Super Suzy Report post Posted January 26, 2009 Action for Children's latest TV ad featuring a little boy trapped in the mouth of his autistic monster, seems to have upset a lot of people, including me. And I say this living with 3 little autistic monsters... There's even an anti-ad Facebook group http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?gi...7&members=1 I haven't joined. Too radical for me (and I'm sure 'He' would object), but I do think they should've asked more parents for their opinions, before going ahead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 26, 2009 email thingy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loblob Report post Posted January 27, 2009 Hi Super Suzie, I didn't mind it, nor did I think anyone would object. I was pleased to see it aired frequently and was particularly pleased that it highlighted to some people that may not know, that some childrens behaviour that could be perceived as troubled or even 'naughty' could be due to autism. Many people have a narrow veiw of both what autism is and the reasons for negative behaviour in children. I was just interested to know why it upset people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I saw it and thought it was really badly thought out... The message that shines through is that autism is responsible for the 'bad behaviour' (something like 'My parents were at the end of their tether because of my aggression and anger and sought help with my autism...' Then it goes on to say that after the charity got involved and helped define strategies/anger management techniques things improved dramatically and now he feels much better etc etc etc... Two obvious points: If the behaviour arose as part of autism then the strategies would be irrelevent. The only 'strategy' that would work for an inherent behaviour would be a 'damage limitation' strategy, not a self help one as by definition the child can't 'help' the behaviour because it is an inherent effect of his condition. (This one is unlikely to be popular, but you can't hide from the logic) If the behaviours were successfully managed by the strategies the charity suggested then something was wrong before the charity got involved and the charity put it 'right'. That doesn't reflect very well on the child's pre-existing support network, and that must implicate the 'end of their tether' parents along with any other agencies (school etc) providing for the child's welfare. So no, I didn't like the advert. Would i join an online lobby group to attack it? No - because a high percentage of the people who would would be people who are jumping on a bandwagon and doing so for the wrong reasons ('poor little autistic kids being talked about like that when they can't help it')- and that's even worse than what they're complaining about. I haven't looked at the facebook group because I don't have and don't want a facebook account, but i'll lay odds that anyone who does look at it will see a huge amount of 'rant' and very little in the way of 'reason'. Maybe the NAS should do something in a very civilised, non-sensationalist, non-patronising and non-knee-jerk way to address the flawed thinking and value judgements expressed in the advert, but facebook? - Pu-Leeze yehaw, let's form a posse and string them there varmin's up!! L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tally Report post Posted January 27, 2009 The charity who made it claim the boy wrote it and drew the cartoons himself. The biggest complaints I have heard from other people are that it seems to demonise autism and suggest that it causes violence, and also fails to acknowledge the role of the bullies. I have not seen it myself, so I cannot form my own judgement at the moment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zaman Report post Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Hmmm. This is close to my heart for a number of reasons. In my experience there is little connection between the people working in the marketing departments of charities, and the agencies that they use to produce ad campaigns, and the people that work with the children / families / young people (ie the service users). Agencies have a tendency to run with what they think is thought provoking, eye catching, (and award winning). What tends not to matter so much is the integrity of the content, and how real the stories are, or what the service users may make of it. But is is up to the charity to control the agency. Edited January 27, 2009 by zaman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zaman Report post Posted January 27, 2009 The charity who made it claim the boy wrote it and drew the cartoons himself. The biggest complaints I have heard from other people are that it seems to demonise autism and suggest that it causes violence, and also fails to acknowledge the role of the bullies. I have not seen it myself, so I cannot form my own judgement at the moment. For what I have read elsewhere that claim is not made very strongly, and I would strongly dispute it. Those drawings don't look like they were done by a child. It is usually the case that when agencies use such case studies that they are 'based on a true story'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 The charity who made it claim the boy wrote it and drew the cartoons himself. The biggest complaints I have heard from other people are that it seems to demonise autism