On Site Censorship

This is commonplace on pretty much every digital medium nowadays. It sucks

I wouldn't know I only use here and yes it does suck. Autists get infantalised enough in general life I don't think we need it here too.

My response has also been "botted". I don't know why I donate to this organisation.

Gladly. Did you search the NAS service providers' directory? Yes, I am listed there, but not allowed to use my name in the forum.

I agree that anonymity should be an option, and I completely respect the right to post anonymously if one wishes. What I find patronising is that the NAS assumes that I am incapable of doing a risk assessment and making my own decision. As a regulated professional my details are out there already - my company is registered at Companies House, my personal details are on the professional register at Social Work England, the charity I am associated with is listed with the Charities Commission, I have a presence on some social media, although I have tightly locked-down profiles. With my full name, you can check my credentials. If I call myself " Expert 123" I could also claim to be a professor of psychiatry, a King's Counsel and a Papal Knight - I am none of those - BUT if I did so claim, there is no way anybody could prove otherwise.

I choose what information to post. Caveat scriptor - let the writer beware. I got my first death threat a few months into my first job as a social worker. My client (who I suspected was neurodivergent but undiagnosed)  had solved an interpersonal problem with a peer using two billiard balls in a sock, and when arrested he had a knife on him. He blamed me for the fact that he was having a holiday at Her Majesty's expense. It sort of goes with the territory. So yes, I take precautions, both online and in my working life.

My counter-argument is that on this forum we have individuals who claim to be "experts"  who are nothing of the sort. We have barrack-room lawyers who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.  Someone expressed an opinion (carefully not framed as advice in line with the rules) about the Mental Capacity Act. I posted a refutation.  The difference was that I am a registered social worker, and a Best Interests Assessor, and my opinion is based on seven years of postgraduate training and twenty-five years of experience. I quoted the legislation, and could, if challenged, back it up with caselaw. The refutation was "botted" for some reason, but was later reinstated, unedited. The misinformation was allowed to stay.

I agree that anonymity should be an option, and I completely respect the right to post anonymously if one wishes. What I find patronising is that the NAS assumes that I am incapable of doing a risk assessment and making my own decision. As a regulated professional my details are out there already - my company is registered at Companies House, my personal details are on the professional register at Social Work England, the charity I am associated with is listed with the Charities Commission, I have a presence on some social media, although I have tightly locked-down profiles. With my full name, you can check my credentials. If I call myself " Expert 123" I could also claim to be a professor of psychiatry, a King's Counsel and a Papal Knight - I am none of those - BUT if I did so claim, there is no way anybody could prove otherwise.

I choose what information to post. Caveat scriptor - let the writer beware. I got my first death threat a few months into my first job as a social worker. My client (who I suspected was neurodivergent but undiagnosed)  had solved an interpersonal problem with a peer using two billiard balls in a sock, and when arrested he had a knife on him. He blamed me for the fact that he was having a holiday at Her Majesty's expense. It sort of goes with the territory. So yes, I take precautions, both online and in my working life.

My counter-argument is that on this forum we have individuals who claim to be "experts"  who are nothing of the sort. We have barrack-room lawyers who clearly have no idea what they are talking about.  Someone expressed an opinion (carefully not framed as advice in line with the rules) about the Mental Capacity Act. I posted a refutation.  The difference was that I am a registered social worker, and a Best Interests Assessor, and my opinion is based on seven years of postgraduate training and twenty-five years of experience. I quoted the legislation, and could, if challenged, back it up with caselaw. The refutation was "botted" for some reason, but was later reinstated, unedited. The misinformation was allowed to stay.