share ideas to combat bad press trope - 'dangerous solitary autistic' ?

Marianne72 said:

What about autistic think-tanks, discussing social problems and issues and offering formal reports to people who can 'make a difference'?

Good idea, but I have no idea how to take it forward.

Iain said:

think tanks you need to be a subject matter expert

Hairyloon said:

no idea how to take it forward

I wasn't thinking of a paid job, just very informal, low key, using autistic analytical skills and creative ideas for changes that help the community locally, nationally. This chat would be an ideal venue, if the moderators put up a new thread - 'autistic ideas forum' or somesuch?

I love giving out ideas on all sorts of things. It is one of my special interests. Usually in the form of emails, to firms (tweaks to products), my HA [resolving rubbish dumping, dog nuisance], also ideas arising from reading news articles e.g. knife crime, immigration. After gathering ideas, and making conclusions, this could be offered to an appropriate authority. 

TheCatWoman said:

Isn't this the sort of thing NAS should be doing? 

NAS focus on the subject of autism and disseminating autism traits. They don't involve themselves outside this focus. It is necessary, sure, to tell the public oh, autistics are good at xxx, but I'm thinking of something which shows these traits in practical action.

Marianne72 said:

I'm thinking of something which shows these traits in practical action.

Why not try a proof of concept session to see how it works. I can see there being many issues but it will only be though working out the wrinkes that it can improve.

Do you have any ideas that we can build a scope document around? We need to establish a number of parameters for it to be meaningful.

1 - What is the principle we are studying

2 - what is the intended outcome

3 - who is the target audience

4 - how do we establish our credibility

5 - what standards do we follow to enable peer review

6 - how do we define success of the project.

I'm just doing this off the cuff - there will be more to it than this naturally but it seems better to start than navel gaze.

Would you care to start since I'm sure you have at least one project in mind.

Marianne72 said:

I'm thinking of something which shows these traits in practical action.

Why not try a proof of concept session to see how it works. I can see there being many issues but it will only be though working out the wrinkes that it can improve.

Do you have any ideas that we can build a scope document around? We need to establish a number of parameters for it to be meaningful.

1 - What is the principle we are studying

2 - what is the intended outcome

3 - who is the target audience

4 - how do we establish our credibility

5 - what standards do we follow to enable peer review

6 - how do we define success of the project.

I'm just doing this off the cuff - there will be more to it than this naturally but it seems better to start than navel gaze.

Would you care to start since I'm sure you have at least one project in mind.

Hairyloon said:

The Civil Service has the experience.

I've worked there - they were probably one of the most incompetent organisations I have ever worked with.

They do have a few core groups within each department who do a good job but as an organisation I despaired. 

Iain said:

You could also use this to highlight that they don't have a sniff of experience either.

The Civil Service has the experience. Ministers just need to tell them what they want to happen.

Hairyloon said:

None of the three have had so much as a sniff of power

You could also use this to highlight that they don't have a sniff of experience either.

The system is fairly thoroughly broken and I don't see any other political systems that would work for our populations mindset.

Revolution is only likely to lead to chaos as we are already so polarised between conservative, socialist and liberal views that we would never agree what the replacement would be.

Creating a mechanism for accountability would seem the logical least bad way forward but this countrys legal system is so riddled with get out clauses that there will always be a way for them to wriggle out of it on a technicality and retire to be on the board of a load of companies they helped gain contracts while in power.

I am starting to think that a form of national service could be a good thing, limiting politicians terms in office (whether they are in power or not) so they have to go back to their grass roots if they want to be useful.

This would remove a lot of the opportunity for large scale corruption at least.

Marianne72 said:

I really admire Sir Alan Bates for his fortitude.

I am baffled as to why they haven't started a series of private prosecutions.
I think there was talk of it, but that was a while ago and if it's happening, they ought to be shouting about it.

Hairyloon said:

I made an application to the European Court and got some compensation for the delay.

I'm happy you got a little acknowledgement - but what a harrowing experience it all is. The law and justice are indeed two different things. I really admire Sir Alan Bates for his fortitude. It's a tiny victory in the scheme of things, but perhaps in future times things will slowly change.

Marianne72 said:

No one would believe this if they hadn't experienced it.