and suggest that it causes violence, and also fails to acknowledge the role of the bullies. I have not seen it myself, so I cannot form my own judgement at the moment. The downside of that is they use the understanding and vocabulary of a child to explain something far too complex for a child to understand, without offering any qualification... Probably because the child said exactly what they wanted to say in the ad - otherwise they would have qualified it! The child's insight into his own behaviour is going to be incredibly limited - as is any child's understanding of 'self'. Apart from which an autistic perspective (come to think of it - any single perspective, autistic or otherwise) shouldn't be projected in such a definitive way - particularly for a charity/lobby group supposedly representing an entire community. The poor kid making the cartoon (and I'm not saying that in a patronising way - just purely because it's unlikely that the child would have been fully trained/aware of how media works) is now being held accountable for the charities misjudged advertising campaign! Who had 'creative control' on this project and campaing - the child? That seems incredibly unlikely. and if he didn't have 'creative control' there should have been someone there who did understand the implications offering their input, direction and accountability to ensure he didn't shoot himself in the foot. Rant rant!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 For what I have read elsewhere that claim is not made very strongly, and I would strongly dispute it. Those drawings don't look like they were done by a child. It is usually the case that when agencies use such case studies that they are 'based on a true story'. I think the charity's using the boy as a human shield, and failing to address the real concerns of the complainants. The boy in the ad says "helped me correct errors in my behaviour" Does he feel the "errors in his behaviour" that caused the bullying? What sort of school is this boy at anyway? It seems one where a 12 year old girl with serious special needs was arrested, handcuffed and thrown into a police cell... http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wa...91466-20331758/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) Having just watched the video I am considering how to respond.... I can only think my OH and myself and the numerous professionals supporting us must have made a mistake. Two committed parents,weekly CAMHS input,an excellent support syaystem in place,school is currently going well.....but I see no evidence that Ben no longer has AS....he certainly gets angry at times.He can still find things difficult and can be a challenge.I don't know why I applied for DLA as we should have contacted the charity ....they obviously have some excellent strategies in place that all of the professionals and ourselves don't know about. I looked at the charity web site.A search on autism brought up three entries...two using examples of children with ASD as examples of work in campaigning. I may be being very very cynical.However I wonder whether the coverage of ASD in the media has flagged the topic as a way to raise the profile of the organisation. There are organisations such as NAS for whom ASD is central who see increased awareness and education as being amongst the most significant issues. It does worry me that whilst the charity appears to be using ASD to promote the work they do I could find so little information regarding the actual work they do regarding ASD. If anyone on the Forum does have experience of using respite care or any other service provided by the charity I am willing to be corrected. I know barnados are involved in some excellent work in my area and I also know of other organisations but I was not even aware that the charity supported families or individuals who have ASD.I think I am a bit surprised that they appear to be suggesting that they have specialist staff with specific knowledge and experience. BD you are not alone....I don't understand face book and have no interest in knowing more. Karen. Post edited to remove information that might not be in line with Forum rules. Karen. Edited January 27, 2009 by Karen A Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 There's a post here by Mike Stanton ( http://actionforautism.co.uk/2009/01/23/ac...istic-children/ ), who's a special needs teacher and Council member of the NAS, that explains the basis of the complaints and I'm getting more and more angry with AFC with each passing minute... One of the Trustees of the National Autistic Society is also campaigning against the ad. So, perhaps it's not just the radical scruffs that are getting worked up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 The charity who made it claim the boy wrote it and drew the cartoons himself. The biggest complaints I have heard from other people are that it seems to demonise autism and suggest that it causes violence, and also fails to acknowledge the role of the bullies. I have not seen it myself, so I cannot form my own judgement at the moment. I do not have facebook so have not used the link.I looked at the charity web site.There is a video there that I pressume is the same one.If it is a different one then there is more than one.I don't judge the one I saw very highly.Karen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wa...91466-20331758/ Mandy Williams [the mother] said: ?I want their punishment to be a million times worse than what my daughter went through. Blimey! And I thought 'an eye for an eye' was a bit extreme... Nice to see a parent taking such a balanced view of a decision that was made by: A spokesman for South Wales Police said: ?A female juvenile was arrested at Headlands School, Penarth, for a Public Order offence. ?She was subsequently released on police bail and has since been issued with a Final Warning notice. ?It is normal procedure to handcuff both adults and juveniles for their own safety and the safety of others.? the police. L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bikemad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I think the charity's using the boy as a human shield, and failing to address the real concerns of the complainants. The boy in the ad says "helped me correct errors in my behavior" Does he feel the "errors in his behavior" that caused the bullying? What sort of school is this boy at anyway? It seems one where a 12 year old girl with serious special needs was arrested, handcuffed and thrown into a police cell... http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wa...91466-20331758/ Yeah ive seen that on our local news it is disgusting n ive heard no end of bad stuff bout the school. But I have not seen the ad tho judging by what ive read then id not like it n disagree with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 The downside of that is they use the understanding and vocabulary of a child to explain something far too complex for a child to understand, without offering any qualification... Probably because the child said exactly what they wanted to say in the ad - otherwise they would have qualified it! The child's insight into his own behaviour is going to be incredibly limited - as is any child's understanding of 'self'. Apart from which an autistic perspective (come to think of it - any single perspective, autistic or otherwise) shouldn't be projected in such a definitive way - particularly for a charity/lobby group supposedly representing an entire community. The poor kid making the cartoon (and I'm not saying that in a patronising way - just purely because it's unlikely that the child would have been fully trained/aware of how media works) is now being held accountable for the charities misjudged advertising campaign! Who had 'creative control' on this project and campaing - the child? That seems incredibly unlikely. and if he didn't have 'creative control' there should have been someone there who did understand the implications offering their input, direction and accountability to ensure he didn't shoot himself in the foot. Rant rant!! Sorry.Very off topic I know.Anyone needing further evidence of the ability to organisations to shoot temselves in the foot by not understanding the implications of there actions need look no further than the programme on TV last night regarding chickens,a well known supermarket chain and a certain well known cheff . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tally Report post Posted January 27, 2009 For what I have read elsewhere that claim is not made very strongly, and I would strongly dispute it. Those drawings don't look like they were done by a child. It is usually the case that when agencies use such case studies that they are 'based on a true story'. I didn't explain myself properly. I believe the "child" is now an adult, who was talking about himself as a child. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 "The poor kid making the cartoon (and I'm not saying that in a patronising way - just purely because it's unlikely that the child would have been fully trained/aware of how media works) is now being held accountable for the charities misjudged advertising campaign! Who had 'creative control' on this project and campaing - the child? That seems incredibly unlikely. and if he didn't have 'creative control' there should have been someone there who did understand the implications offering their input, direction and accountability to ensure he didn't shoot himself in the foot." That's what I wanted but totally failed to say. Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 The ad's not going down too well on YOu Tube. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_K5lSSTG-90 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unaltronome Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I much prefer this version. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8RnuQqJBmoE When looking at the vignette campaign ( http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/galler....aspx?albumid=1 ), The last image is 'Dan' with a wooden spoon: Does Action for children beat his demons out? The most poignant points I read in the vignettes are that Dan felt betrayed by his parents, he was obnoxious, he was removed from his family and he now feels homesick when he leave the school. So between the lines one can assume the message Action for children is sending is that AS makes you obnoxious, it can be treated by removing the child from is family into an institute and beating the monster. Given the 'charity' (who has large govermental grants!) boasts 140 yrs years worth of experience the advert is truely representative of their arcaic knowledge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I much prefer this version. