Jump to content
Super Suzy

Little Autistic Monster AD

Recommended Posts

Lovely :)

 

When they say 'this is a true story' who's story is it? Is it Dan's, or theirs? If theirs, they've treated Dan far more vilely than any of the people they're attacking. With the stance they're taking (autistic people's rights) I hope to god they don't view him as a legitimate target - But then i'm not really comfortable with 'collateral damage' either...

Pot and kettle, but at least the ad execs were talking for the clients that hired them rather than claiming to speak for (i.e.) my son.

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited by baddad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think someone needs to lance the boil quickly.

 

It's just going to turn into tabloid muck-raking that'll benefit no-one.

 

Now the people offended by the first ad have their own facebook group.

 

Why didn't they just come here for a few hours see what people thought before going ahead?. I mean they have consumer focus groups to discuss new labels for baked beans. I once had to have most of my hair cut off and the rest turned mousy brown, cause a bunch of housewives wouldn't accept a blonde with long hair pretending to iron. :wacko:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think someone needs to lance the boil quickly.

 

It's just going to turn into tabloid muck-raking that'll benefit no-one.

 

Now the people offended by the first ad have their own facebook group.

 

 

Agree with all of that - which is pretty much where i came in (no interest in facebook fueled lynchings)so it sounds like a good point to make my exit too!

As for blondes ironing - I think they can, but they just need supervising if the phone happens to ring at the same time... :whistle::whistle:

 

L&P

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appologise If I have missed any points as I have ADHD and have only really skim read all the replies since mine and got a bit lost to be honest but I do want to add my thoughts.

If my comments are out of context, sorry, this hapens to me a lot.

 

My concern is thart I work in a school, and I don't know why but in our ks1 we seem to have a good handfull of children with ASD/ADHD issues. Only 2 of them are presently being assessed.

The rest of them are just doing their best to fit in.

My concern is that when they get cross, they are percieved as naughtly and staff roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders.

When they are not doing the right thing because they wern't aware of what they are suposed to be doing, they get a warning when they only need an explanation.

If they get silly or restless they are also warned instead of making the situation calmer and less distracting.

I see missed oportunities for these children to show off the things that they are good at and 'promote their strengths' to themselves and their peers.

 

It seems that the child and their parents are blamed rather than simply recognising that they think diferently and helping them to adjust.

 

I can't remember the organisation that did the advert!!! But Perhaps this is what they were thinking about. Demonstrating that there are other reasons for misbehaviour and that they do help.

 

My son percieves that CAMHS helps him. But what he doesn't realise is what goes on behind scene for helping his teachers and myself better understand how to make life easier for him. Ownership of his own 'issues/differences' helps him deal with it as one of his dificulties is blaming everything on everyone else and as much as the people around him can try to reduce these situations he is the one who will be moving out into the worl who will not be trained to help him.

He is learning srtategies and concepts to help him self.

 

I think I could see how this advert focuses on missbehaviour and the concept that it can be corrected easier than it can but the aim of the advert was to suggest that the child was not coping and what the organisation did helped.

It was not an autism awareness advert and it is not their fault that people have a poor veiw of autism.

 

You can't do that without pointing out the negatives.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I appologise If I have missed any points as I have ADHD and have only really skim read all the replies since mine and got a bit lost to be honest but I do want to add my thoughts.

If my comments are out of context, sorry, this hapens to me a lot.

 

My concern is thart I work in a school, and I don't know why but in our ks1 we seem to have a good handfull of children with ASD/ADHD issues. Only 2 of them are presently being assessed.

The rest of them are just doing their best to fit in.

My concern is that when they get cross, they are percieved as naughtly and staff roll their eyes and shrug their shoulders.

When they are not doing the right thing because they wern't aware of what they are suposed to be doing, they get a warning when they only need an explanation.

If they get silly or restless they are also warned instead of making the situation calmer and less distracting.

I see missed oportunities for these children to show off the things that they are good at and 'promote their strengths' to themselves and their peers.

