http://www.MindFreedom.org - please forward

Exposing President Bush's Plans for Massive Psychiatric Screening of the USA Wins a "Project Censored" Alternative Media Award

Project Censored is considered the "alternative Pulitzer Prize" by some journalists. This Saturday, 22 Oct., Project Censored awarded the "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2006" -- important news that mainstream media covers up.

Number 11 in the Top 25 is journalist Jeanne Lenzer whose series of articles in the _British Medical Journal_ showed how President Bush is calling for "mental health screening" for children and adults in the USA in a plan that could result in hundreds of thousands of more citizens being placed on psychiatric drugs without adequate protection of human rights.

Even though President Bush calls for making this psychiatric screening "common practice" throughout the USA the corporate mainstream media has largely refused to inform their readers.

BELOW is the forwarded announcement from Project Censored including an UPDATE from Jeanne Lenzer:

~~~~~~~~~~~~

#11 Universal Mental Screening Program
Usurps Parental Rights

Sources:

Asheville Global Report (British Medical
Journal), No. 284, June 24-30, 2004

Title: "Bush Plans To Screen Whole U.S.
Population For Mental Illness"

Author: Jeanne Lenzer

http://www.agrnews.org/issues/284/#2

Truth News, September 13,2004

Title: "Forcing Kids Into a Mental Health Ghetto"

Congressman Ron Paul
http://www.truthnews.net/world/2004090078.htm

In April of 2002, President Bush appointed a 22 member commission called the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in order to "identify policies that could be implemented by Federal, State and local governments to maximize the utility of existing resources, improve coordination of treatments and services, and promote successful community integration for adults with a serious mental illness and children with a serious emotional disturbance."1 Members of this commission include physicians in the mental health field and at least one (Robert N. Postlethwait) former employee of pharmaceutical giant Ely Lilly and Co.

In July of 2003 the commission published the results of their study. They found that mental health disorders often go undiagnosed and recommended to the President that there should be more comprehensive screening for mental illnesses for people of all ages, including pre-school age children. In accordance with their findings, the commission recommended that schools were in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adult employees of our nation's schools.2

The commission also recommended linking the screenings with treatment and support. They recommended using the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a model treatment system.3

TMAP, which was implemented in Texas' publicly funded mental health care system while George W. Bush was governor of Texas,4

is a disease management program that aids physicians in prescribing drugs to patients based on clinical history, background, symptoms, and previous results. It was the first program in the United States aimed at establishing medication guidelines for treating mental health illnesses.5

Basically, it is an algorithm that recommends specific drugs which should be used to treat specific diseases. Funding for TMAP was provided by a Robert Wood-Johnson Grant as well as several major drug companies. The project began in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from pharmaceutical companies, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas.6

Critics of mental health screening and TMAP claim that it is a payoff to Pharmaceutical companies. Many cite Allen Jones, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General. He was fired when he revealed that many key officials who have influence over the medication plan in his state received monetary perks and benefits from pharmaceutical companies, which benefited from their drugs being in the medication algorithm. TMAP also promotes the use of newer, more expensive anti-psychotic drugs. Results of studies conducted in the United States and Great Britain found that using the older, more established anti-psychotic drugs as afront line treatment rather than the newer experimental drugs makes more sense. Under TMAP, the Ely Lilly drug olanzapine, a new atypical antipsychotic drug, is used as a first line treatment rather than a more typical anti-psychotic medication. Perhaps it is because Ely Lilly has several ties to the Bush family, where George Bush Sr. was a member of the board of directors. George W. Bush also appointed Ely Lilly C.E.O. Sidney Taurel to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Of Ely Lilly's $1.6 million political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Republicans and George W. Bush.7

In November of 2004, Congress appropriated $20 million8 to implement the findings of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. This would include mandatory screening by schools for mental health illnesses. Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas introduced an amendment to the appropriations bills which would withhold funding for mandatory mental health screenings and require parental consent and notification. His amendment, however, was voted down by a wide margin (95-315 in the House of Representatives).9 Paul, a doctor and long-time member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) states, "At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents." Paul says the allegation "that we have a nation of children with undiagnosed mental disorders crying out for treatment is patently false," and warns that mental health screening could be used to label children whose attitudes, religious beliefs, and political views conflict with established doctrine. Paul further warns that an obvious major beneficiary of this legislation is the pharmaceutical industry. The AAPS has decried this legislation, which they say will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America without parental consent, and "heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects."