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8RnuQqJBmoE No, I don't like that version either. It's that 'These people are bullies' thing... Same story, but with the shoe on the other foot. Whether Dan is a 'victim' of autism because it makes him aggressive or a 'victim' because it makes him a target he's still a victim, and i prefer not to see my son labelled as a 'victim'... And why do people who don't understand become 'bullies'? We don't want judgements like that made about our children's lack of understanding so how on earth do we justify applying that sort of generalisation to every other kid on the playground? Nurotypicals would have just as many reasons to complain about the way they are being portrayed in this alternative version as autistic people have in the original. This 'bullies' thing seems to have been a banner taken up by quite a few posts in different links, but it's not actually mentioned as a cause of Dan's behaviour(s) by Dan at all... He says: I used to lash out if somebody pushed my buttons or I wasn't allowed to do something. Somebody 'pushing his buttons' doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with bullying, unless you qualify it - which he doesn't by defining one of the buttons as being 'bullying', but then that leaves a whole range of other buttons to be defined too. 'Not being allowed to do something' is a very real trigger for aggressive behaviours for children (autistic or neurotypical) who haven't learned to accept the word 'no' as a reality in their lives. Dan next says 'Things that would me upset me were if they insulted me' - but that's a personal 'judgement' not an autistic judgement. What people find insulting varies hugely from person to person - that does not mean that the person making the judgement is right, or that the the intent of the perceived aggressor was to insult, but one thing that's absilutely true in either case is that physical aggression is not an appropriate response. Unaltranome - I could choose to read 'between the lines' about what message AFC want to send - but (IMO) that's far more unreasonable than what they've done. Looking at what they have done rather than the imagined: they've made a badly judged commercial using outdated fund-raising tactics (that a decade ago were exactly the kind of thing that EVERY charity was doing) and have so far tried to defend it rather than putting their hands up. That's wrong, so let's hope they put it right. some simple maths my mum tort mee (pitie she didunt teech me to spel as wel): 1 Wrong + 1 Wrong = not right. L&P BD Oh PS: on the bullying thing again... Parents of kids in ASD specific schools/units: Does the school not have an 'anti-bullying policy'? Did any special school you went to say 'oh we don't need one because autistic people don't bully - they just get bullied, and as there are no neurotypical kids in the school that can't happen here'? FFT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) [*](This one is unlikely to be popular, but you can't hide from the logic) If the behaviours were successfully managed by the strategies the charity suggested then something was wrong before the charity got involved and the charity put it 'right'. That doesn't reflect very well on the child's pre-existing support network, and that must implicate the 'end of their tether' parents along with any other agencies (school etc) providing for the child's welfare. I'm sure I must be misunderstanding this, because I think there are plenty of parents who follow professional strategies, etc, and still struggle with challenging behaviour. Gosh...I know more than one parent here whose child has needed a specialist residential placement in response to challenging behaviour and mental health problems. The fact that their child has then responded well and their behaviours have been managed successfully by the school doesn't mean their parents can be 'implicated' or that it 'doesn't reflect very well' on them! Bid ETA: FaceBook is a scary place!! Although I was liiiking the Gene Hunt Appreciation Society! Edited January 27, 2009 by bid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unaltronome Report post Posted January 27, 2009 Perhaps I should rephrase: you don't need to read that much between the lines to reach the conclusion of the solution is for an AS child to be removed from his family, rather than for some parents the desperation is such or the need of a AS child are so complex as to require a specialist residential school. Dan says: ''I thought autism was like everything else I had. I felt it hard to listen. I was obnoxious...'' ''My parents found out about this place...I felt hurt. I felt betrayed of being left there...I sat alone in my room. I was really upset. But then after a few months, about a year of being there, got a bit more steadier, started being a bit more friendlier with people'' ''My carers and my teachers, I think they're great company, great people. I feel homesick when I'm away from school'' I'll add to this that some of these aspects happen for real. My son was labelled naughty (and on occasions obnoxious). Whilst I know that my ds is capable of naughty actions, just as any NT child, he is not inherently naughty, no child is. Isolation, whether in the form of stay in at break-times or otherwise, is an acceptable punishment applied by most institutions (isolation even get a special section in the education inspection act 2006). In