Business Directory for Self Employed

Just for info:

To access We Are Autistic's peer-to-peer community for autistic adults (ie an online forum like this one) costs £6.79 per month, which comes to £81.48 per year.

That money is paid a private limited company that's owned by one person. Of course, as a member of that community, people are also trusting their personal information to that company.

By contrast, this forum is - of course - run by a UK registered charity, and can be joined and used completely free of charge.

There's also the option to join the National Autistic Society, which does far more than just provide this online community. When paid via direct debit, NAS membership currently costs just:

• £8 per year at the concessionary rate, or
• £26 per year at the standard rate.

I'm proud to be an NAS member. I'd encourage anyone else who is willing and able to also join and support its work. Membership includes a quarterly members' magazine (sent by post), and access to a members-only Facebook group.

Join the National Autistic Society

This forum is free, and is worth what it costs. I am irritated by moderator-bots that seem to "flag" posts more or less at random. Personally I think users should be allowed to remain anoymous if they wish, or to post real names and details if they prefer. I am assuming we are all grown adults, and I resent the patronising attitude of NAS and treating everyone as "vulnerable". If I were allowed to use my real name and details you would be able to look for me on a number of sites, whether that be the NAS Ditectory, LinkedIn or the BASW website. (Actually another user has already established, with my permission, that I can contacted using my "permiited" first name and details from my profile, so anonymity is spurious.)

 As a potential client, I would hesitate to do business with someone who was just a number or a name like "Furry Cactus"  (I hope there is not a user with that name, if so any similarity is purely unintentional.)

If WEA is linked to a Limited Company, the company is required to be registered with the Information Commissioner's Office and comply with Data Protection legislation, as is the NAS.

Ian said:

Personally I think users should be allowed to remain anoymous if they wish, or to post real names and details if they prefer. I am assuming we are all grown adults, and I resent the patronising attitude of NAS and treating everyone as "vulnerable".

I feel that the current setup in respect of safeguarding measures is exactly the right way to run this forum. 

A significant proportion of autistic people also have learning disabilities. The forum is also open to children aged 16 and 17.

Our traits and/or comorbidities can indeed leave many of us vulnerable to exploitation or manipulation (including via social engineering). 

Ian said:

However, my autistic pedantry leads me to challenge your use of "ALL"and vague references to "the law" without being specific as to which piece of legislation you refer to.

Those weren't my words. You could perhaps contact Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre (who I quoted) in respect of any queries that you might have.

Ian said:

It may be that "vulnerable" individuals account for more than the 52% to which you refer

The study highlighted the fact that the police had only considered 52% of the autistic people as being vulnerable, when - per the article - they should have identified all of them as such.

Ian said:

to say "all" autistic people are legally vulnerable is nonsense. Logically, that means that the police would have to have an Appropriate Adult present every time they interviewed an autistic person

According to the NAS, every autistic person does indeed have the right to have an Appropriate Adult present.

"An autistic person has the right to an Appropriate Adult."

NAS - Criminal Justice - a guide for police officers and professionals

This - from the National Police Autism Association - also refers: 

"Most autistic people would rightly feel that a condition which is part of their identity is not a mental disorder, and would probably hesitate to describe themselves as ‘mentally vulnerable’. And yet, there are sound practical reasons why an autistic person of any standing in life would need an AA in police custody. No matter how intelligent, independent or successful an autistic individual may be, or how well-trained the officers dealing with them, the difficulties with social communication inherent in the condition may lead to a detainee missing the nuance of a question, or feeling obliged to make disclosures which could have far-reaching consequences.

For this reason, the NPAA’s position is that all autistic people brought into police custody should be routinely offered an AA."

National Police Autism Association - Disordered, vulnerable – or autistic? How we should treat people with neurodivergent conditions in police custody

Ian said:

However, my autistic pedantry leads me to challenge your use of "ALL"and vague references to "the law" without being specific as to which piece of legislation you refer to.

Those weren't my words. You could perhaps contact Cambridge University's Autism Research Centre (who I quoted) in respect of any queries that you might have.

Ian said:

It may be that "vulnerable" individuals account for more than the 52% to which you refer

The study highlighted the fact that the police had only considered 52% of the autistic people as being vulnerable, when - per the article - they should have identified all of them as such.

Ian said:

to say "all" autistic people are legally vulnerable is nonsense. Logically, that means that the police would have to have an Appropriate Adult present every time they interviewed an autistic person

According to the NAS, every autistic person does indeed have the right to have an Appropriate Adult present.

"An autistic person has the right to an Appropriate Adult."

NAS - Criminal Justice - a guide for police officers and professionals

This - from the National Police Autism Association - also refers: 

"Most autistic people would rightly feel that a condition which is part of their identity is not a mental disorder, and would probably hesitate to describe themselves as ‘mentally vulnerable’. And yet, there are sound practical reasons why an autistic person of any standing in life would need an AA in police custody. No matter how intelligent, independent or successful an autistic individual may be, or how well-trained the officers dealing with them, the difficulties with social communication inherent in the condition may lead to a detainee missing the nuance of a question, or feeling obliged to make disclosures which could have far-reaching consequences.

For this reason, the NPAA’s position is that all autistic people brought into police custody should be routinely offered an AA."

National Police Autism Association - Disordered, vulnerable – or autistic? How we should treat people with neurodivergent conditions in police custody