Update by Jeanne Lenzer:

Whether it's the pills we take or the oil we use, it would be reassuring to know that the information used to develop new medicines or to utilize natural resources wisely is based on science--not corporate spin.

But blandishments from Big Pharma to politicians and doctors have a profound effect on health care in the U.S., making medical research closer to propaganda than science at times.

One way drug companies, in collusion with doctors, increase their market share is to expand the definition of diseases. When diagnostic criteria were liberalized for attention deficit disorder in 1991, the number of children diagnosed jumped by about 60 percent.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) acknowledged in the July 2004 issue of Advocacy News that, "The BMJ story has gained some traction in derivative reports on the Internet." But, they boasted, "mainstream media have not touched the story, in part thanks to APA's work, for which the [Bush] Administration is appreciative."10

The APA's boast is curious. The article was the most downloaded article in the history of the BMJ. It clearly struck a nerve with a public wary of doctors and politicians whose pockets are lined with drug company money.

Given the interest in the BMJ story, it would seem that the APA, instead of attempting to keep the story out of the mainstream media, would be anxious to counter the widely circulated statements in the article. It would also seem that the mainstream press could provide the Administration and the APA the best possible vehicle to counter these supposed factual errors in the BMJ article.

But, the facts might prove difficult to square with the public. More than one in every 100 toddlers and preschoolers in the United States are on powerful psychiatric drugs, such as Ritalin and Prozac, according to a study published in the February 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Joseph T. Coyle, M.D., wrote in an accompanying editorial, "It appears that behaviorally disturbed children are now increasingly subjected to quick and inexpensive pharmacologic fixes, as opposed to informed mutimodal therapy." He concluded, "These disturbing prescription practices suggest a growing crisis in mental health services to children and demand more thorough investigation."

But instead of issuing warnings about overmedication or inappropriate prescribing, the experts on the New Freedom Commission warn ominously that too few children are receiving treatment for mental illness. They cite escalating numbers of toddlers expelled from daycare as evidence of potentially serious psychological problems--problems to be diagnosed and cured with mental health screening and pills. Social and economic reasons for the rise in kiddie expulsions are left unexamined.

As bad as this is for those put on drugs and labeled "mentally ill," the far bigger concern is the creation of a disease for every drug, a situation made possible by the hand-in-glove relationship between industry and the government.

Transferred list of links that used to be on the old site.

• aero-alternative education resource organisation

  American site on democratic and libertarian schools and their theory. Associated with a book The End Of Homework.

• tarakimberleytorme

  A series of aspie short stories and poems, some "deep thinking serious", some on personal or environmental topics. Love the musical intro.

• Learning and Behaviour Charitable Trust New Zealand

  "This site is designed to give you the information and resources you may need if you know someone with a learning or behaviour difficulty. We welcome all feedback and input, as it is our aim to make this the premium site for learning and behaviour difficulties in New Zealand. Please fell free to email us about anything you find or would like to see available here by using the links on each page."

  LBCTNZ has been very supportive on SF's question of internet communities needing to treat spectrumites fairly. :-) But an important feedback message from here is on the need to distinguish between ASDs, which don't involve any intellectual impairment, and "Learning Disabilities", which by the term's usual meaning do.

• personalised education now

  "personalised" to what the child wants, whether home education or small school experiments. Child centred. Anyway, it's the UK's focal anti-school organisation and circulator of ideas. The only thing wrong with it is an element who are sceptical of ADHD's reality.

• gfcf kids urgently stop child harmers

  A Yahoo group that exists for the sole purpose of ethically condemning the group gfcf-kids-uk for its practice of arbitrary unexplained bannings, and arguing that the ethicality of practising GFCF diet is conditional on having nothing to do with such practices.

• indymedia link on psychiatric oppression in canada

  Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: Sara Arenson Locked Up Again
  http://kangaroo-court.blogspot.com/2005/02/sara-arenson-locked-up-again.html
  Sara's words to consider on her situation - "These words were written by Sara on October 10th, 2004, and posted friends-only. She now wants them made public." Formerly copied in full on this site for quite a while, can now stably be found at the page linked to.

