Aspies For Freedom

This is the 'Group' that I lobbied and campaigned for years and actually took 'direct-action' on numerous occassions against the DRC to get them to 'act' and be accountable to ND's.

This was my idea and I was the brains behind this group, but now I've been 'excluded' from it for by Bob Niven, Cheif Executive without any moral, ethical and legal justifiable reasons and when I've approached and written to Mr Niven, Mr Massie and other I've received no replies.

I know that Roy Webb, Chair, National Centre For Independent Living and Adrian Whyatt, Co-Chair  DANDA are(have) taken my case up with Mr Niven and Mr Massie and I am awaiting to hear from them.

What does it say when a disabled person, for being pro-active and political and taken postive peaceful direct-action and and important questions to Mr Niven and others at the DRC, about the discrimination and 'exclusion' of ND's within Society, and as I said I'm the brains behind the 'Neurodiversity Action Group', within the DRC, then I am 'excluded'.

This is 'disability discrimination', by the DRC. What messages is this given out within Society!!

After I have heard from Adrian and Roy, then I will consider my next action, which includes making a complaint to the Parliamentry Ombudsman, for disability discrimination and  especially 'victimisation', under s55 DAA 1995, against the DRC.

Amendments....What does it say when a disabled person, for being pro-active and political and taken postive peaceful direct-actions and raising important questions to Mr Niven, Mr Massie and others at the DRC, about the discrimination and 'exclusion' of ND's within Society, and as I said I'm the brains behind the 'Neurodiversity Action Group', within the DRC, then I am 'excluded'

Yours

Colin

In my experience, the DRC is just yet another window dressing, a watchdog with no bite.  They appear not to have a remit to help everyone who has a problem, all they do is cherry pick those people who have cases that appear to merit some kind of precedent making legal action.

If yours is a bog standard problem that maybe could and should be resolved without legal action, but with some regular (as opposed to legal) advocacy, then you're stuffed.

My university failed to make 'reasonable adjustments' relating to a physical disability, and I had to defer as a result of their failure.

I tried to go through the student welfare and disability officer (part of the student union) at my university.  I'm guessing he was just a keen wannabe politician (lots of politicians started off their political careers in the NUS, including Jack Straw), as he appeared to know nothing about disability issues.  Next, I tried the NUS national disability officer.  She seemed quite kind and was sympathetic, but her role more relates to policy and campaigning, it's not within her remit to do casework.

So next I tried the DRC.  I spent quite some time talking to a caseworker on the phone, going into the detail and all the ins and outs of what had happened.

A week or so later, I get a letter saying they are unable to assist me.  One of the reasons is that I had (according to her) stated that the university helped me by giving me a form to apply for the Disabled Students Award (DSA).  This was not true!  I'd stated, clearly, that I had obtained the DSA forms from my LEA, the university had not given them to me at all, and I would not have said that they did!  

The caseworker (who sounded a bit young and unsure of herself - and I have a legal background, so I guessed she wasn't very experienced) had obviously taken down the information I had given her incorrectly.  The caseworker had made a mistake when taking down her notes.  That indicates really poor listening skills, it's a really basic error.

I phoned and spoke to her and we kind of had an argument, and she told me that it was irrelevant, because I was out of time anyway, because the action has to be brought within three months from the start of the course, which was the previous September, and it was now February, so more than three months.  And also, she seemed not to be interested because the case didn't pique their interest as seemingly ground-breaking enough.

I later found out that this information she gave me about being out of time was also incorrect (although it would be worth double checking this).  I have since been led to understand that yes, there is a three month limit, but it's not three months from the start of the course, it's three months from the last 'incident' or the date of knowledge.  In my case, I decided at the end of January to defer, because after returning from the Christmas vacation, I found that the university had still failed to make the reasonable adjustments that they had been promising all throughout the first term.  So I now understand that my case was, in fact, in time, even though this young, seemingly inexperienced and incompetent caseworker told me it wasn't.  

I was so exhausted at this time, I was completely stressed out and suffering quite badly from clinical depression and couldn't follow it up.

So I phoned and spoke to a manager a couple of months later, or at least her line manager, and explained the situation to him, that I desperately needed help liaising with my university because they'd blatantly been discriminatory.  He was most unhelpful.  He told me, effectively, well, if you weren't out of time before, you definitely are now.  

