Trigger warning: Girl gets arrested, seemingly for being Autistic in a built up area.

No that was a Star Wars quote I was referencing light sabres. Light sabre's are cool

I haven't worked out all the details yet, but I've conceived of a device that hurls used or new 6 inch saw blades with left or right hand spin so that you can use richochets to your advantage in urban combat.

That sort of thing, or are you waiting for someone to invent an interferometry type of device that provides molecular de-cohesion at a distance? A-La Dr Judy Woods (Most likely ficticious but based loosely upon some obscure experiments that were actually done by a Guy by the name of John Hutchison, who was taught the basics by Mel Winfield) claims about the twin towers?

Or are you a more "Silent weapons for quiet wars" (pdf) kinda guy?

lol I'd rather have “An Elegant Weapon for a More Civilised Age” myself.

I'd still rather be allowed to carry an MP5 about my person I feel, on THOSE days.

(Editted after replies were made to put the comma where it should be) 

And it is this minority of people who simply do not want to understand, and perhaps the slightly lazy ones who do not feel they have the time to understand, Who need to be metaphorically beaten around the head with a copy of the equality act.

people worked really hard to make sure that disability was included in that act, to make sure that autism could be a valid excuse under law for all sorts of slights and social faux pas that autistic people might be punished for.

this legislation was intended to protect us and we should not be shy about using it or making a huge fuss when it’s ignored.

I'm nice to the ones who don't try to bully or entrap me....

I’ve heard about this case and regardless of autism awareness training, it’s a clear case of many people within societal attitudes and perceptions simply refusing to understand what it’s like to be autistic and instead going off of preconceived notions and myths about autism - there is still attitudes out there that are only too ready and willing to believe horrible things about autistic people and regard (and label) autistic people with horrible names, they believe that because autistic people are deemed (by them) to not have the required levels of “cop on” and common sense, that they should be permitted to do anything on thier own nor live alone without a “minder” and aside from a “cure” for autism, they believe that the only way to “manage” autism is by means of ultra strict discipline because they deem that the person with autism “does not understand that they are “wrong” by default” and need “careful management” 

Morally I tend to agree. But pragmatically I think it’s pretty obvious that the system has a lot to do with the attitude of the people in it. So if what matters to us is affecting change it’s just as important to target the system.

In due course a court May determine that the police officers involved in this incident are at fault. I don’t think having a march specifically to pillory the individuals would go down well with the public until that point. The police force as a whole on the other hand is clearly also at fault. And is also determined not to learn from its errors.

The chair of the Police LGBT group for example described the female police officer in the video as the ‘real victim.’ https://youtu.be/fqTlHRhtWcc

this is very much a systemic issue as much as one of personal responsibility.

Police constables are "office holders" and are liable for their personal conduct. The police force corporately may try to cover things up in the interest of avoiding reputational damage or political repercussions.  Doctors, nurses, social workers and other professionals are personally liable for our professional actions. That is why we belong to unions and have liability insurance. The same should apply to the police. They should be held personally liable for acts of discrimination and abuse of authority, just like any other professional.

There’s a really big difference between people with a little p and People with a big P. Companies are basically psychopaths. When you arrange people in a company they often become collectively amoral even though individually each one would say they are men of good conscience. Executives and board members say they are bound to do what is best for their shareholders even if it is morally questionable. For their part shareholders prefer not to know about the details of how their company is run. that way they can take their dividends and sleep easily at night. companies are playing the maximise profits at all costs game.

whereas government institutions like the police are playing the politics game. Pressure groups like the LGBT movement, #metoo, Black Lives Matter. They have all exerted pressure on the police to behave in a certain way. But the police care about The appearance of being politically correct not actually building a fairer society.

all of these other pressure groups have acted, I imagine, in good faith but unintentionally they have created an environment where autistic people can be pilloried for innocuous comments; as this young girl was. If we want the police to look after autistic peoples rights we will have to be as vocal and as militant as the LGBT community has been, and other communities have been, to ensure that when situations arise a fair balance is struck rather than the police simply jumping to what they think the politically correct thing to do is.

because when people get together in a big group and start acting collectively, particularly Neurotypical people, they stop acting like individuals and instead start acting like sociopaths, and collective organisations like that need to be controlled, they have no conscience per se to speak of.

The point is that institutions and organisations are run by people. The distinction between a committee and a cabal can be extremely narrow sometimes. The people and the Mob can sometimes be the same thing. Fear is a poor tool for controlling individuals, But I think it can be quite useful when it comes to controlling organisations and cliques that wish to exert power on others.

In this particular case I wouldn’t advocate suing the individual policeman I would sue the police force which had a responsibility to ensure that people do have training.

and again I think if there is to be vilification it should be the police force not individual police officers we target. As you say that could generate ill will. There are definitely times when it is appropriate to single out individuals for blame. However people are largely sympathetic towards the police because they appreciate that generally their  jobs are difficult. Even if in this case it looks like this one particular officer was hugely negligent.