  A young, progressive vegan, named Sara Arenson, is being forcibly held and drugged at St. Boniface hospital in Manitoba, Canada – not because she has been deemed dangerous – but simply because she has been diagnosed with a biological brain disorder. She has been held there since January 23rd, 2005.

  On the unit, she has been declared incompetent because she sees the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness as a form of social control. She has been labeled Bipolar Manic because she would prefer to be outgoing, explore new and creative ideas, and because she has adopted a policy of radical honesty.

  As for the reason for her detention: It is worse yet. She has been certified, not because of danger, but because of a substantial risk of deteriorating farther. Any schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar diagnosis (probably among others) is sufficient for most psychiatrists to claim there is risk of further deterioration. In other words, simply being diagnosed is often enough to be committed.

  The Manitoba Mental Health Act allows involuntary commitment if a person “is likely to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration if not detained in a facility.” Thus, she has limited recourse on appeal, and asks for activists to call, write, or do whatever is possible to help her.

• Indymedia UK

  Indymedia UK is a network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues. Sometimes there is cause to be cross about items unexplainedly not getting on there, but lots of important items about things the normal media would hush up, including the "court change" described elsewhere on this site, do get on there.

• Rewriting history for their own ends

  A shocking article on Tito Mukhophadyay and how a message of autistic pride gets used by forces wanting to cure autism in bad ways. Why is it harder in America for an autistic to be heard?

• pathetic motorways

  Amazing fun.

• an old "autistic spectrum" news blog

  A blog, become inactive since 2004, still with long lists of links to
  "Current news on Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, diet, ADD, Depression, environmental issues and more. "

The Education Additional Support For Learning Act

(in Scotland) 2004, coming into effect Nov 2005, creates an entitlement for children passing through decisions on educational needs, to have their own views taken and consulted with. The expanded variety of needs that have come into recognition since the last act in 1980, and the harmful experiences of authoritarian education that preceded their recognition, compelled MSPs to accept this reform.

It means the children and parents, in order to express their views, are entitled for all experiential evidence on past failiures of school practice and their results, to be publicly known, or else they would suffer disability discrimination. There follows an automatic right to publish these things.

and meanwhile

"special needs education" is a label that some have always found objectionable, because it covers children of normal intelligence with social adjusting troubles and simultaneously covers learning disability. This kind of uncomfortable feeling lay behind the swing, around 1980, to seeking integration into ordinary schools, of children with behavioural or other coping problems, or curricular difficulties. the government report recommending this move was made under the chairmanship of Mary Warnock.

Now (still around in the Lords), she has said the application of this ideal has become too ideological and applied rigidly without thinking whether it fits each case. She hasn't said the ideal was always misguided, but she has had a change of heart over it based on its results. On radio 4 "The Westminster Hour" Oct 2, she has called it cruelty to send a child with Asperger Syndrome to a large secondary school. It's an incompatible environment to cope with.

Now that has been said, the effects of the cruelty on its past subjects has a claim to be dealt with in any way that they indicate affects their present lives. It also affects the sum of knowledge available for applying to present children. All politicians need to give their positions on how this shall be organised and the information centrally pooled for reference. the likes of Children In Scotland need to push them to.

Sent on 2 July 2001 to all 212 education authorities in the UK as listed in Whitaker's Almanack.

Concerning a parliamentary record on all dress codes and uniforms being A human rights violation in International Law.

---

This record is in the submission I was invited to make to the Scottish Parliament procedures committee's enquiry into "Consultative Steering Group principles" and equal opportunities. Committee clerk Mr John Patterson appreciated the submission on June 26. Without prejudging at all the committee's response to it, its existence presents all operators of schools with a responsibility to absorb its implications for equal opportunities and human rights.

"This is not confined to Scotland, it follows for every democracy that subscribes to international principles against discrimination and for minorities.

In the submission, I cited the link between skin sensitivity, metabolism, and body electricity to show that comfort identities are scientifically serious and not frivolous. Comfort identities are minorities who make unusual choices of costume. It follows they are entitled to the same recognition and equal opportunity status as all other categories of minority, and this is violated by uniforms or dress codes, hence these are invalidated.