 

It seems that the child and their parents are blamed rather than simply recognising that they think diferently and helping them to adjust.

 

I can't remember the organisation that did the advert!!! But Perhaps this is what they were thinking about. Demonstrating that there are other reasons for misbehaviour and that they do help.

 

My son percieves that CAMHS helps him. But what he doesn't realise is what goes on behind scene for helping his teachers and myself better understand how to make life easier for him. Ownership of his own 'issues/differences' helps him deal with it as one of his dificulties is blaming everything on everyone else and as much as the people around him can try to reduce these situations he is the one who will be moving out into the worl who will not be trained to help him.

He is learning srtategies and concepts to help him self.

 

I think I could see how this advert focuses on missbehaviour and the concept that it can be corrected easier than it can but the aim of the advert was to suggest that the child was not coping and what the organisation did helped.

It was not an autism awareness advert and it is not their fault that people have a poor veiw of autism.

 

You can't do that without pointing out the negatives.

 

Hi.The difficulty for me is that the charity allowed autism to be mentioned in the advert when they have little or no expert knowledge about ASD.The advert was supposed to be used to back a new campaign about better provision for 6-13 year olds.In the campaign material on the web in which Dan is included ASD is not even mentioned.

In effect the campaign is about how Dan was helped to deal with managing his challenging behaviour.The whole campaign may now well be derailed because they did not recognise that most people within the ASD community consider ASD to be a disability.

I think the charity should take some responsibility for promoting a missinformed view of ASD.They are a charity that says they are a voice for children including those with a disability.I think ultimately the charity will pay dearly for their mistake.A major campaign which probably took months in planning may well be completely derailed by bad publicity and lobby groups.The ones who will pay most dearly unfortunately will be the many children and families who rely on the support of the charity who are amongst the most vulnerable in society.Karen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think ultimately the charity will pay dearly for their mistake.A major campaign which probably took months in planning may well be completely derailed by bad publicity and lobby groups.The ones who will pay most dearly unfortunately will be the many children and families who rely on the support of the charity who are amongst the most vulnerable in society.Karen.

 

What a waste of money and what a lost opportunity!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.The charity have posted what I feel is a very fair response to feedback on their web site.I thought I would post a link as it is good to give them an oppurtunity to give their perspective.It appears that the charity may have more awareness of the issues than I have given them credit for.Karen.

http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/blogs.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.The charity have posted what I feel is a very fair response to feedback on their web site.I thought I would post a link as it is good to give them an oppurtunity to give their perspective.It appears that the charity may have more awareness of the issues than I have given them credit for.Karen.

http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/blogs.aspx

 

 

Tony Attwood disagrees. He's just issued a statement saying the boy "Dan" 'appears brainwashed'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!!! did I just write what I just read?!!

 

Which just goes to prove that professionals are more than capable of jumping on bandwagons if it suits them. What a hateful spiteful nasty way for a professional to talk about someone who has a different view to them.

Sounds to me like our Tone trying to get hip and down wiv the autistic yoof, and it shows no consideration for the boy whatsoever :shame:

That said, I should give him the benefit of the doubt, 'cos in this soundbite culture in which we live he could be being quoted out of context.

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited by baddad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Attwood disagrees. He's just issued a statement saying the boy "Dan" 'appears brainwashed'

 

Well he didn't exactly say that. It was a particular phrase he was referring to and he was a bit more guarded.

 

This is what he apparently said via an email to smeone else:

 

I am very concerned that the advert gives a message that children with autism and Asperger's syndrome are dangerous and potentially disturbed.

 

When the child refers to "correct errors in my behaviour" this seems to imply 'brain washing' and a sense of guilt for how he behaved.

 

I'm inclined to agree with his comment. The phrase doesn't sound like something a child would spontaneously use. Where did the child get the notion of correcting errors from? The adults in charge surely. So I can see what he's getting at I think though that the term "brainwashing" is emotionally loaded and such an ill judged comment from a respected professional will probably only inflame the situation further. Who can diagnose a child on the basis of a soundbite and what right has he to do so?

