you no longer beg for, you now cite for by right, straight answers against stupid rules

Here is how you do, on grounds that come from autism work too.

To Livingston Designer Outlet, a central shopping mall there, today Jul 16:

Almondvale Boulevard is a perfectly publicly open street. I walked round the corner to check.

Exit is not like entry. The emergency conditions around entry, around controlling numbers and hand sanitising and enforcing masks, are well known and everyone can see that they would justify limiting entry to the points where those things are organised. Entry enters us into the situation of your shoppers' health. Exit does not. Exit is our return to the outside world and simply ceasing to be your concern.

Hence, no health protection is achieved at all by forbidding exit at any unlocked door. Indeed oppositely, that keeps us mingled inside your premises for longer. If a person sent from one exit to another is infective, they infect the folks around them during that unnecessary walk. Frustration and rational anger caused by it will increase involuntary face touching, and with Covid, that increases both infectivity and personal infection risk.

Nothing is achieved at all, and your shoppers' health is risked more, by forbidding exit at the door on the corner of Almondvale Boulevard and calling it only a staff exit. It does not lead to a special staff space, it leads straight onto a public street that is open. Ordering us not to exit there constitutes confining the public unexpectedly inside a potentially infective space against our will. There is no functional or health difference whatever between staff and shoppers leaving the premises at that exit.

If you have a guy there preventing entry, you are perfectly able to count us out there if that matters, which it appears not to as I could see no one counting us out at the Almondvale Avenue entrance.

Hence it would be an act against public health, suable by anyone infected as a result, to put on any airs and graces whatever of having in theory the power to decide to do it: and to make any other response whatever including none than to stop this oppression. The following particular responses, in taking part in autism work I have flagged up as being exploitations of vulnerabilities, then cited that because of the vulnerable groups' invisibility, that in fact establishes that these responses can never be given to any of the public at all, about anything ever. On Covid related matters, it also would be suable acts against public health to give any of these responses, instead of automatically only the answer of upholding personal fairness:

• Be noncommittal,
• Use the word "unfortunately" or any synonyms of it,
• Deny that they should do anything or answer substantively until an indefinitely deferrable eventuality,
• Ignore, or omit to answer, any of the entire content of the evidence available from the person being answered,
• Declare unilaterally that any step not reasoningly accepted as upholding personal fairness is "their decision",
• "I'm sorry but .." or "I'm afraid .." or "I/we note your comments..." or "I understand how you feel but..." a tough bruising assertion of decision not to fix it,
• Declare unilaterally that any of these types of answer, or any answer not standing up to reasoning, is a last word,
• Assert that these are what people will do,
• Give no answer at all because of being prevented from giving these types of answer,
• Declare any matter of fairness closed, or unilaterally close down contact, before its entire content has been fairly answered, and at a stage preventing this from being ascertained from logical scrutiny of answers given.

It is always right to end with that notice, passing it on until its observation by all bodies engaging with the public becomes generally established.

Maurice Frank

Jul 17. This is not an answer. This attempts to play the device of decision assertion while blaming the government for it. They are perfectly capable of including the corner exit in a footfall count. Notice no mention at all of the practicalities of using that exit, or of the face touching point:

Good morning, thank you for your email. We would advise the following points:

• In relation to the new operating procedures within the Outlet, we are following Scottish Government guidelines
• We have implemented a one way system within the Outlet to assist with social distancing
• We are managing capacity in and out of the building via automatic footfall counters
• We have sanitisation stations available throughout the Outlet, including exits
• The exit door has been chosen to support guests accessing the south car park and public services, along with access to The Centre
• The welfare, safety and wellbeing of both guests and staff are at the forefront of the decision making.

Kind Regards,
Morag Eadie
Centre Administrator – Livingston Designer Outlet

Fairness: the vulnerability law, What to expect

The law of vulnerable adult groups covers us ethically, it establishes that we must not be taken advantage of, financially, or emotionally, by anyone engaging in any type of support relation with us. Any support relation, that could be a formally employed or charity placed support or aspies showing each other support in the self organised scene.

Oh so nothing bad or hurtful ever happens in an autism service? ... obviously not so, but all bad happenings are breaches of vulnerability, the protection against them is there notionally and conceptually. Its enforceability in practice is what needs building stronger. The defined duty to vulnerability includes to prevent corruption, and what prevents corruption is transparency and accountability. So all losses of direct voice and accountability for aspies about service issues are breaches of the vulnerability law capable of contributing to suicidal feelings in persons made more vulnerable. Hence structures like ANS and regular participation in the autism local plans can never be taken away. ANS's imminent issue of a book compiled from a spread of ordinary aspie life experience, An Ordinary Life Too, will greatly strengthen the body of facts that establishes this. It will advance the accountability over uncorrupt protection of vulnerabilities, that comes from strengthening the claim of permanence upon these participative structures.

