I watched this programme on Friday night. It's a new legal drama. Same characters each week, but different scenarios/cases. This week it was about a train driver being tried after a train crash. Not really relevant. But as the programme ended, the announcer trailed next week's episode.
Apparently, next Friday, 14 October 2005, the new episode will feature a teenaged/young man who has killed his mother. The character was said to have Asperger's Syndrome. :shock: Admittedly, it was just a brief trail for the forthcoming programme, but I'm sufficiently alarmed that a television programme, albeit fictional drama, *may* be about to portray Aspies as homicidal maniacs who are a danger to society.
Well unless you've actually watched it, I'm a bit stumped as to how you can already judge it because of what you *think* it will portray us as? :?
tbh noetic, if I'd just read the information in a text-based listings guide, I'd have just thought: Oh, a programme that's going to feature an Aspie, must watch out for it.
I haven't judged the programme, I didn't say it *was definitely* contentious, I said "possibly". And that wasn't based on listings or hearing about the programme from someone else, my *preliminary* opinion was/is based on the very brief trail that was broadcast. Sorry, in case you're not familiar with the term the "trail" was an excerpt from the following week's programme. I can't play it back to watch it again or provide a link, because it was very short.
All I said was that what I had seen had me sufficiently alarmed. The clip mentioned that he had killed his mother. It showed the character acting out 'disturbed' behaviour. And then another character mentioned something like: "He has Asperger's Syndrome," implying there was some kind of link between the crime and the AS.
Of course, the full length programme might not pan out like that. But the brief excerpt that I saw, like I say, it had me sufficiently alarmed that it *might* do an injustice to Aspies.
The way it was edited (and I'm familiar with editing processes) made it seem as though any average layperson viewer might reasonably make a link between killing/AS.
Again, that was my *opinion* based on what I actually *saw*.
I was sufficiently alarmed by it that I intend to contact the broadcaster to query the basis of the programme and whether it *might* cause the average viewer to perceive Aspies as dangerous.
Tbh, having seen what I saw, I'd rather pre-empt any damaging images about Aspies. Maybe they can provide a public information slot in the programme credits for people to get further information.
It's going out on Friday, so other UK-based AFF members can see it then. But in the interim, they might just catch the same trail if/when it's rebroadcast, as I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions about this.
You can tell yourself you're not biased all you like, but the post starting this thread is not that of a person who is merely pointing out a programme dealing with a character who has AS. It has a very negative tone to it and is clearly focussing on negative implications of the programme!
Look. FFS! I said that I had based my opinion on the trail. Will you *** well read what I actually said! I said the programme was *possibly* contentious. I never said that I wasn't biased. Yes, I'm waiting to see what the programme is like, but you picked up the negative tone because I do have a problem with the trail. Two separate issues. Re-read and pay attention to detail!
Have I actually objected to the content of the programme yet? No. Because I haven't yet seen the programme, because it hasn't yet aired.
Have I actually objected to the content of the trail, the brief excerpt of the forthcoming programme? Yes. Because that certainly was, to my mind, contentious. That's what I was highlighting. The trail was edited in such a way as to cut between dialogue about boy being accused of murder, boy acting in a disturbed way, dialogue saying boy has AS. Join the dots kind of thing.
If you didn't actually see the trail in question then we're arguing apples and pears. I'm arguing apples at the moment, because I did have a problem with the trail and the way it was edited, as it created a certain impression in my mind that it misrepresented Aspies.
If you want to come back again after the programme has aired and argue about pears, then let's do that, but in the meantime, will you stop confusing the two issues and making out I'm complaining about a programme I haven't yet watched when I've said, repeatedly now, that that is not the case.
And you're arguing about what it says in the Radio Times. My point was about the content of the trail and the way it was edited. Apples and oranges this time.
And it doesn't really matter what it says in the Radio Times or what the actual programme pans out like for any people who haven't read the Radio Times and who aren't watching the programme in full. My point is that the trail, in itself, in isolation, was damaging to the public's perception of AS. A person who watched that trail, who didn't have access to the wider context through the Radio Times or the programme in full, would only have had that brief trail upon which to base their opinion. A bit like me, really.
In my *opinion* that brief trail didn't provide an overall context of sympathetic brief who gets his clients off, the trail instead portrayed matricidal youth, acts disturbed, turns out he has Aspergers Syndrome.
Again, for the avoidance of doubt:
I do object to the content of the trail. I thought it misrepresentative. I appeared to make a link between a character killing his mother and that character having AS.
I am not in a position to object to the content of the programme in full. Because it has not yet aired.
Got that?
And FFS, don't make me repeat it again.
:roll:
...The series isn't known for it's plausibility and accuracy...
Well, considering that last week's episode was all about a fictional case of corporate manslaughter involving a rail accident, and happened to air on the day that a rail company was fined millions for failures, I'd have to disagree on the plausibility score. And programmes like that do tend to be based in fact in terms of the legal issues and procedures. And while I appreciate that artistic and dramatic licence is used, I do know enough about the legal and media fields to know what I'm talking about here.