 

This is not so much "Dan's story" any more it has been rewritten by everyone who ever had an opinion about ASD, child behaviour, or schools. And in the meantime the original, basically sound message of the charity has been obscured.

 

K x

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this whole fiasco just highlights the error, IMO, of using children in this sort of 'X's Story' format...I've never liked it for all the reasons now unfolding with this ad campaign :sick:

 

Bid :(

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that the current campaign is the first time in the charity's history that they have carried out an initiative to raise the charity profile via media advertising.

It turns out it has not gone well from the outset.The first TV advert went out early in the New Year.It concerned a young carer who cared for her mum who had multiple sclerosis.Evidently some individuals who have MS were unhappy with that advertisment too and complained to the charity.Opinions were very mixed regarding the advert on one of the MS charity web sites.

There must be an individual somewhere dearly wishing they had never come up with the idea of a TV campaign. :tearful::tearful: Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should ask them what they think:

 

www.babycreative.com

 

Email addresses removed by moderator. Publishing individuals email addresses without their permission in against forum rules.

 

 

They've probably never had to deal with angry mummies before. (Or autistic people)

 

Professor Paul Cooper, who is a Chartered Psychologist and one of the UK's leading experts on children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, said

 

that the cartoon depicted 'Conduct Disorder, not autism.

The author and autism reseacher Barabar Jacobs said:

 

I complete my PhD in June, and will then write my next book, in which I shall tell what I've learnt about these autistic children, their parents, and their teachers, from my research. I shall have no hesitation in condemning the practices for autistic children within residential schools run by AFC, on the evidence of this advertisement, and shall use it in all my public and academic presentations as an example of bad practice.

Edited by mossgrove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which just goes to prove that professionals are more than capable of jumping on bandwagons if it suits them. What a hateful spiteful nasty way for a professional to talk about someone who has a different view to them.

Sounds to me like our Tone trying to get hip and down wiv the autistic yoof, and it shows no consideration for the boy whatsoever :shame:

That said, I should give him the benefit of the doubt, 'cos in this soundbite culture in which we live he could be being quoted out of context.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

Hi.I think it is fairly likely that Tony was approached for an interview in a manner that might influence the response he gave. :unsure: Partly because somone somewhere not exactly neutral in the debate has been thanked for approaching him. :whistle:

So don't be too hard on him.He may not have been aware of what he was being dropped in.Karen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The author and autism reseacher Barabar Jacobs said:

 

I complete my PhD in June, and will then write my next book, in which I shall tell what I've learnt about these autistic children, their parents, and their teachers, from my research. I shall have no hesitation in condemning the practices for autistic children within residential schools run by AFC, on the evidence of this advertisement, and shall use it in all my public and academic presentations as an example of bad practice.

 

Sorry, but I think her attitude is absolutely appalling!

 

She will publically condemn a number of schools that she has never visited on the basis of one clumsy, ill-thought-out ad?!

 

Bid :(

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.I think it is fairly likely that Tony was approached for an interview in a manner that might influence the response he gave. :unsure: Partly because somone somewhere not exactly neutral in the debate has been thanked for approaching him. :whistle:

So don't be too hard on him.He may not have been aware of what he was being dropped in.Karen.

 

 

Ah... as I said, in this age of soundbites, that out of context thing is really easy... I really hate the fact that somebody these days can use the wrong 'word' or whatever and that gets hi-jacked to gainsay everything else they've said. It seems to be a sign of the times - particularly related to the internet, but then i suppose a 'letter to the editor' that focussed totally on one word or phrase in an article would have never got published. Tinternet makes it easy to spin anything however you want, because once someones reproduced the out of context phrase peeps rarely go back to look at the original.

 

Ho hum... must be getting old (nay nay and thrice nay!)

 

:D

 

Oh - I second the above too, unless barbara jacobs has been quoted out of context.

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Professor Paul Cooper, who is a Chartered Psychologist and one of the UK's leading experts on children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, said

 

that the cartoon depicted 'Conduct Disorder, not autism.