When I pointed out that I was only out of time because the previous incompetent caseworker had taken down the notes incorrectly and also given me incorrect information, he was most off-hand and we ended up having an argument about it.  I was most distressed.  I mean, this is supposed to be the organisation that's supposed to assist people like me, who've clearly and blatantly been discriminated against, yet they f'ed up, and when I pointed out that they'd f'ed up, he wasn't at all interested in resolving the situation, in fact his attitude was very much f'off!

And if the DRC doesn't consider your case to be sufficiently 'landmark' you get zero assistance and there's nowhere else to turn to, because every other organisation or agency refers you to the DRC, but if they can't and won't help, you're absolutely powerless, there's absolutely nothing you can do, even in the face of clearcut proveable discrimination.

Re: Apologies for cross postings MINIMUM SET OF DEMANDS FOR NEURODIVERSE PEOPLE and, building on that, for all neurological conditions, including Mental Health conditions.[victimisationagainstdisabledpeople] People with autism and neurodiversity have their say at the DRC

Dear Colin,

You personally made the first public demand that a DRC Neurodiversity Action Group was set up, backed by Russell Stronach, now Co-Vice-Chair of DANDA: Developmental Adult Neuro-Diversity Association, at the DRC AGM in Newcastle (in 2003 was it Colin?). You are, of course, a former DANDA Executive Committee member yourself.

I have proposed to the DANDA Committee that we formally draw up a minimum level set of requirements for meeting neurodiverse people's access and other needs, without which we will not endorse the outcomes of this DRC Action Group. I intend to draft this myself. Please email contributions to committee@danda.org.uk.

Any contributions to this would be most welcome. I want it approved by the DANDA Executive Committee IN ADVANCE OF THE DRC ACTION GROUP MEETING

I want this process wrapped up no later than Friday 25th November 2005. I will be aiming to produce a first draft by the end of this week, Friday 11th November 2005.

Separate to this, we will want to consider minimum representation standards. To the same timescales as above.

Thirdly, we will have to consider, on a social model basis, how meeting the needs of everyone with neurological conditions can be met in a Neurological Manifesto.

This will take somewhat longer and will need wider consultation (with disabled people with all types of neurological conditions). Nevertheless, I intend to produce a draft for consultation by no later than Friday 30th December 2005. I hope to have received and incorporated any amendments to this no later than 30th March 2006. A second draft, along with a constituted user-led email group covering all types of neurological conditions (including mental health)should be included no later than 30th June 2006. This will include an outline plan of action to meet these goals, and a further minimum agreed set of demands as well as a timescale for the DRC and all public authorities (including international public authorities) to agree to implement them in the context of achieving full and comprehensive civil rights, both in theory and practice, for all disabled people.

The timespan for agreement to this final part of my proposed programme is likely to be tight: no later than 30th September 2006. I want all disability and equality and diversity groups to take part in this process, but for the final say to be by representative disabled people operating on and with a full understanding of the social model of disability.

Yours sincerely


Adrian Whyatt, Co-Chair, DANDA
(In Personal Capacity)

Re: Confusion as to whether or not I'm acting in a personal capacity - I am acting in a personal capacity. Any results will be put to the relevant organisations such as DANDA: Developmental Adult Neuro-Diversity Association and other relevant organisations asking them for their comments and any amendments...was...[DisabilityConvention-2] Re: Apologies for cross postings MINIMUM SET OF DEMANDS FOR NEURODIVERSE PEOPLE and, building on that, for all neurological conditions, including Mental Health conditions.[victimisationagainstdisabledpeople] People with autism and neurodiversity have their say at the DRC

Dear all,

I have received some emails asking whether or not I am acting in a personal capacity or officially as DANDA Co-Chair. I am acting personally.

I want everyone to back this initiative.

Yours sincerely

Adrian Whyatt, Co-Chair, DANDA, IN A PERSONAL CAPACITY.

Colin and Stella,

It is written in standard English. If there are bits you do not understand then please let me know what they are and I will try to explain them.

Email me at:- adrian_whyatt_athome@yahoo.co.uk

You will need to be as precise as possible.

Yours

Adrian

That came across as a bit rashly dismissive.

It might be standard English, but it's not going to win any awards from the Plain English campaign.