It follows this applies equally to uniformities imposed by peer groups. Hence, until all experiential evidence on these comfort identities is published, it violates human rights to enforce school attendance at all for children who identify with costumes that peer group prejudice against exists.

This has also been communicated to the independent sector.

In duty to everyone who this question applies to.
Maurice Frank "

On 17 June 2004
an anti-social behaviour act was also passed, an equivalent act had been passed in England in 2003, creating powers for anti-social behaviour orders that autistic organisations and the CPG believe could be used against autistic behaviours in lack of understanding, hence violation of a person's needs. For this reason too everyone on the autistic spectrum is entitled to automatic publishing of anything related to making any authorities empowered under these laws understand autistic or related behaviours and needs. The Education Additional Support For Learning Act passed on April 1 is linked to this, for by its provisions for consultation a state admission exists to not necessarily understanding our needs, from which the duty to understand them applies to the operation of these anti-social behaviour acts too.

It is possible that he-special-uk may be gone now, as it no longer shows up in a search of Yahoo groups. he-special-uk was a Yahoo group that worked only through email, that is advertised in the book Freaks Geeks and Asperger Syndrome as a support group for home education and school problems. That the book was never been recalled to strike out all reference to it, was an act of public medical deceit and child exploitation that reflects on every organisation that continues to have anything to do with the book.

I belonged to he-special-uk Dec 2002 to March 2003. My first contact with it was to see if its members were interested in backing or using for themselves, a political situation I had just created. The illegal failiure of all child protection authorities covering Coventry to publish by automatic right experiential evidence against the gifted children movement, gives the public a legal claim on the government, on child protection grounds, to have any personal evidence on any bad outcomes in education published by automatic right. I emailed the group moderator about this, without in fact asking to join, and found that I was encouraged to join, the message was posted to all the group members and I got a friendly response.

I had no way of knowing before joining that the membership included Jacqui Jackson. By the way the Freaks and Geeks book was co-written and she is the dominant author of it and adaptor of its content, though Luke has denied that Jacqui was quoted correctly in the Times 16 Aug 2002, when she painted herself as 12/13 the author. Look it up at a decent reference library anyway, as one source to confirm the picture of joint writing. Also Isobel Brookfield, of the National Autistic Society's national council, who has really strong anti-school views similar to mine and wanted to know more about my experiences. She wrote "I am sure the group will be sympathetic" and helped me overcome a technical problem with enabling my receipt of group emails.

This was at a time when I wasn't yet sure I'm aspie, having not yet learned that the trait of taking metaphorical speech literally, which I don't have, is not essential. All books on AS until 2002 seemed to paint it as essential. But I'm also ADHD, that had more impact than AS on my school problems, and in terms of he-special being specifically about "special needs" angles on education, ADHD was mine and justified my membership.

Members often posted abstract messages that were not to do with their own life problems, like poems or an essay from America Isobel posted satirising the nature of schools as like slave camps. I carefully followed and never exceeded the practices of other members in commenting on any issues that are abstract and not to do with people's problems. Like on uniforms: only after one of them posted a poem that referred to skin sensitivity, did I in reply post about myself lodging with the Scottish parliament on these grounds in 2001 an assertion that uniforms are against international law on minority rights. This posting was very popular and started a good exchange of experiences. At the level of personal problems I had relevant things to say about psychiatry and court cases and parents' difficulties at retaining permission to home educate, and a Scottish education bill then in its early stages. I seemed to be doing fine in the group and felt supported. Best was when Jacqui agreed that I should "keep persisting" in my legal claims to publish. She had shared with the group, that it had only taken her fame to even start overcoming a perception in her wider family that the Jacksons are just attention seekers. This is the unbalanced thing about a web group with one famous member and several other members belonging to the Jessica Kingsley writing establishment: any opportunity that benefitted them, they are civilly obliged to back all the group's members' entitlement to have.

Then, just suddenly - I went to my first meeting of a really friendly local organisation that I have belonged to ever since. At that meeting I learned that the Scottish education bill has a good feature of backing children's own life choices against their parents' for them, and I reported this information back to he-special. A member, Fiona, was strongly hostile to this, and was of strong view that you must never perceive parents' choices critically in the home education movement and never approve of the state getting in the way of parents always being in control. This is not a liberal approach to home education, it is one motivated by control of children: hence it does not fit the reason why folk like Isobel are against school. However, both points of view should have been expressible in he-special. Fiona flamed against me in support of her point, by accusing my posts of being hard to understand and needing to be toned down. It is a fact, not an opinion, that my posts can't possibly have been hard to understand or else they wouldn't have got the intelligent lucid replies they did. So I replied that I found the accusation offensive and described how the "I don't understand" trick is often used to silence things that folk don't want to hear, so its use is a social wrong that must never be allowed to take root.