I have had some experience with the Employment Appeal Tribunal, so I can easily believe it.
Once I had my appeal rejected as out of time because I submitted it 193 days before the 42 day deadline...
I argued that point and went on to win the appeal. They sent it back to ET who found another excuse to rule against me.
Then they ruled it out of time again for stupid reason...
And round and round.  
It took them six years, but eventually they managed to stitch up the case tight enough that I couldn't make the appeal, but they cheated: they didn't give my Barrister the right papers and I didn't twig to it until afterwards.
Then I locked up at the Court of Appeal because I couldn't deal with explaining the law to a Court of Appeal judge,.. which is what you do have to do in court..

Luckily I noticed that Article Six of the ECHR requires a fair hearing within a reasonable time, so I made an application to the European Court and got some compensation for the delay.

Iain said:

My personal take on that is that it is pointless as the parties lie in their manifestoes just to get into power. 

A fair point, but we are having a paradigm shift in our political dynamic, and we can choose to ignore it or try to engage with it.
There are two new parties, both promising a new way of doing things, and the Green Party which is something else again. While I don't believe either of them, I can see clear good intentions so we might hope that they might prevail against the dominant dynamic.

None of the three have had so much as a sniff of power, so we cannot blame them for anything that this government is doing or what any previous government has done.

You might reasonably argue that politicians are all cut from the same cloth and I would be hard pressed to disagree, but the alternative is to overthrow the whole system entirely and I am not cranky enough to start a revolution, so we are stuck with them for the time being.

In which case we need to find a way to deal with them, and I would start by taking a zero tolerance approach to bribery and misconduct: challenge the three parties to put it in their manifestos, and let's see how much they wriggle to avoid doing it.

Hairyloon said:

Can I ask what that was about?
Did the SPT get back to you?

Gamesmanship by a barrister - briefly, I was signed off with work-stress related depression [I was an NHS whistle-blower) and being diagnosed with autism, - so could not attend an Industrial Tribunal hearing. The barrister refused to delay, claiming I would be 'unable to provide evidence' and the Judge ruled for her. I appealed then she used 'out of time', and other legal manoeuvres, fighting me up to High Court. I was supposed to get a month's KC time but no one wanted the case. I got a useless barrister an hour before, who nervously asked me not to quote him! I attended alone by video. SPT said they 'could not intervene' and 'Judges must be independent'  Like many, court systems are a 'merry-go-round of buck-passing [quote, Grenfell Inquiry]. 

You make a statement - a court official sends it back, saying you've used the wrong form. So you fill in the form, send it back - then they claim you're 'out of time' and must fill in another form to get a time extension considered by a judge (and another fee). What a shambles . No one would believe this if they hadn't experienced it.

Hairyloon said:

How about an objective analysis of the three upcoming parties?

My personal take on that is that it is pointless as the parties lie in their manifestoes just to get into power. 

Look at how many election election promises have beed disreguarded or look like they will be and this not even 18 months into their term:

Failed:
“we will not increase National Insurance”

“Capitalised with £7.3 billion over the course of the next Parliament, the National Wealth Fund will have a remit to support Labour’s growth and clean energy missions”

Likely to fail shortly according to current forcasts

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people”

Inconclusive or off track (ie unlikely to me met): 
“40,000 more [NHS]appointments each week, during evening and weekends”
“Recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects”
“Labour will open an additional 3,000 nurseries”
“Every young person caught in possession of a knife will be referred to a Youth Offending Team"
"We will train thousands more GPs"
“We will train thousands more midwives as part of the NHS Workforce Plan"
“Labour will get Britain building again … with 1.5 million new homes over the next parliament”
“We will … end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds”
“Labour is committed to restoring development spending at the level of 0.7 per cent of gross national income as soon as fiscal circumstances allow”
“Raising confidence in the … criminal justice system to its highest levels”

This is far from unique for this party and I think all parties promise what they think the electorate want in order to get into power then worry about if it is achievable once the get there. Accountability is rarely an issue once they are in power.

For this reason I don't think any party can be trusted on what they publish.

For me anyone who makes a career out of being a politician is not to be trusted. I've worked with a few from both sides of the House and their approach to power concerns me greatly.

