 |
 |
Please read below Norman Green's, National Autistic Society (NAS) responses to myself and Adrian Whyatt on this issue:- Colin - thank you for expressing your concern. The news reports of which you speak are, I suspect, a direct feed from an external agency that provides a synopsis of news stories from national and local press reports over which the NAS has no control. Of course the NAS could either decide not to provide this service at all, or only provide it to members rather than on a global website, or it could censor those reports before the incoming feed goes anywhere else. Censorship would worry some, and it seems wrong in principle. The issue is certainly not a simple one, and needs some thought. I also for instance have been increasingly concerned about recent reports, but not for the reason you put forward. My reason is that I believe (without having any evidence) that a number of non-autistic miscreants, or their legal teams, are making use of "autism" and "Asperger syndrome" as a defence to all sorts of activities occasioned by nothing other than criminality, a point that we raised of course during our criminal justice campaign. I shall raise your concerns with the Director Communications in order to gather his thoughts and those of his team and get back to you in due time - please though do not expect an immediate response - this needs thought, at a time when lots of other things need thought! Regards. Norman.... Norman's reply to Adrian included below... Adrian With respect, I do not see that any of your suggested comments could properly be appended to press reports. Where is the evidence that any of your statements is true - they may well be, and I would like to think they are, but if we were to put them forward without being able to justify them, we would be no better than those who sensationalise stories in order to sell newspapers. However, I don't think I have seen many "sensational" reports relating to autism - they tend to be factual. Where an event is factual - for example, autism is in a current murder case being put forward as at least a partial defence - and that fact is reported, we cannot justifiably append any of your four comments. Colin's point, as I understand it, is that we should suppress such reports, or at least not be party to promulgating them more widely than they otherwise would be. That is a valid concern, and one that needs thought - an immediate response may be entirely the wrong one. Regards. Norman Adrian With respect, I do not see that any of your suggested comments could properly be appended to press reports. Where is the evidence that any of your statements is true - they may well be, and I would like to think they are, but if we were to put them forward without being able to justify them, we would be no better than those who sensationalise stories in order to sell newspapers. However, I don't think I have seen many "sensational" reports relating to autism - they tend to be factual. Where an event is factual - for example, autism is in a current murder case being put forward as at least a partial defence - and that fact is reported, we cannot justifiably append any of your four comments. Colin's point, as I understand it, is that we should suppress such reports, or at least not be party to promulgating them more widely than they otherwise would be. That is a valid concern, and one that needs thought - an immediate response may be entirely the wrong one. Regards. Norman Adrian With respect, I do not see that any of your suggested comments could properly be appended to press reports. Where is the evidence that any of your statements is true - they may well be, and I would like to think they are, but if we were to put them forward without being able to justify them, we would be no better than those who sensationalise stories in order to sell newspapers. However, I don't think I have seen many "sensational" reports relating to autism - they tend to be factual. Where an event is factual - for example, autism is in a current murder case being put forward as at least a partial defence - and that fact is reported, we cannot justifiably append any of your four comments. Colin's point, as I understand it, is that we should suppress such reports, or at least not be party to promulgating them more widely than they otherwise would be. That is a valid concern, and one that needs thought - an immediate response may be entirely the wrong one. Regards. Norman Adrian With respect, I do not see that any of your suggested comments could properly be appended to press reports. Where is the evidence that any of your statements is true - they may well be, and I would like to think they are, but if we were to put them forward without being able to justify them, we would be no better than those who sensationalise stories in order to sell newspapers. However, I don't think I have seen many "sensational" reports relating to autism - they tend to be factual. Where an event is factual - for example, autism is in a current murder case being put forward as at least a partial defence - and that fact is reported, we cannot justifiably append any of your four comments. Colin's point, as I understand it, is that we should suppress such reports, or at least not be party to promulgating them more widely than they otherwise would be. That is a valid concern, and one that needs thought - an immediate response may be entirely the wrong one. Regards. Norman _________________________________________________________________ Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/ ________________End of message______________________ This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask] Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.