The moderator, June, came down on me like a ton of bricks for this, treated it as me flaming Fiona while biasedly ignoring how Fiona had treated me, and sided with Fiona's position. "She thought she was helping you." Fiona was the one who had broken the rule, "don't send to others what you find hateful to receive", so this was now a situation of group bullying. June started making horrible accusations in offlist emails: that I was usually off topic to the group's purpose, that my answer to Fiona counted as upsetting everyone by accusing them of not caring about my experiences, and that I had always been hard to understand. No one had said any such things before. I could smell that June was politically hostile and constructing a way to get rid of me, so over the 2 days of this situation I usually replied to her onlist. I combined apologetic peacemaking overtures to the group for upsetting them in any way, with pointing out the injustices in June's stance and copying for all members to see the unfair things she had written in private. Are spectrumites supposed to get everything right socially, hmmm? Isobel for one remained quite pleasant and posted a sensible answer to me about the members being "not always in tune with each other", trying to put a closure on the situation and move on. But June on the same day emailed me claiming to have received offlist representations, and to have been in earnest discussion with the other moderators whoever they were, and that she was expelling me.

Within 3 hours of reading this, I had emailed to every member whose email address I knew, 25 of them including Isobel and Jacqui, a notification that I was adding this experience to the content of my slow legal and political struggles over publishing. The he-special members already knew all about this, including that I entirely legally no longer pay council tax since my leafletting in Coventry on 28 Dec 2002 proved the government directly liable to publish me. I referred to the he-special experience in the council tax appeal I was then making and won uncontested. I told the 25, who include Jacqui and Isobel, I held them responsible to leave he-special themselves and disown it or else they would be liably wronging public health, after he-special had emotionally abused an aspie and buyer of the Freaks and Geeks book to whom it had been advertised as supportive. I emailed the 25 a further 4 times with notices of my fightback's progress, none of which were ever acknowledged. This includes by Isobel whose posting on the day of the explusion had shown she was not in favour of it, and who had been so nice to me at the beginning and legally informative, she used to work for a lawyer, about the impracticalities of fighting bad school experiences by court.

A couple of he-special members pursued a hate vendetta against me into 2 other groups, one claiming I was "booted out" - how hateful is that? - for not being a parent or home educator, when they always knew I'm not a parent and you didn't have to be and Jacqui was not then a home educator either. Yahoo advised me to give the police a statement about this, and the police have clearly not done anything so I spoke out about that at the Sep 18 meeting of the Scottish parliament's public Cross Party Group on ASD and the education minister's reply led to submitting a legal statement on the experience to the education department, as part of his consultation on how to listen to children when taking needs decisions in education. At this moment it became the fault of the 25 how I had testified about them, and so any further cause to email them ended, there was now an irreparable ethical breach with them that can be followed up in the ASD scene's contacts with government on implementing the Scottish education bill.

While I was doing this, an outstanding nutcase from he-special, called Beryl, had been working herself up into such a frenzy of hate towards me that she started sending a stream of sexually libellous hate mails to an organisation whose website I have some writing on, in which she accused me of having been expelled from twice as many web groups as she had ever in fact known me in, and mentioned nothing of a group I knew her expelled from. By this time I was a diagnosed aspie, while she was calling me a spuriously self-diagnosed one. My contact knew enough about my experience to know exactly where Beryl's efforts to harrass her were coming from. Beryl openly and recklessly stated, in this illegal hate campaign, that she was doing it on behalf of Luke Jackson and in admiration of him! Obviously he knew nothing of Beryl's misconduct, but it must be remarked that to admire a teenager by acting like this in his name constitutes maltreatment.

When the Jacksons were on TV last summer(2003), I wrote recorded delivery to BBC viewer and listener correspondence saying the documentary would be unbalanced unless they publicly exposed my experience, as the bad hidden underside of the Jacksons' publicity machine. I also consider it child exploitation that the BBC ignored this, and I put this too into the parliamentary process so that it is on record that the BBC violated the workings of the Scottish legislative process by this. The documentary told the country Jacqui is mega university qualified in sociology of conflict resolution! The he-special experience, not told to the country, shows this is a joke. She looked the other way while an aspie was backstabbed.