 

Arrgghh!! :wallbash:

 

And now we have an 'expert' diagnosing from a cartoon!! :angry:

 

This is all absolutely sickening!

 

Bid :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I think her attitude is absolutely appalling!

 

She will publically condemn a number of schools that she has never visited on the basis of one clumsy, ill-thought-out ad?!

 

Bid :(

 

It is not just the schools.The schools are one very small part of the work the charity does.The majority of the work is in Family centres,adoption,fostering, prisons and support for young carers.All of the work the charity does could now be called into question which is very sad indeed.As I said before the people who will be most impacted will be the extremely vulnerable young people who are supported by the charity which is tragic. :tearful::tearful::tearful:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've removed the last two posts and edited another which contained personal remarks about Barbara Jacobs who is a member of this forum.

 

Please attack the opinions and not the individual who expressed them.

 

Thankyou :)

 

Kathryn

Edited by Kathryn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the charity was founded by, and is still largely supported, by Methodists it was always opposed to spending money on advertising as it believed that the money it raised was better off being spent on the children, young people and families they support. I don't know why they have now decided to advertise, other than I would guess, to widen the net in raising the money.

 

I saw the young carers ad that ran after xmas, and I have to say that I didn't like it as it sounded too pat, and felt more of a composite than how I would expect the voice of a child to sound - in the sentence structure and use of language. I felt the same with Dan, as I suspect that in both cases a case study was given to the ad agency who rewrote it to use more emotive language.

 

From my understanding and experience of the charity, I would applaude the work they do, but condemn their ability to commission advertising!

 

Z

Edited by zaman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the charity was founded by, and is still largely supported, by Methodists it was always opposed to spending money on advertising as it believed that the money it raised was better off being spent on the children, young people and families they support. I don't know why they have now decided to advertise, other than I would guess, to widen the net in raising the money.

 

I saw the young carers ad that ran after xmas, and I have to say that I didn't like it as it sounded too pat, and felt more of a composite than how I would expect the voice of a child to sound - in the sentence structure and use of language. I felt the same with Dan, as I suspect that in both cases a case study was given to the ad agency who rewrote it to use more emotive language.

 

From my understanding and experience of the charity, I would applaude the work they do, but condemn their ability to commission advertising!

 

Z

 

Hi.I think it is probably a sad sign of the times.If everyone else has advertising then the only way to keep up is to join them.I remember the days when this exact charity collected money by having boxes that families put a few pence in every week.They had representatives who popped round to visit collectors now and again to pick up donations.Charities cannot survive like that now.Other charities have high profile campaigns. :tearful:

Karen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like Action For Children has filed a false copyright claim(under terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and it's UK counter-part, Fair Use covers parody AND criticism for use of copyrighted material). YouTube is obligated to remove the video without investigation pending a counter-notice being filed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It looks like Action For Children has filed a false copyright claim(under terms of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and it's UK counter-part, Fair Use covers parody AND criticism for use of copyrighted material). YouTube is obligated to remove the video without investigation pending a counter-notice being filed.

 

That surprised me. I had thought the option must have been open to them (the 'protesters' were hijacking copyrighted material) but assumed they hadn't done it because of the spin that would be attached to their quite reasonable action...

I also suspect that if they ever get as far as personal action against any of the individuals concerned we'll quickly see a very different sort of manipulation of certain stereotypes and 'negative' (except when it suits) assumptions.

 

Oh - just to clarify: I'm not endorsing or defending in any way the content of the advert. I just think the reaction to it was far nastier than the ad itself.

 

L&P

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My eldest saw the banned video and said "it's the Boom!" - whatever that means.

 

Asking questions about a charity's child protection policies isn't nasty - it's the right thing to do.

 

Asking why a school supposedly for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed children, so skilled in handling children that it was necessary to call the police and have a girl with special needs arrested, isn't nasty, mean-spirited or unhelpful.

 

I though calling the police was the last resort for desperate parents - not child care specialists.

 

Another video featuring the same images hasn't beet affected - why?