Marianne72 said:

I've only made one formal report [to SPT - senior president of Tribunals], about my court experiences as a whistle-blower

Can I ask what that was about?
Did the SPT get back to you?
I'm expecting a letter from them soon: I complained about their new Practice Direction, which, for no good reason, makes it obligatory to use their forms.

I filled out the complaint form on the HMCTS website, and they've written back to say they can't handle it and have passed it on to the SPT...

Iain said:

Do you have any ideas that we can build a scope document around?

How about an objective analysis of the three upcoming parties?
Meaning the Green Party, Reform and "Your Party".
If we're going to think about a problem, then why not think about a big one?

Iain said:

Maybe I've completely missed the point in which case can you detail it over a few paragraphs to help me understand.

No, you get the point! I've never had to 'scope' anything. I've only made one formal report [to SPT - senior president of Tribunals], about my court experiences as a whistle-blower]. I based this on methodology I was taught for MSc. [Mental Health Practice]. I'm interested in the process, which you describe very well. It sounds like the sort of thing they do at Inquiries.

When I was talking of sharing ideas [ in leaflets/pamphlets/ booklets] of the kind I described, I meant something far less complex - simply pooling ideas, summarised into documents for lay readers. No research, just peoples' ideas or experiences, collated together.

Iain said:

"the perception everyone must be successful" I'm afraid I don't agree with the principle of the statement

Ah, I didn't explain myself well! I was re-reading a book by Alain de Botton, 'Status Anxiety'. He explains what has been considered 'success' over a range of centuries. His ethos is that people who cannot gain what is deemed 'successful' in a particular age suffer from what he terms, status anxiety. He talks of 20th century success as being wealthy, powerful and having many possessions. I don't know what is currently regarded as 'success' - I've been retired 10 years and lost touch. I think it might be to do with having employment, money in the bank, or  a perceived successful career. These would be relevant to autistics who cannot work, for whatever reason. Botton's book explores alternative ways of seeking/ finding success, through art, science, philosophy etc. He writes for lay people. Just as well, as I cannot follow formal philosophy books!

Marianne72 said:

I wonder if you have time to go through the process of a scope document, using one of my questions?

The high level guidelines for this document is as follows:

A scope statement is a document that defines all the elements of the project scope as well as assumptions, project requirements and acceptance criteria.

This detailed project document defines the boundaries of a project, outlining inclusions and exclusions. Typically, the project scope statement starts with a project description with a brief overview of its purpose and objectives. There’s also a list of tangible and intangible product deliverables as well as defined project objectives.

Project acceptance criteria should also be included to determine whether the project deliverables are acceptable, while project exclusions outline what isn’t included in the project. This document outlines project constraints that may impact the project’s execution and a list of assumptions made during the planning process.

Also included in the project scope statement is a detailed scope description, project boundaries, initial project risks and stakeholder acceptance criteria.

Looking at the issue of "the perception everyone must be successful" I'm afraid I don't agree with the principle of the statement. In the case you put forward about someone wanting a PhD there are a few obvious reasons why it cannot happen every time:

1 - lack of places available at uni

2 - the need for people to either self finance this course or take on a loan (eg bad credit history)

3 - peoples intellectual capacity to comprehend the subject material to the level required.

4 - peoples ability to maintain the focus and survive the stress of exams (especially for autists).

There needs to be some sort of reality check that although some people may want to be an astronaut for example, there are probably only a few dozen people prepared to do this each year and the physical and mental requirements are not a given. Some people may never make the cut through lack of ability, disability of lack of ability to cope under pressure for a few examples.

Maybe I've completely missed the point in which case can you detail it over a few paragraphs to help me understand.

Marianne72 said:

As my idea seems a non starter at present

Just because it hasn't leapt into fruition doesn't make it a non-starter: keep plugging at it...

Iain said:

Would you care to start since I'm sure you have at least one project in mind

As my idea seems a non starter at present, I wonder if you have time to go through the process of a scope document, using one of my questions? I've never done one of these - I'm not an academic but am interested. Perhaps on a simple level around my question: 'the perception everyone must be successful.' This affects most of the population but majorly, I guess, the autistic community, with low employment levels thus many on low income - unable to achieve things that require a high income. For example, I would have loved a PhD. How, in such circumstances, might success be differently defined.