I was unfairly banned from many pubs/bars

People do go to bars to meet new people. But it depends immensely on the type of the bar the type of person. In my experience young people go to noisy clubbish bars to meet other young people.

also the approach is very important. If you overhear a conversation and perhaps you lean over and say ‘I couldn’t help but overhear you saying X and I thought you might like to know Y.’ And then if they respond as if they are interested maybe you can start a conversation and if they don’t you just have to excuse yourself and move on. 

there is a big difference between that and just sitting down at somebody’s table and saying let me introduce myself. But at the end of the day you were not expected to know these things will be an expert on how to approach people because you are autistic and it is a handicap for you. If the bar has not made allowances for you I think they are probably discriminating against you (in a moral if not legal sense).

Peter said:

probably discriminating against you (

Seriously? A pub is there to make money, not to provide assistance. Pubs have no obligations to cater for people with social difficulties. They are not a public service.

if those social difficulties are the consequence of a disability then yes they do. In exactly the same way that they have an obligation to cater to people with mobility difficulties by putting in ramps / lifts.

Amerantin (former member) said:

in the real world people cannot go around harassing others or causing problems on a business's premises and then just play the autism card and demand to be allowed to continue.  You may believe otherwise but I am afraid it just isn't how the world works, nor should it be, and frankly to suggest otherwise is an insult to all of us and the very real problems we face.

This man truth speaks.

That's one of the many reasons I never disclose my diagnosis. I have seen too many people behaving like complete ass clowns, and then claiming "BUT I AM AUTISTIC!", like it was an excuse. This is why people become "ableist" 

There’s some black-and-white thinking there. And it’s that sort of black-and-white thinking but probably gets the owners of such establishments into trouble if they ever do get taken to court.

The way you set the situation up there are two alternatives do nothing or ban them. The courts don’t see things in those terms. if you were attempting to defend the decision to ban someone One of the things you would do to try and construct that defence is first show that you had considered a range of alternatives and you either tried them and they failed or none of them were feasible. and in this context being not feasible doesn’t just mean inconvenient or costly. If you haven’t at least tried a clear warning first, One that really clearly communicates what the issues were with a persons behaviour, you’re probably not going to be able to construct A good defence that demonstrates you have looked at all of the alternatives.

that’s basically how the law works. as soon as it’s determined that something that you’ve penalised someone for was caused by a disability like autism The default position is you are ’guilty’ and have to prove your innocence. You have to prove your actions were justifiable. You have to prove it was really important, you have to prove that what you did actually made the situation better, you have to prove that you really didn’t have a softer alternative and you have to prove that the fallout from what you did was outweighed by the benefit from fixing the problem. This is a bit oversimplified but that’s the basic gist of it.

Fine Peter, you believe what you believe, but in the real world people cannot go around harassing others or causing problems on a business's premises and then just play the autism card and demand to be allowed to continue.  You may believe otherwise but I am afraid it just isn't how the world works, nor should it be, and frankly to suggest otherwise is an insult to all of us and the very real problems we face.

I'll say no more.

You understand of course that the equality act is used in civil cases. Use of the term penal implies criminal matters. Actually strictly speaking it implies prison however prison is only ever really on the cards in civil cases as a result of contempt of court.

Meanwhile in the real world….

Amerantin (former member) said:

Autism isn’t a free licence to annoy and upset other people or to behave unacceptably, and arguing that it is only makes it more likely that we will be discriminated against.

This sentence should be printed on a block of wood and given to any person diagnosed with ASD (or any other mental problem).

> legally this is the case.

Yes, in your own little planet. You are welcome to prove me wrong, but I won't advise you to try that in a real world court. I do not want to be responsible for staining your penal record.

ok but there is a saying. You are allowed your own opinions but not your own facts. And the fact is the law says banning autisic people for behaving 'unaceptably' (when thats a product of autism) can be unlawful. You may disagree but legally this is the case.

We’ll have to agree to disagree Peter. 

Autism isn’t a free licence to annoy and upset other people or to behave unacceptably, and arguing that it is only makes it more likely that we will be discriminated against.

maybe he was. but if that behavior is a product of an autism driven misunderstanding anti discrimination law should still protect it in my opinion. People forget nothing in the equality act says 'bad' behavior is some how exempt from buinesses having to make special allowences for.

Section 15 was spicificly put the equality act because a court ruled that a schizophrenic man being kicked out of his house for letting someone else live there (because he was schizophrenic) was not discrimination. The court rulled that because he was kicked out for letting someone else live there, not because he was schozophrenic, it wasn't discrimination. And the goverment turned around and said 'no' and made a law that treating people badly because of something that happened because of their disability (including bad behavior / rule breaking) is ilegal discrimination. (subject to some posible defences)

Reminder of Rule 5:

Be nice to one another and enjoy chatting with others. We encourage conversation and respectful debate; please be aware that individuals may give opinions which are not shared by other members. Insulting posts or comments making personal jibes will not be tolerated.   

But if it’s happened in many different establishments it very much suggests that the poster is engaging in unacceptable behaviour of some kind.

You misunderstood or misread my post. I wished everyone an epiphany that makes them happy.

whether it was on a whim or not is really not the point. The fact that it's many bars only reenforces my point that it can have a big effect on a persons social life, or in this case atempts to get a social life.

I was once banned from a pub, along with others, for 'drinking too slowly'. Possibly connected with being penniless students at the time. Not really a substantive reason.

I don’t think anyone was banned on a whim Peter, and certainly not from “many pubs/bars” as per the original post.

being banned from things can be a lot more than hurt feelings though. Imagine you live in a small vilage with one pub and no vilage hall. Being banned from that pub is almost the same thing as being banned from vilage life.

Imagine you've been in one club for 10 years and all your friends are there? Being banned from that club is almost the same as being banned from that friendship group.

Autistic peoples social stuctures can be really narrow and deep. All eggs in one basket. So one ban can destroy someones social life.

Imagine if everyone with hurt feelings sued…

I'm not starting any claim. I'm not the party with standing. Nor am I advising Roswell to bring a claim. That's a dissision for him based on the facts. I'm merely pointing out that such cases have been sucessful before.

Bowerman v B & Q PLC [2005] (westlaw WL 7863629) comes to mind. Or J Clarke v Marks and Spencer plc: 3313186/2022.

Start the claim.

You will be laughed out of court and possibly charged with wasting the court's time.

Please keep me posted. 

Start the claim.

You will be laughed out of court and possibly charged with wasting the court's time.

Please keep me posted. 

I'm not starting any claim. I'm not the party with standing. Nor am I advising Roswell to bring a claim. That's a dissision for him based on the facts. I'm merely pointing out that such cases have been sucessful before.

Bowerman v B & Q PLC [2005] (westlaw WL 7863629) comes to mind. Or J Clarke v Marks and Spencer plc: 3313186/2022.