 

Because action the charity isn't bothered about the use of copyright images - they are worried about a video that in my eldest's words "tells you what you need to know".

 

Our children aren't toys for ad agencies and charities to play with for their own ends.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Asking questions about a charity's child protection policies isn't nasty - it's the right thing to do.

 

Asking why a school supposedly for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed children, so skilled in handling children that it was necessary to call the police and have a girl with special needs arrested, isn't nasty, mean-spirited or unhelpful.

 

I though calling the police was the last resort for desperate parents - not child care specialists.

 

Another video featuring the same images hasn't beet affected - why?

 

Because action the charity isn't bothered about the use of copyright images - they are worried about a video that in my eldest's words "tells you what you need to know".

 

Our children aren't toys for ad agencies and charities to play with for their own ends.

 

No, asking questions is perfectly reasonable - but thats not what the hijacked images were used for. They were used to put words into the mouth of an autistic individual without his consent and to present him in a totally unacceptable way. If you find anything in any of my posts that suggests 'asking questions' is unreasonable point me to it and I'll ask the mods to edit it out.

I think if the 'last resort' is the best practical solution it should be the 'last resort' of any carer - whether a professional working in a school or otherwise. I don't know what the circumstances were, so i'm not prepared to make any assumptions about whether the schools action was right or wrong. The questions are being asked in an independent enquiry (according to the police spokesman you quoted in your post) and I think that sort of professional enqury is far more appropriate than Milly-Tant online lynchmobs.

 

I don't know why the charity has chosen to stop the use of images in another campaign, but presumably they didn't consider it as inflamatory or unreasonable. That seems reasonable to me.

 

The video's you linked to did not tell me 'what I needed to know' - they spitefully exploited the situation and the individual they claimed to represent to their own end in a far more aggressive, judgemental and patronising way than the oiginal advert ever did. Actually, in that way it did tell me what i 'needed to know' but I'm fairly sure i drew very different conclusions to your eldest son.

 

I totally agree on the last - but would ad the proviso that they are neither toys or tools for exploitation by self serving lobbyists without consent. Like it or not, the boy at the centre of this campaign believes that this charity have helped him and consented to his work being included in the campaign. He did not give consent for his contribution to be used in the 'lashback' campaign or to be represented in the manner in which he was represented. I wonder if your eldest would feel the same way about the 'truth we need to know' if he had personally been represented in the way that the original boy was, or if you would be so keen to support it had he been so?

 

L&P

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I though calling the police was the last resort for desperate parents - not child care specialists.

 

I can't comment on the particular story here because I don't know the details, but speaking in general...

 

No. If it was appropriate we would call the police where I work.

 

We have a duty of care to the child displaying the challenging behaviour, but also to all the other children in our care.

 

Finally, we are not actually paid to be hurt, although we do take a fair amount and accept it as part of the job.

 

Bid :)

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we are not actually paid to be hurt, although we do take a fair amount and accept it as part of the job.

 

Bid :)

 

at last! someone that knows what they're talking about!

 

It would've helped the situation if the boy's school wasn't named. I can understand having to call the police when things get serious. But just the knowledge of this incident is just such bad PR - "Girl with severe learning disabilities, arrested, handcuffed and thrown into a police cell" - even if she was an actual little monster - it still looks terrible to the outside world.

 

It comes back to what I've said before - most people aren't as well informed as the rest of us and they just take the headlines and don't think/consider further.

 

The boy's anonymity should have been protected absolutely. I'm suprised someone hasn't made a complaint about child protection.

 

Just not good for anyone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
at last! someone that knows what they're talking about!

 

It would've helped the situation if the boy's school wasn't named. I can understand having to call the police when things get serious. But just the knowledge of this incident is just such bad PR - "Girl with severe learning disabilities, arrested, handcuffed and thrown into a police cell" - even if she was an actual little monster - it still looks terrible to the outside world.

 

It comes back to what I've said before - most people aren't as well informed as the rest of us and they just take the headlines and don't think/consider further.