fact, my child was so 'naughty' he endured this virtually every day, as a way to keep the bullies away but the bullies carried on playing outside. My son has fine motor skills problems and coordinations problems, so he can't write very fast and PE is hard, the solution was once again isolation: skip PE to finish the work. So when he was frustrated because he still couldn't finish his work and he had missed PE and his friends teased about it and called him names and on the rare times he made it to break time he would get pushed into bushes or down the step, his lunch spat in or his head down the toilet and he eventually either shouted or worse....guess what? He would get told ''You been told a 1000 times not to shout or kick..go to the HT''....Isolation again. I appreciate I might be reading too much into what this advert says. (2) plus I have also worked for this organisation. (2) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) I don't think going to a residesi school is being 'removed from your family'. TBH, the whole school placement procedure and the funding issue is such that a child only gets a residesi place because their needs are severe and complex. Parents being desperate actually counts for very little, and certainly would never be a successful reason for getting a specialist placement. Bid Edited January 27, 2009 by bid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I don't think Dan's school is very skilled at dealing with challenging behaviour: Family's outrage at child's arrest Jan 10 2008 by Sian Watts, Rhymney Valley Express A CHILD suffering with special needs was arrested, handcuffed and put in a cell only weeks after she had been forced to walk alone from Cardiff Bay to Penarth, her mother claims. Nakita Williams, who was only 12 at the time of the incident, was arrested at her specialist school after allegedly being involved in an altercation with a member of staff. Nakita, who has severe learning and behavioural difficulties, attends Headlands School in Penarth because of her problems. Only the previous month, it has been claimed, she had been forced off the school bus in Cardiff Bay and told to make the two-mile journey back to school alone. The 13-year-old, of Oak Tree Drive, Cefn Hengoed, claimed a teaching assistant had ordered her off the bus after she had taken her seatbelt off during a school trip. The Express reported Nakita?s family?s outrage at the time of the event, but they are now even more upset at how the situation has progressed. Talking about the arrest, Mandy Williams, Nakita?s mother, said: ?They handcuffed her, and put her in a cell. ?That broke my heart.? http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wa...91466-20331758/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I don't think Dan's school is very skilled at dealing with challenging behaviour: Family's outrage at child's arrest Jan 10 2008 by Sian Watts, Rhymney Valley Express A CHILD suffering with special needs was arrested, handcuffed and put in a cell only weeks after she had been forced to walk alone from Cardiff Bay to Penarth, her mother claims. Nakita Williams, who was only 12 at the time of the incident, was arrested at her specialist school after allegedly being involved in an altercation with a member of staff. Nakita, who has severe learning and behavioural difficulties, attends Headlands School in Penarth because of her problems. Only the previous month, it has been claimed, she had been forced off the school bus in Cardiff Bay and told to make the two-mile journey back to school alone. The 13-year-old, of Oak Tree Drive, Cefn Hengoed, claimed a teaching assistant had ordered her off the bus after she had taken her seatbelt off during a school trip. The Express reported Nakita?s family?s outrage at the time of the event, but they are now even more upset at how the situation has progressed. Talking about the arrest, Mandy Williams, Nakita?s mother, said: ?They handcuffed her, and put her in a cell. ?That broke my heart.? http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/south-wa...91466-20331758/ Hi super suzy - i did respond to this above. The newspaper article you linked to detailed the mothers account of what happened and seemed to blame the school for action taken by the police which was 'standard procedure'. It didn't give any backgrounf about the nature of the offence or the reasons why the school acted - in fact, it was the same old same old: the school effectively had no right of reply because they had to do things by the board pending the investigation while the mum could say whatever she wanted using the newspaper as her 'voice'... I don't know the rights or wrongs of the case... i only know I don't know and therefore couldn't possibly make a judgement. i did quote the mother, from the original article, as below: Mandy Williams [the mother] said: I want their punishment to be a million times worse than what my daughter went through. Blimey! And I thought 'an eye for an eye' was a bit extreme... Nice to see a parent taking such a balanced view of a decision that was made by: A spokesman for South Wales Police said: A female juvenile was arrested at Headlands School, Penarth, for a Public Order offence. She was subsequently released on police bail and has since been issued with a Final Warning notice. It is normal procedure to handcuff both adults and juveniles for their own safety and the