What does this mean you can expect in Elas, and any Asperger society self-organised independently from the problematic big charities?

• You are among folks who know it would be liably against the vulnerability law ever to turn socially corrupt and backstabbing to escape from answering a fairness issue, like the former Phad charity in Fife did which led very quickly to its break-up and demise in 2011 a bad outcome for all.
• Fairness is never an obsession. Fairness is never called an obsession, because fairness is a red line ethic, and red line ethics are never obsessions.
• For any fairness issue in your life that affects your relationship with any other members, e.g, something which their own invitation involved you in and resulted in an unfairness.Your pursuit of it, time unlimited, will automatically have the reliable solidarity and backing of the rest if the group. No one will ever dismiss it as an autistic rigid thought pattern or obsessive.
• You will never accidentally catch any member doing that when they think you are out of hearing. You will never be let down by a friend with a long back period of discovering this way that they were never real.
• You will never find the group dug in to stay noncommittal about your fairness issue.
• You will never see this include a member refusing to reverse a serious mistake that had worsened the wrong, such as the mistake of apologising to the party that wronged you after being lied to by them.
• You will never see the group suspend a normal routine of going for a drink after meetings, and instead all hasten home uncomfortably, by reason of wanting to avoid the issue.
• You will never hear anyone express in blunt words and a cutting tone of wordly-wise macho boredom the emotionally abusive view that you may have to live with a social injustice unsolved.
• You will never hear anyone argue that fairness to you should fall in the greater interest of the group.
• You will never find that the group get sick of the subject and start to sanction or socially reject hearing about it, when that leaves you with them expecting you to live in acceptance of it.
• You will never hear anyone use the word "unfortunately" as a weapon for any of these maltreatments of you.
• You will never see another member continue to belong to, and hear him keep mentioning its place in his social life, anything which has wronged or unjustly excluded you, if he has said nothing about efforts on your behalf to change that. Particularly if his own invitation had led to the wrong happening in the first place.
• You will never have anyone believe that you should live in acceptance of, and stop fighting, a wrong which has not happened to them.

These are not points that any autism group, any group in any support scene, can discuss and decide not to accept. You will not suffer these things because the group will ensure conscientiously that each other know, that it would break the vulnerability law, with many potential lines of liability, for any of them to exploit anyone's vulnerability by doing any of these unfair unsupportive things to them. They are all acts of emotional abuse, for they betray and kick away wellbeing and result in exclusion experience. Hence they all risk, as is well established illegal, well-motivating suicides by it. They are all actions whose breach of the vulnerability law is serious enough that they risk life. The members of every aspie group have a duty to ensure each other's awareness of this, to be vulnerability compliant.

You do not have to be a suicide risk to have this protection, e.g, you may be articulate enough with writing to fight back, but the group will know that if they wrong you they cause suicidal ideation in a less articulate person who sees it happen and encounters any similar wrong, now or later. So, because the group dares never wrong that person, they dare never wrong you either. Backing for total literalist fairness is your claim of right.

Maurice Frank

Straight answer?

Consider whether you find the following at all constructive or committal as an answer. Whether you think it will change anything. Then consider election promises by parties, on public transport, that are always about promotinmg its use or making it cheaper: never about forcing bus companies to give straight answers to actually make passengers' lives more sensible.

Apr 2 email by me:

It has never made any sense that the 0915 service from Dalgety Bay is an X53. At that time of day it gains nothing from the omission of stops and that causes aggro which makes life harder for both drivers and passengers. Unnecessarily uncomfortable passengers, e.g. told they can't get off at the secondary West End stop (Drumsheugh Gardens) in Edinburgh, is uncomfortable for drivers too. It is a significant city destination stop. Being required to sweep past it when passengers want it, makes drivers' job more difficult. This is thinking of them too.

This is particularly so in the conditions now with the west end diversions, when folks are trying to find their way using common sense. There is no common sense, no practicality, no consideration, in an off-peak service like this one arbitrarily refusing to stop at the stop mentioned. Why is this journey being kept X?

Apr 20:
Thank you for your enquiry regarding service X53.

We endeavour to provide a mix of "all stops" and "limited stops" services along the corridor between Ferrytoll and Edinburgh. The vast majority of passengers prefer the quicker journeys offered by the X services, and we have tried to provide a suitable balance within the limited stopping pattern. However we appreciate that whilst this suits most of our passengers, there will always be a small number that find the stopping pattern of a particular service inconvenient.

I trust this helps to answer your query.
Regards
.. Commercial Manager
Stagecoach East Scotland