 

The boy's anonymity should have been protected absolutely. I'm suprised someone hasn't made a complaint about child protection.

 

Just not good for anyone.

 

Hi suzy -

Glad you found someone here who you felt 'knows what they're talking about'

 

:whistle:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi suzy -

Glad you found someone here who you felt 'knows what they're talking about'

 

:whistle:

 

What can I say, BD ;)

 

Bid :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im shocked that it is felt appropriate to involve the police if a child displays challenging behaviour. What on earth can the police do other than use physical force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im shocked that it is felt appropriate to involve the police if a child displays challenging behaviour. What on earth can the police do other than use physical force?

 

 

They can protect third parties - I'm assuming child means 'nearly adult' in these cases i.e. someone who could not be easily and safely restrained and who could be a possible threat to others - and ensure that the person being restrained is restrained as appropriately (and with the minimum restraint required) as possible. In these days of increasing litigation, I'm sure too that there are further considerations for service providers who may well have felt perfectly capable of dealing with such situations in the past. I'm not saying that it's good that police get involved or that it should be anything other than an absolute last resort, but there are all sorts of reasons, good and bad, why involving them as a last resort would be appropriate.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Edited by baddad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im shocked that it is felt appropriate to involve the police if a child displays challenging behaviour. What on earth can the police do other than use physical force?

 

But in any school, what else is the appropriate response if, for example, one young person stabs another or a member of staff with say a dinner knife? :(

 

The duty of care is equal for all the children affected by an incident.

 

(I should clarify that I haven't experienced any incident this serious, although a colleague of mine did have a young person come at them with a dinner knife :( The police weren't called.)

 

Yesterday at my DDs' school there was an incident in which a teenage lad was running through the school waving a metal pole and threatening to kill someone. The school was evacuated and the police were called...an entirely appropriate response in my opinion.

 

Bid :)

 

Sorry...gone :offtopic: ??

Edited by bid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But in any school, what else is the appropriate response if, for example, one young person stabs another or a member of staff with say a dinner knife? :(

 

The duty of care is equal for all the children affected by an incident.

 

(I should clarify that I haven't experienced any incident this serious, although a colleague of mine did have a young person come at them with a dinner knife :( The police weren't called.)

 

Yesterday at my DDs' school there was an incident in which a teenage lad was running through the school waving a metal pole and threatening to kill someone. The school was evacuated and the police were called...an entirely appropriate response in my opinion.

 

Bid :)

 

Sorry...gone :offtopic: ??

 

I fully agree. My eldest has been excluded all week because of 2 assaults on staff members on Monday. He very nearly shoved his teacher down a flight of concrete stairs- what if she hadn't been steadied by another pupil? If she had tumbled down, and was injured (badly, in all likelihood) then the police would have been called. And I would have supported that decision. If my son doesn't learn how to control his anger rather better, then I dread to think what he might be capable of in a few years. I do not expect a teacher and a handful of other children to accept being assaulted. Quite apart from anything else, if he tries that in the wider community, he will be handcuffed and huckled as quick as a wink, so I hope he learns quickly or this kind of a traumatic experience will be one he might face.

I'm not a fan of this particular Ad campaign, for reasons many of you have already posted, but I accept that the charity had good intentions. I just wonder how well informed on ASD's the ad agency they hired were?.... Briefs can be just that (and I'm not talking undergarments either!)

I'd just like to make a point- somebody posted that in their opinion, ASD specific schools are preferable placements for kids on the spectrum.

I have to disagree, not to be churlish, but that's certainly not the case for my son. In fact, the Head of the ASD specific unit he attended told me, upon his subsequent transfer to an EBSD school, that my son was '..nothing like any of the other children we've ever had here', ergo he '...could NOT be on the spectrum at all!'

Simply put, they were not used to dealing with kids with AS who displayed some emotions aggressively, and they could not meet his needs. Up to this point, the ESBD unit have managed beautifully.....I just hope we can get back on track.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to disagree, not to be churlish, but that's certainly not the case for my son. In fact, the Head of the ASD specific unit he attended told me, upon his subsequent transfer to an EBSD school, that my son was '..nothing like any of the other children we've ever had here', ergo he '...could NOT be on the spectrum at all!'