safety of others. the police. L&P From the stuff ultranome posted it does seem - however inconvenient it might be - that this school did a pretty good job for Dan. His behaviour has improved. He's much happier. He likes the staff and teachers. He misses the school when he's not there. He's made new friends/opportunities. erm... what am i missing here? L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) I don't think going to a residesi school is being 'removed from your family'. TBH, the whole school placement procedure and the funding issue is such that a child only gets a residesi place because their needs are severe and complex. Parents being desperate actually counts for very little, and certainly would never be a successful reason for getting a specialist placement. Bid Hi bid.I understand what you are saying about needing to have severe and complex needs.However I think one important issue is worth noting.I had to read through the particular charity annual report for 2007-2008 in order to obtain the facts.The charity concerned runs several schools for children with social emotional and behavioural difficulties.They also run one school for children with physical disabilities and complex needs.However they do not run any provision that details ASD as an area of provision.Most of the work historicaly provided by this particular charity is in the area of adoption /children's homes.The emphasis has changed in recent years.However historically the client group the charity works with are parents who are unable to cope and children who are vulnerable for social reasons.This is a different area of work to the sort of residential provision usually offered to children with ASD. I would go as far as to question whether placement of a child with AS in the sort of provision offered by the charity would be considered appropriate by parents or those funding the placement.I read through the annual report this afternoon and checked several areas of the web site and saw no evidence of any awareness of ASD at all. In my area teenagers are placed in residential settings due to having social emotional difficulties and because social services feel that the home situation is such that an EBD residential placement is the only option.There is specific residential provision.However I think the client group may well be those teenagers who may need to be placed in secure accomodation if their needs are not addressed rather than those with the severe and complex needs I think you are talking about.Karen. Edited January 27, 2009 by Karen A Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 Hi super suzy - i did respond to this above. The newspaper article you linked to detailed the mothers account of what happened and seemed to blame the school for action taken by the police which was 'standard procedure'. It didn't give any backgrounf about the nature of the offence or the reasons why the school acted - in fact, it was the same old same old: the school effectively had no right of reply because they had to do things by the board pending the investigation while the mum could say whatever she wanted using the newspaper as her 'voice'... I don't know the rights or wrongs of the case... i only know I don't know and therefore couldn't possibly make a judgement. i did quote the mother, from the original article, as below: Blimey! And I thought 'an eye for an eye' was a bit extreme... Nice to see a parent taking such a balanced view of a decision that was made by: the police. L&P From the stuff ultranome posted it does seem - however inconvenient it might be - that this school did a pretty good job for Dan. His behaviour has improved. He's much happier. He likes the staff and teachers. He misses the school when he's not there. He's made new friends/opportunities. erm... what am i missing here? L&P BD I thought I would say that I am not passing comment on the issues raised above.However I think the points I make above are worth noting.As a strong advocate of appropriate provision based on an accurate assessment of individual need it does worry me that this school is a school for children with Social Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.The charity does not mention ASD anywhere except for in the latest campaign....I have looked...a search on the web site under ''ASD'' brought up nothing. Maybe it is me but it does concern me a bit....I would expect if it was significant enough issue for the charity to be using it to adverise their work there would be some evidence of their work somewhere on the site.Karen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 BD, Sorry I'm making a complete hash of presenting my arguments. I've spent the last 10 years honing my rhetorical skills on the washing machine and children. I'm very good at organising bed time though. A superb orator that can counter any arguments as to why bedtime must be postponed... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 27, 2009 BD, Sorry I'm making a complete hash of presenting my arguments. I've spent the last 10 years honing my rhetorical skills on the washing machine and children. I'm very good at organising bed time though. A superb orator that can counter any arguments as to why bedtime must be postponed... Ah, I'm sure there's more than a few here who'd appreciate some pointers! And you're not making a hash of presenting your argument - I'm just saying there's always two sides. The mum might be absolutely right about the school, but it's impossible to know from one side of the story. By the same token, Dan's positive report on the efficacy of that school's system for him doesn't necessarily suggest that it's a model that'd work for everyone. L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 I'll have another shot now he's doing bedtime tonight (he's not v good at it !) The ad isn't really about autism - it's about the rebranding of the National Childrens' Home into Action For Children, and fundraising. Autism is nothing more than a tool for them to make their point. And this is what really upset me. When I've my three (or four? )kids on the go I don't have time to sit down and think about what an ad means or what it's trying to do - it's just a collection of images, maybe a bit of music and a few half remembered words. If I didn't know anything about autism - I'd probably just come away with the idea that autism was JUST a problem to be ripped up and stamped into the ground. I'm only speaking for myself here - I realise that I'm very, very lucky, I've never had to beg for services from reluctant schools and to struggle to get help. We are surrounded by University types and quite frankly the ones that aren't autistic are just plain loopy. I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say about a third of my husband's colleagues have children that are on the spectrum. Oh, I'm totally failing to make my point again. What I'm saying is, if you've the money for private schools, tutors and domestic help, and an understanding of high functioning autism and the right environment - Asperger's Syndrome isn't a scary monster that needs ripping up and tramping into the ground. I still haven't made my point; I've got to go now and finish bedtime (It's ten to ten and they're running rings around him ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 27, 2009 Please take no notice of the post above, I'm still not making sense :-( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 (edited) BD, Sorry I'm making a complete hash of presenting my arguments. I've spent the last 10 years honing my rhetorical skills on the washing machine and children. I'm very good at organising bed time though. A superb orator that can counter any arguments as to why bedtime must be postponed... <'> <'> <'> I will own up Super Suzy.I too have spent the last ten years honing my rhetorical skillls on the washing machine and children. Two adults in our house and we have not mastered bedtime yet....neither of us are good at it. Edited January 27, 2009 by Karen A Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 27, 2009 . The ad isn't really about autism - it's about the rebranding of the National Childrens' Home into Action For Children, and fundraising. Autism is nothing more than a tool for them to make their point I just wanted to say that I understand the point you are making Suzy.I have been thinking similar things myself.It is a fundraising advertisement to promote a charity at the end of the day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 28, 2009 I'll have another shot now he's doing bedtime tonight (he's not v good at it !) The ad isn't really about autism - it's about the rebranding of the National Childrens' Home into Action For Children, and fundraising. Autism is nothing more than a tool for them to make their point. And this is what really upset me. When I've my three (or four? )kids on the go I don't have time to sit down and think about what an ad means or what it's trying to do - it's just a collection of images, maybe a bit of music and a few half remembered words. If I didn't know anything about autism - I'd probably just come away with the idea that autism was JUST a problem to be ripped up and stamped into the ground. I'm only speaking for myself here - I realise that I'm very, very lucky, I've never had to beg for services from reluctant schools and to struggle to get help. We are surrounded by University types and quite frankly the ones that aren't autistic are just plain loopy. I'm not kidding or exaggerating when I say about a third of my husband's colleagues have children that are on the spectrum. Oh, I'm totally failing to make my point again. What I'm saying is, if you've the money for private schools, tutors and domestic help, and an understanding of high functioning autism and the right environment - Asperger's Syndrome isn't a scary monster that needs ripping up and tramping into the ground. I still haven't made my point; I've got to go now and finish bedtime (It's ten to ten and they're running rings around him ) No, I think you've made your point okay, and totally agree about the impression the ad could give the casual viewer I disagree, though, about the final bit, 'cos while all those support things you mention can make a huge difference, autism (including HFA and aspie) isn't only a social/societal response thing. But it's also not a scary monster that needs ripping up and tramping... What's that old song about eliminating the negatives and accentuating the positives? To do that you have to acknowledge both. Hope their happily in the land of nod - which is my next port of call! L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zaman Report post Posted January 28, 2009 I'll have another shot now he's doing bedtime tonight (he's not v good at it !) The ad isn't really about