not going to line the pockets of the people behind it.
From what I have seen of the salaries of the board, they take very modest salaries (less than I used to make as a technician) which means yet more money goes to the needy.
NAS is a big operation certainly but I see no evidence of skimming, corruption or more incompetence than any other company I have ever seen up close.
If you have links to prove othewise then I would be interested in seeing these.
Not that rare.
It depends on what you mean by "not for profit" ... presumably most organisations that provide services aim to cover costs and put a bit into operational reserves. If you mean companies that do not pay their surplus as a dividend to shareholders, there are over 160,000 registered charities in the UK, employing 800,000 workers, which equates to 2.7% of the UK workforce. [
Iain. According to the 2022 accounts (page 26) income was just a tad short of £95.5 million. That's well over a million in my book too. For many years we have seen services that used to be provided by public authorities contracted out. Charities are now major providers virtually indistinguishable from other companies, except that the retained profit is reinvested in the charitable business instead of distributed to shareholders. The contract goes to the cheapest bidder.
Where there have been scandals involving poor care standards, some of the providers have been those very national charities set up to help and support disabled people.
You can also have not for profit businesses although I accept they are rare.
I was deliberately simplifying to make the point that they are no longer a bunch of well meaning unpaid volunteers.
i don’t disagree that they should probably focus their efforts on children.