Simply put, they were not used to dealing with kids with AS who displayed some emotions aggressively, and they could not meet his needs. Up to this point, the ESBD unit have managed beautifully.....I just hope we can get back on track.

 

and I would say that is a reflection on that particular unit not on ASD specific schools in general. My son's AS specific school certainly could cope with VERY challenging behaviour.

 

Just as some EBD schools do undersand ASD, some ASD schools do cope with challenging behaviour. That is why it is important to visit any school being considered, to see if it is right for YOUR child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and I would say that is a reflection on that particular unit not on ASD specific schools in general. My son's AS specific school certainly could cope with VERY challenging behaviour.

 

Just as some EBD schools do undersand ASD, some ASD schools do cope with challenging behaviour. That is why it is important to visit any school being considered, to see if it is right for YOUR child.

 

 

Quite!! (S'what I meant, kinda thing, but I get lost in my rambling posts and forget that salience is key!!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take the point of the poster above who said some special needs 'pupils' could be as old as 19. Imagine a 19 year old in a classroom, having a really bad day...

 

So far the protest group have got on board, a Trustee of the NAS, a Council member of the NAS, Tony Attwood, Dr Mitzi Waltz, a handful of PhD's, a couple of JKP's authors and a few FRS and a few media types...

 

I think this is a bit more than the ranting of a few radicals.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far the protest group have got on board, a Trustee of the NAS, a Council member of the NAS, Tony Attwood, Dr Mitzi Waltz, a handful of PhD's, a couple of JKP's authors and a few FRS and a few media types...

 

I think this is a bit more than the ranting of a few radicals.

 

 

And hopefully all those you've named will be able to point out the rank hypocrisy that has unfolded so far and bring things back to the topic in hand - i.e. that the advert is a misprepresentation and the charity should have taken a bit more care over what they allowed to be aired.

So far, I think the views expressed on the forum have been 100% consistent with the original points raised, and those points are not viewed as 'ranting' or 'radical'. The 'ranting radical' element arrived (and I'm using your terminology there - certainly nobody on the forum has expressed the view that all of the people who found tha advert objectionable are 'ranting radicals') with the hi-jacking of the original ad and the complete disregard shown for the boy who contributed to it and the sweeping assumptions, generalisations and and outright nastiness shown by those (unbelievably) trying to claim the moral high ground.

 

I hope you don't mind me asking, but do you have some sort of personal involvemnent in this 'backlash' campaign? The reason I ask is because in your opening post about the facebook backlash you said you hadn't joined, but have in this thread repeatedly posted direct links to that 'campaign', and even direct links to the advertising agency etc for people to e-mail them. That doesn't seem uninvolved to me - in fact it seems the very opposite. Not that it matters either way of course, but it would just be useful to know whether your interest is in discussing the campaign or promoting it?

 

L&P

 

BD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take the point of the poster above who said some special needs 'pupils' could be as old as 19. Imagine a 19 year old in a classroom, having a really bad day...

 

So far the protest group have got on board, a Trustee of the NAS, a Council member of the NAS, Tony Attwood, Dr Mitzi Waltz, a handful of PhD's, a couple of JKP's authors and a few FRS and a few media types...

 

I think this is a bit more than the ranting of a few radicals.

 

Hi I think the getting on board being done by the protest group is the concern for me.My OH noted the advert last night and asked if I had complained to the advertising standards authority.If an individual has a concern then they are perfectly entitled to complain.If other individuals have an issue then they can also complain.However I do have reservations about various professionals being contacted and in effect being lobied to join a protest group.

If the organisation was a company then it would be more understandable.As it is it is a charity that is being attacked.In the long term one implication is that companies will be more reluctant to support chrities because it will not be worth the bad pr if things go wrong.In the current financial climate charities need all the support they can get. :tearful: Karen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...