And if you're just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, then just fu(k off, I'm really not in the mood. I've made my thoughts very clear. If you're incapable of separating out the issues, then take your arguments elsewhere because I can't be @rsed arguing round in circles with you over and over again.
So why join them? Why can't you just LEAVE "the public" to make up their own minds, rather than make assumptions on what everyone is going to think?
Because sometimes the public need educating before a bad idea takes hold. If you're aware that something is potentially negative, it's better to try and find out more and, if appropriate, pre-empt it. It's much harder to overturn a negative perception into a positive one, than it is to create a positive perception out of neutral. If you let an incorrect negative assumption out there then you're already starting off on the back foot. That's psychology/public relations 101 for you. It's not rocket science.
...It really does sound like, whether or not they did so successfully, the producers of this show have set out to address precisely the types of negative views against AS that people here complain about. So why not give it a chance before jumping to conclusions?
Erm, why are you banging on about this? No one has argued anything whatsoever to the contrary. You're creating arguments where none exist. And causing ill feeling and discontent as a direct result of your antagonism.
...Hey, by all means they may have messed this up, but it seems to be one of the first programmes that dares to tackle Anti-Aspie prejudice so why not AT LEAST give them a chance, rather than get worked up with expectations of how this is going to portray us as violent etc?
Erm, did anyone actually say DON'T give them a chance? No. I think the consensus of opinion was that people wanted to watch the programme to see what happened and how it portrayed Aspies.
Again, you're creating an argument out of nothing.
Please refrain from inventing spurious arguments in my threads, thank you.
EnglishLulu, there is no reason to become so rude and aggressive. You are not doing yourself any favours by reacting in such a fashion when someone points out flaws in your conclusions, which, being based solely on jumping to conclusions from seeing a brief trailer, are already anything but "solid" or "factual".
Because the whole frigging point is that my conclusions are *NOT* flawed.
I have not reached any conclusions about the programme!!!
FFS! Please stop misrepresenting what I've said!
My conclusion was, and remains, that the trail portrayed Aspies in bad light!
Did you see that particular trail? Yes or no?
You haven't commented on the trail, so can I assume you haven't?
In which case, don't frigging well tell me what conclusions I can or can't draw about something I personally viewed. Because *that's* rude.
Ohhh, now I know what FFS means. I was wondering about that.
EnglishLulu, there is no reason to become so rude and aggressive. You are not doing yourself any favours by reacting in such a fashion when someone points out flaws in your conclusions, which, being based solely on jumping to conclusions from seeing a brief trailer, are already anything but "solid" or "factual".
Are you frigging well stupid or what?
How many times do I have to repeat it?
I have not drawn conclusions about the programme in its entirety, which I have not yet watched, because it has not yet aired.
And just in case you didn't get that the first time (which in fact I've already said on numerous occasions in previous threads):
I have not drawn conclusions about the programme in its entirety, which I have not yet watched, because it has not yet aired.
Got that yet?
I have drawn conclusions that the trail, taken in isolation, as some viewers will have also perceived it, was and is misrepresentative of Aspies and would likely have resulted in damaging and negative perceptions by average members of the public about Aspies.
Got that?
FFS, how many more times do I have to repeat this?
Watching the show now, and its nearly finished. As I said previously I would watch it and then decide if there was any reason for complaint.
I was very surprised that they said a few times what a burden he was, and how difficult it was to cope. Yet they didn't give any reason as to why that was, such as stating that he needed help with cooking, dressing, etc, which he certainly didn't seem to. So I don't know what the burden was supposed to be.
Some points, maybe others could explain. When he was first interviewed by the brief, it was in a green room, and the character Dan couldn't focus because the colour bothered him, yet later during the trial, the brief and his colleague spoke to him in a green room and it never bothered him at all.
In one scene during the trial, outside the court, the female brief was wearing a pink blouse, and the second button down seemed to be cross buttoned and tucked in, as if when you button it up wrongly. Was it an effect of the blouse design, or a mistake?
Before Dan has been pushed in prison and had the mark on his cheek, he had already appeared to have a bruised lip, maybe this was another continuation error.
The show had mentioned Dan having commited an assault on a girl, after being provoked. It showed him wrestling/attacking a court worker, and showed him killing his mother.
It most certainly did portray aspies as potentially violent, and this one character as actually extremely violent. He got two years in prison for what I think was ultimately classed as manslaughter.
The main problem is, that if the only views that the public see are of this type, then it gives a very bad impression.
Its similar to the arguments that I saw in the past from, for example someone gay, when there was only the occasional gay person on tv and they were a comedy character to be laughed at.
I spotted some but not all the continuity errors as I had to look at my computer screen as well. I didn't really like it that much because a) it was pretty boring, and b) it portrayed aspies as violent.
