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.

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.

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.