Aspies For Freedom

DISABILITY charities have expressed concerns after an autistic man from Yorkshire was handed a temporary antisocial behaviour order to curb his odd tendencies.
The order against Mark Smith, who has Asperger syndrome, bans him from touching people and saying inappropriate things in public.
The condition has been described as a type of autism which affects social and communication skills but IQ is often normal or high. Mr Smith, 32, has also been told he cannot stroke or sniff any part of a person or hang around a certain area when children are going to or from school.
The interim order was granted by Bingley magistrates after an application by Bradford Council which said a previous Asbo against Mr Smith had been successful in limiting his obsessive behaviour.
When the two-year order ended in April, Mr Smith started to cause problems again.
The new Asbo compels Mr Smith, of Kirkgate, Shipley, to attend twice weekly at the Sacar Centre, a Bradford charity which has offered him support and therapy.
The order also bans him from hitting people, saying inappropriate things and damaging property.
A police officer told the court that Sacar staff had asked for the Asbo to be reapplied as they felt he had benefited. The new order will run until September 25 when Mr Smith is back in court.
The use of Asbos on such people is causing concern for several groups, including the National Autistic Society.
A spokeswoman said Asbos on their own would not be effective against someone who did not understand social norms.
The British Institute for Brain Injured Children said Asbos were also being unfairly given to under-18s with autism and similar conditions. "We are finding that in some areas the only way people can get help is if they are given Asbos. It is very unfair. Earlier intervention is needed," a spokesman said.1Pressure group Asbo Concern warned that Asbos criminalised people who needed help, not punishment.
A Bradford Council spokes-person said: "Applying for an antisocial behaviour order is always a last resort. We consulted all the agencies involved with the care of Mark Smith before making the application, and they supported the action by the council.
"This is the second anti-social behaviour order imposed on Mr Smith, and the first one was very successful. It enabled him to get the help needed to control his behaviour.
"The magistrates considered carefully the justification for imposing an anti-social behaviour order on Mr Smith and felt it was necessary for the protection of the public."
Andrew Robinson from yorkshiretoday.co.uk

I would not like someone to come up and sniff me or stroke me, and it said that he had a previous abso that deterred his behaviour.

If he is going around unsupervised, then he must have some understanding of people and the locality.

It's odd that the autism groups are saying its bad altogether, but surely each circumstance will be different.
I would rather see an aspie get an asbo than be sent to prison.

Nobody would think twice about giving this man an ASBO if he was an NT. I would say this is completely fair.

What is concerning is the use of ASBOs for harmless behaviour such as staring. For this kind of behaviour however it is completely appropiate.

Am I missing something, or was there no actual mention of what the man actually did to justify the order in the first place? There was mention of what he was banned from doing, but I can find no description of what he did in the first place.

This report is a prime example of what annoys my aspie husband and myself about journalists. They often fail to explicitly report the most important bit of information in stories.

How the hell do you police a ban someone from saying "inappropriate" things in public? "Inappropriate" needs to be defined explicitly before inaprropriateness can be banned. I often hear teens swearing a lot in the street, and some of our neighbours, and some kids too. Even I cuss out the kids now and then within earshot of members of the general public. If swearing in public is "inappropriate" then I guess being "inappropriate" is the norm, but if this behaviour is the norm, why should one person be banned from doing it? This whole thing sounds a bit like discrimination against autistics.

Isn't a ban on hitting people redundent? :?:

One can only assume that he was sniffing and stroking people, and they seek to prevent it.

What's Asbos?

anti social behaviour order

To my knowledge yes, I think that it is banned generically by default under the law.

(s47 Offences against the Persons Act 1861, s39 39 Criminal Justice Act 2003 etc lol)

Only one worry, ASBO I think is listed on a persons criminal record, and considering it is already near impossible to get a job because of the interview stage if one is an aspie giving employers yet another reason to reject someone with Autism is a pretty much guaranteed way to ensure they have a life on state benifits with near 0 job prospects either way

Absolutely. His tendencies have no malice in them and if he were thrown into jail i would be out there with my protest sign but he shouldn't be allowed to do it anyway. even though he sniffed or stroked people not with any sexual intent etc anyone would feel extremely uncomfortable or violated and they deserve to be protected from that.

Great! Big Brother well and truly has arrived in Bradford. This is inhuman what's being done to a certain person against his own will and even beyond his own personal knowledge, thanks of course to a certain oversight who have decided to go ahead with their bid to have the local council impose one more banning-order after another! That Sacar bunch sound very much like one of those forceful top-down "only we know what we think is best for you"-type (hence, dictatorial, undemocratic) pressure-groups with a personal authoritarian/totalitarian/New World Order control agenda. Beware! Banning individual people without trail like that and even going so far as to define what their own personal behaviour must be in the "official" view of these evil anti-democracy "welfare" pressure-groups is the very Orwellian definition of a New World Order Thought-Police State!

Love and Peace,
Steven.

Sounds about right.. I know that all people with AS are different, and we do all have different tendencies - but I myself am extremely sensitive to being touched; I think that it's entirely appropriate in this case.

What costs the government less:  putting someone in jail, giving them supervision, or giving them an abso?


This is what happened in the city where I live.  I met this man who told me that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia.  Having talked to him a few times,(and not being an expert) I might think that he had autism as well.  I remember him writing a solution on a math test and the test was over and he just kept writing - they took the paper away and he keep writing on the desk and even the floor.  He refused to take medication for schizo because of the side effects.  At a later time I saw him dressed in about five coats and he was homeless.  I did not even recognize him.  He was speaking Chinese instead of English.  He started to hit me on the back.  I got angry and someone told me that he was doing some Buddhist thing and he often did this.  When I got on the bus he was arguing with the driver because he did not have a fare.  I paid the fare for him.  He came and started talking to me in English very coherrently.  He recognized me from before when I knew him.    Sometime later, he was shot and killed on the bus by police because they thought he had a weapon.  

I guess his life was not worth much to the government, not an abso, not a safe place to stay, not supervision - just a bullet.

I have been criticised on this forum for writing that people with schizophrenia should be locked up, but what else could be done to protect and care for a man like the one described by M, who would not, or could not, tolerate treatment for his condition?

There is anti-social behavior that hurts no one, and there is anti-social behavior that does hurt someone else.  I had never heard of ASBO's, but it seems like an appropriate vehicle for behavior that can actually hurt other people.

I would assume that the verbal behavior would have to be derogatory to someone else, specifically, to earn such a restriction.

It sounds like the police at least cared about the man and wanted to find a solution that worked not just for society, but also for him.  I consider that a good thing.  Better than being left to dress in five coats and get shot on a bus (not that that would have happened here, but the constrast makes a point).

PS - my son is a toucher.  Not a sniffer, thank God!  We're working with him on the touching thing.  I think it's important that he respect the personal personal space of others.  He's doing quite well on it, but it is a process.