guilt by quack theory

SOMEONE POSTING ON THE STURGEON/SALMOND SCANDAL HEARINGS - I have a background in understanding and teaching non-verbal communication having studied it at length, and delivered workshops and training to a multitude of groups including trainee psychiatrists, psychiatric nurses, police officers and social workers.

ME - As a civil liberty concern towards this idea of "teaching non-verbal communication" from involuntary mannerisms not intended to be communication at all. - Post-traumatic stress and autism are both things that can make innocent folks show the same nerves or blanked emotion, as hasty or high-handed police/psychiatrists/teachers like to interpret as showing guilt.
Does what you are teaching incorporate that fact and avoidance of that danger? It can only be moral if it does.

careless talk of aggression is itself aggressive

This further article on the Matthew Rushin case neuroclastic.com/2020/06/10/matthew-rushin-and-the-virginia-beach-police-department/ is on THE DANGER OF INTERPRETING AUTISTIC SOCIAL PRESENTATION AS AGGRESSIVE BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUBMISSIVE, and the writer's efforts to research the too little that US police practices have done about that.

BUT IT IS ACTUALLY A WRONG THAT AUTISTICS CAN DO TO EACH OTHER TOO. It features in the foul play politics within the autistic scene. Real aggression also features in that, but the point is there is a duty to analyse and back up WITH DETAILED REASONING any accusation of aggression. Unless it stands up to rational reasoning it is a medical abuse to maintain the accusation.

This makes it A CRIME, a violation of safe support, for anyone in our scene to accuse another of aggression then to stop answering them then to block/cut off contact without explaining or defending the accusation in detail.

The petition link again:
www.change.org/p/ralph-s-northam-matthew-rushin-autistic-college-student-odu

30 years is too long to be given the creeps

Right now I am sitting in Inverkeithing library. Wonder if I will still be popular with its staff after writing this.

As many folks will know, I am a survivor of, and very emotionally defined by, a horror experience of school, 30 years ago. The work demands and their enforcement became impossible to survive, there was no rational way to function, and the result was a stress collapse involving catatonic states, and it was even a fight to get it recognised as serious, a survival fight. When I have given full descriptions of it to parties with an obligation to take an interest in child safety, e.g. to the NHS in chasing up its past actions, or to the National Association for Gifted Children as I posted on here about recently, here is an important detail I have mentioned about the danger I was in at that time. That I was too frightened to run away, because if caught I would then be considered a wilful offender and as a result would not get the stress collapse accepted.

This I am always aware of, in profound distress, the more I hear of the ever worsening police state over children concerning school attendance, that the Blair government started. Because this has been going on while the political and media systems wilfully exclude from any consideration or any platform to be widely heard and appreciated by voters, the evidence that school can ill treat to an unsurvivable extent. In the Western democracies and in an era paranoid for child protection in so many ways that have put a lot of fear into adults' lives, this danger is selected to be totally unheard and unappreciated by voters.

So the distress of my memory and what I could be seeing happen has, just now, intruded onto my space as a library user. At close quarters, around the same table, I have seen a quite young child put through a grilling by the police in front of us all, on suspicion of truancy. It was the library staff who called them.

So long as experiences like mine, of having a survival need around destroyed life not to be in school, are not in the big scale public domain and are not being answered to by government departments over education, any kid who this happens to might be as unsafe as I was. In order not to tread on my damage and by it affect my emotional ability to focus on my own serious tasks, the library has a duty to its adult users not to do things like this until after anyone with evidence like mine has had the opportunity to share it as widely as we think necessary, by automatic right. What if this duty conflicts with the library being under orders from anywhere else to take these actions? Only resolvable by having that evidence brought out, not by in any way trying to avoid it.

Maurice Frank

Rare piece of insurance common sense

Travel Guard, answering a travel insurance enquiry for a company their claims line serves, said something worth hearing concerning a topic that no travel insurance policy is satisfactory on: lost or stolen travel documents including passports. To my enquiry as to what happens if you can't get a written police report, they say you can now give them a note explaining the circumstances that you could not get one.

The rule they always have in travel insurance, that you must obtain a written report to base your claim on, conflicts with the whole nature of travel risk. How can they possibly know that the police or other officials will be willing to provide the written report? What if they won't, and in a foreign country, how are you supposed to make them? Even in a European democracy, let alone in totally corrupt countries?

To a common sense enquiry as a buyer, for once I have got a better answer than I expected to get. It is some progress on the issue that concerns me so intensely, of losable travel documents and your safety when having to use them: particularly for spectrumites because of dexterity issues dyspraxia and attention deficit that make small objects easier to lose. Of course, given the complex trickiness of insurance and all the unpredictable details of a loss situation that you can not know what they will be until it happens, the value of this consumer victory remains small compared to the safety need that folks' safety when travelling should not depend on carried physical documents at all, and the safety victory if this 200 year old practice that big business interests have habituated our culture to accept was actually stopped.

Maurice Frank