The fear of an organisation is not a bad thing. To quote  v for  vendetta, “people should not be afraid of their government, governments should be afraid of their people”

There are two separate problems here. 

1. Autism and how society treats us.

2. The police forgetting that they are public servants and acting as if they were deputies of Slavemasters..

In terms of Peters proposed solution to item 1, I've actually given that a good try in my youth. It's a bit like lying, it can provide a temporary or semi permanent fix, but it will bite back when you least expect it. manging peoples fear is difficult, If you scare them too much they rebel, or you meet an arsehole like myself who will start to plot your doom, if you try and manage them by fear. An alternative solution I've found more effective is to play to my strengths and live MY life to the best of my ability.

People ARE impressed by competence & a "nice" appearance. (Both literally, and also in how you conduct yourself). An unexpected side effect of my genuine love & compassion for animals and those less fortunate than myself and the care I take to look after anything or any one who is under my control, is it makes me for more attractive to women. I've only ever been sacked once for doing too good a job (NHS, that's why I despise the organisation, that and the appalling service delivery) but if you do a bang on job, an employer will very often overlook things that otherwise would be a deal breaker. 

Item 2. On an institutional level, we ought to declare ALL public service off limits to members of any secret or public societies where they pledge their primary allegiance so something other than the public trust.  As they currently are, we the public ought to treat them like we would any other gang of people who hold us in comtempt and seek to abuse us, and have as little to do with them as possible. If someone assaults you, deal with them YOURSELF and bury the body quietly, rather than trying to get help. Last time we had a burglary, the plod were more interested in asking me where my tax disc was for the car parked on my drive.

Pah.

Peter said:

The average man in the street is prepared to put in the mental energy to understand autism that way. So we go to the next best thing which is to inspire fear.

That is an incredibly negative way to try to get across the points about autism.

It could lead to autists being feared and excluded even more from society in case we raise an mob to protest before hauling the NTs through the courts for a crime they were never aware they were committing (the police admitted they never had training on autism).

I wouldn't support such an approach I'm afraid - I have a hard enough time with people dealing with autism without them fearing me as well.

Looking at that Police woman stood arms folded saying I don’t care if she has autism it’s clear they felt that they were impervious, untouchable that no one could possibly demand an explanation for their actions. Lots of people who take it upon themselves to punish autistic people for what they see as unacceptable behaviour feel that way. And it is our job to make them feel a little less safe. To make them wonder about how this might affect their job or their image, about what the repercussions could be if their actions are found to be discriminatory.

I wish it could be a true understanding of how life is for autistic people. Of how disheartening it is to be excluded. Of how humiliating it is to have six burly men pick you up and throw you on the floor because of a completely innocuous comment you made like this young girl.

but unfortunately I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. I don’t think The average man in the street isnt prepared to put in the mental energy to understand autism that way. So we go to the next best thing which is to inspire fear. Fear of repercussions when autistic people are discriminated against. And in order to do that you have to make an example of those who do the discriminating. In this case the police.

The purpose of a march  would be to generate negative publicity for the police. To vilify them. To create enough embarrassment that the next time six burlly police officers have an autistic person saying something they think might be a little untoward before jumping in they think ‘maybe if I screw this up I’ll end up on the evening news or the subject of a march.’

Peter said:

the fact that things like this are going on in other nearby developed countries strongly indicates to me that there needs to be more militant autism.

What specifically do you want this to achieve?

If it is awareness then I don't think that being a nuisance is going to endear much sympathy from the public (think about the Stop Oil protests - they have built up resentment agains the cause they are fighting for).

Is it "reasonable adjustments"? There are so many issues within the spectrum that this would be a very long list and cost a fortune to implement across the board. Each type of adjustment is probably only necessary for a fraction of a percentage of the population so the cost/benefit has to be considered in these very difficult times.

In realistic, every day terms, can you explain what the end result of all this fighting is for please?

People talk about weaponised autism. But the fact that things like this are going on in other nearby developed countries strongly indicates to me that there needs to be more militant autism.

Honestly, I feel very strongly that it's inhumane and that euthanasia is too high a risk to be legal due to its historical abuses state sponsored or otherwise.

To think, that to end other persons life because they struggle to meet societal norms/ideals is in any way moral is insane.

Plus it doesn't work in cleaning the so called genenl pool for example there are plenty of autistic people in Germany dispite their best efforts in the 1930-40's.

K-4 said:

I had recently read about how Canada and the Netherlands had been coercing autistic adults into euthanization.

Given than science is pointing to autism being largely genetic, I can see why they are approaching it this way.

It doesn't feel right though, but given the difficulties we have in finding partners then I suspect the gene pool will wither and shrink on its own.