autism - it's about the rebranding of the National Childrens' Home into Action For Children, and fundraising. Autism is nothing more than a tool for them to make their point. I agree with you. Although I think that they would probably also argue it is about awareness raising, albeit done from an uninformed/misguided point of view. I think that there is a real divide, and very little interaction, at the large charities between the people that do the marketing/fundraising and those that work with service users. On the work of AFC - the largest area that AFC works in is family centres. The work there tends to be a real mixture of services, such as working with parents whose children are at risk, or running young carers projects after school. That is usually where they do the work around autism - so it probably won't appear in the annual report as those projects are usually sub-projects as it were. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 28, 2009 I agree with you. Although I think that they would probably also argue it is about awareness raising, albeit done from an uninformed/misguided point of view. I think that there is a real divide, and very little interaction, at the large charities between the people that do the marketing/fundraising and those that work with service users. On the work of AFC - the largest area that AFC works in is family centres. The work there tends to be a real mixture of services, such as working with parents whose children are at risk, or running young carers projects after school. That is usually where they do the work around autism - so it probably won't appear in the annual report as those projects are usually sub-projects as it were. Hi.I understand the point you are making regarding why the work around ASD may not show up in the annual report.However I still feel concerned.I do not in anway intend to suggest that the charity does not do some excellent work with young carers,vulnerable young people and children with disabilities.However I think personally that with support for young carers or support for parents where ASD is an issue the support needs to be specifically related to ASD.In my area another children's charity provides excellent specific input.The input includes early intervention and play activities for very young children where ASD is suspected ,leasure activities for children and teenagers with ASD on Saturdays and two sibs groups for sibs of children with ASD.I am not certain that all activities are funded purely by the charity concerned some funding probably comes from the local authority however it is the charity centre that is the base for most of the work in the area.Out of interest this morning I did a quick search on that charity web page and came up with 21 references relating to ASD.Now if that charity had been using ASD in a campaign advertising the work it does then it would not be a concern for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted January 28, 2009 Hi all.I think I have the a significant point to make in the debate.I will quote from the charity web site ''Today xxxxx as it is now known ? is a very special place. It is a residential and day school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, like autism. There, these children get the specialist care and education they need to get the best start in life.''. I think the fact that the charity states in its publicity ''for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties,like autism '' tells me all I need to know about the level of knowledge about ASD within the charity. I am upsett as a parent who has spent the last three years working to obtain appropriate support for a child who has AS who was in effect labled as having emotional and behavioural difficulties due to lack of professional awareness. Karen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 28, 2009 There's a new anti advertisement YouTube video here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6U3XWoCRY&...c.blogspot.com/ I think it makes some good points - and I'm beginning to feel very sorry for Dan, getting caught up in this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted January 28, 2009 There's a new anti advertisement YouTube video here: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6U3XWoCRY&...c.blogspot.com/ I think it makes some good points - and I'm beginning to feel very sorry for Dan, getting caught up in this Yes, it does make some good points, but it makes many, many assumptions too and it also portrays Dan as a 'victim'... And unless I'm missing something it does all of that without Dan's involvement whatsoever - which is much, much worse than what the charity did, regardless of whether their assumptions about Dan's victim status are right or wrong. They also dragged a girl and the family of that girl even further into limelight - but i guess they justify that by claiming the moral highground. The original advert was ill conceived - this is just 'grubby'. 1 wrong + 1 wrong = Not Right. L&P BD Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Super Suzy Report post Posted January 28, 2009 (edited) Judging by their latest video, their not worried about offending sensibilities: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=...oid=47154931157 There are obviously a lot of very angry people around. Edited January 28, 2009 by Super Suzy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