It struck me as walking into a room having missed the first half of a meeting, or listening to someone in the same room on the telephone, and only catching half a conversation.

Are people asked to comment about DANDA's role and what DANDA should say or do?

Or are people being asked to comment on the DRC's advisory committee?  And if so, if people have any complaints or concerns, wouldn't it be more appropriate to submit those comments directly to the DRC?

And not knowing the background or any of the preceding meetings or discussions, what do you mean by drawing up a minimum level set of requirements for meeting neurodiverse people's access and other needs?

Does this refer to the workings of the DRC advisory group?  Do you want to stipulate how many people should be representatives from various organisations?  How many should be 'independents', how many should be, i.e. psychiatrists, psychologists, experts?  Or are you referring, in 'access', to how the Group is facilitated?  Are you talking about demanding online meetings, as a preferred method of communication, as opposed to physical meetings, which some people may find inaccessible due to social/communication problems?

Or are you not talking about the minutiae of the workings of the DRC advisory group?  Are you talking about the broader scope of that group?  Are you talking about drawing up proposals relating to its broader remit, and how it will 'evangelise' to wider society about access and meeting needs (as opposed to debating the model by it achieves those aims itself)?

It's really not clear who these comments and proposals are aimed at:  DANDA, the DRC/the DRC neurodiversity advisory body, drawing up a wish list for those organisations to disseminate in wider society.

And what's this about a Neurological Manifesto?  Is this something that DANDA is going to publish?  Or is DANDA putting it forward as something that the DRC neurodiverse advisory group should publish/propose?  Or something that the DRC itself should adopt?

It's really not clear, it's too much of a muddle of what DANDA's doing, is trying to do, confused with what the DRC advisory group is doing, what DANDA what's them to do, and then there are the goals.  Whose goals?  DANDA's goals?  Or is DANDA arguing that the DRC advisory committee should adopt these goals?  Or the DRC?  Or government?

I'm confused, because they can be interpreted in so many different ways, to apply variously to DANDA, DRC advisory group, DRC.

It might be standard English, Adrian, but not as we know it.

Quite so! It just suddenly appeared here like a sort of half-built alien structure, or a loud, unnatural noise disturbing the quiet of the autumn woods.

What does it all mean? What - or perhaps who - is "DANDA?" I don't suppose I will ever know.

Stella

Yes, I think there's some of that.  And also a lack of appreciation that maybe we don't follow the minutiae of the going on at DANDA and DRC, and aren't quite as aware of the back-story to all this as Adrian is assuming.

It would really help to start at the beginning and things set out a bit more clearly so we know what we're actually being asked to comment on.

Nothing personal, Adrian, and I don't mean to seem unhelpful, it's just that we're looking at this with fresh eyes and struggling to make sense of it, because you've made a heck of a lot of assumptions about what we already know, and some of us at least are unaware of the ins and outs you've referred to.

And before another assumption is made about how we're obviously not fluent in 'standard English', I'm fluent in English, I'm also fluent in legalese and journalese (court reporter/legal editor and journalist) so I don't think it's my language skills that are lacking, it's the information you're trying to communicate that isn't coming across.  I'm struggling to understand what your particular points are, and when you make your points, whether you're referring to DANDA, DRC advisory group or DRC.  Maybe you can get a colleague to rephrase some of it?

The dense blocks of indigestible text - strings of words picked out in capital letters - the oddly autocratic use of the first person singular jarring with the claim to somehow represent us here -  the peculiar stilted English over-crowded with words that often convey very little once they are thought about - the ugly acronyms sticking out from the word stream like scrap metal in a river - the printing of correspondence between unknown parties referring to matters which are neither introduced nor explained, nor any reason given why anyone should want to become involved with the kind of minds that could have conceived documents of this sort.

Stella

Lazarus, does DANDA have any paid employees? How does it obtain its operating funds? Does it have a registered office? Is it a registered charity?  Does it have regional branches and meetings that can be attended? Does it have some kind of "mission statement" which could be posted here?

Thank you

Stella Aspergia

Thanks Lazarus for all that information, it's much more helpful to find someone like you who seems to want to engage and work with people such as AFF, exchanging information like this is much more constructive and conducive to actually working together to achieve something.

Cheers!