You also mentioned to me in the chat room that it was silly that Dan wasn't bothered by prison, and the fact that it would upset him as he would be out of his routine.
If there are any grounds for complaint, feel free to make one
I watched the program and found their to be a few "mistakes", for want of another word.
The Green Room business was inconsistent - I felt like the writers forgot about Dan's dislikness of green half way through the script.
The violence in Dan's behaviour was badly written/acted I feel. I know several people with A.S and none of us ever show even the slightest sign of any aggression, let alone violence.
On Waking The Dead (BBC1) a few years ago, one of the suspects had A.S and on that occasion they managed to pull it off. It was well written and the character was shown in a much more positive limelight.
A poor showing by ITV.
looks very good Amy, here's hoping they take note
anyone else want to complain to ITV?
I might just do that myself, because I really did not like the way they portrayed aspies, especially the way they portrayed an aspie as a potential murderer in this case
A very good comment to send to ITV, Amy.
Every member of this forum (792 at time of writing this) should send in a complaint to ITV. Maybe then some action will be taken in the future (i.e. better portrayal of Aspies).
This sounds like an episode of Law and Order with Angela Lainsbury as the mother. It aired on Canadian tv quite awhile ago. It sounds like the same plot.
I saw the programme. I thought that it presented a cariacture of an Aspie. Amanda Coe, the writer, had researched Asperger's Syndrome and had given Dan all the characteristics and features found over the range of Aspies: - inapproprately talking about his obscure special interests; not understanding metaphors and idioms; the inflexible routines; not giving eye contact; sensory sensitivities; not liking being touched. Also someone - I think Henry Farmer, the star barrister - expressed the false view that Aspies don't give affection and do not feel empathy. It was a tick box portrayal of an Aspie. Dan was presented as a burden to his parents, especially to his mother.
However the programme tried to understand Dan as a person with Aspergers Syndrome, and was to some extent sympathetic towards him. But I was surprised and disappointed with the ending. When Dan said near the beginning that he had not killed Bridget, his mother, I believed him. There were hints that Chrissie, his aunt, who had visited his mother on the evening she was killed had killed her, because she ( Chrissie) was having an affair with Bridget's husband, Dan's father. I suppose that was the impression which the writer wanted to give and the surprise ending was that Dan had accidently killed his mother.
If an NT man had been in the same situation with his mother, when she became aggressive, would he have been shown as behaving in the same way as Dan?
I did not like the way Dan was portrayed as being both helpless and violent.
I noticed that Dan was in green rooms, after the police and court authorities knew that he was sensitive to that colour.
Mia, Dan's cousin, was the only person in his extended family who treated him as a person. I liked how she affectionately described him as like a weird twin brother.
Amy, that's a great comment/complaint you made to ITV.
The address of the NAS website was given over the closing credits.
I have contacted DANDA and NAS about this programme and the fact that it's:- 'inciting hatred against disabled people with AS and other ASD's'.
This is a criminal offence now within the UK legal system!!
I have registered my complaint by ringing ITV this morning, but I'm still awaiting a call back from them.
I suggest that if you have concerns and want to make a complaint , then can I suggest that you do this collectively, too, through DANDA.
You can contact DANDA by telephoning:- 02074357891(main-office), if you want to speak to Adrian Whyatt , Co- Chair, about this programme in more depth, then you can ring Adrian:- 02076039710, or mobile:- 07930680865.
I am sure Adrian and DANDA would welcome feedback from those involved from Aspies For Freedom and other interested individuals and organisations on what action needed to be taken forward on this matters urgently.
Adrian has asked me to relay to Aspies For Freedom that can someone from this organisation please contact him urgently on this matter.
The message within this programme has caused me great 'high anxiety' and I have graet fears about the reaction it will cause within Society towards Aspies and other Neurodiverse individuals.
FREEOURPEOPLE
Yours
Colin Revell
...I never said I'd seen Holby, I don't watch Holby, the 3rd programme was not Holby City, it was a crime drama but I can't palce where/what it was called, but i know I have seen them in 2 other crime drama's besides "The Brief"
I am aware of that. 
It was Amy who suggested that perhaps you had seen it, and it was her that my response was adressed to, pointing out that by your comments, it didn't sound like you had.
Unless you had forgotten about seeing that episode, which could have been possible - it wasn't like AS was a "major" feature, but IMHO a nice touch none the less, and in this case, anything but "negative" (in fact it made a big point of enphasising that it was ignorance and intolerance against Aspies that oten caused problems).
When I originally searched to find out more about the HC episode, I did come across another episode from 2000 that also featured a man with AS, this time as a patient who needed heart surgery but - strangely like a large percentage of their patients, they can't be very trustworthy! - was refusing to have the operation. Perhaps not quite as positive as the later episode, although I haven't seen the 2000 epiosde.