All this shows Luke Jackson is the front face of a ruthless adult publicity machine and the adults who claim to admire him care nothing for the ideas he expressed on social peace, and don't follow them in practice. They want to continue behaving in ways that are totally against that and abusing his readers. Mind, he has a responsibility to object to this if his social peace ideas are to be genuine. [[ News 8 July 2004: his renouncing of his former opposition to homework, absurdly just because a sister had a good "processing" experience she could have had identically with work done voluntarily, let down all his admirers. This makes the Jackson literature just fickle and not to be relied on, doesn't it?]]

The education bill was passed by the Scottish parliament on April 1 (I know, but it was) and it includes the policy on consulting children in decisions, that I and my friendly contact wanted and my persecutors in he-special did not want.

Maurice Frank 13 Apr 2004

[[ News- Aug 2, Daily Telegraph, sourced from Parents Against Injustice "The parents of a child with Asperger's Syndrome fear adoption after being accused of neglecting him by not sending him to school - they say he can't cope." Answer that, disgusting wishful thinkers like Beryl - these are the parents in the front line of oppression who he-special let down. What do you expect happens to these kids' chance to become child authors? ]]

www.rxpgonline.com/1843100983.isbn - A link to a very perceptive teenager's discovery of common phrases that prove Jacqui a joint writer of F+G.

This Yahoo group is advertised in both the books published under Luke Jackson's name but described in the Times 16 Aug 02 as more his mother's creations and under heavy adult control really. This should count as a nice thing to say, because it helps show nothing that happened was blamable on LJ, it is the adults around him who at present should be blamed for wanting to continue to advertise GFCF Kids UK. However, in imminent adulthood he too will have a public responsibility to disown it.

Despite its name it is not a children's group and it covers GFCF diet knowledge for all ages, the name just comes from the diet being targetted at children, as with the original US based group GFCF Kids.

Accordingly, it was entirely in keeping with the way it was advertised, for any adult who has newly learned about AS to join GFCF Kids UK to see if it helped with learning more about the AS scene and whether the diet was personally relevant or not. I don't have any serious food problems but there is dairy intolerance in my family and a history of angina and strokes. I chose from older childhood onwards that I felt more comfortable eating less dairy than the addictive quantities my family consumed every day: my grandparents were so militant that butter and full cream milk are both nicer than the alternatives, that I caused surprise by not sharing that perception. This family history should show that though I'm not on GFCF diet, learning more about it was relevant to understanding my medical background.

All I ever did in GFCF Kids UK was post 1 message which was a technical enquiry about how offlist email worked. It appeared to me that perfectly decent friendly answers to this were posted. I had never given any personal or medical information to anyone. Then after only a week of membership, I was banned, and never told any reason why.

This was in Jan 2003, before any of the personal trouble with he-special-uk and consequent hate vendetta had ever happened. Behaviour like this is emotional and medical abuse of the public, perpetrated exploitatively through a child figurehead. I know, it's a secret how, that Jackson participation in GFCF Kids UK has practically stopped entirely since last summer, but advertising of GFCF Kids UK is not being retracted. The library service in Fife was willing to put in writing its sympathies for this being an unjust experience, admitting an ethical question mark over stocking the Jacksons' books in its autism collection. Sunderland university however has not answered my notice that it and all GFCF diet promoters and parents will be child harmers unless - they automatically disown GFCF Kids UK and all sources that advertise it and all experiential findings on the diet that it has ever made known. Jessica Kingsley and the major book chains have a public health responsibility too. You are judge of whether they are meeting it.

The justification of using such serious words as "child harm" is proved by a tip off I received from a parent, explaining that intolerant behaviour exists in the GFCF scene and may explain GFCF Kids UK's behaviour as paranoia to keep all its members under doctrinal control. There are fundamentalists of GFCF diet, who rigidly want children taken off both gluten and casein in every case, not to have the effects of removing each protein tested separately as the Sunderland Protocol advises. I had already seen arguments like this conducted on the Allergy Induced Autism website, and been suspicious, considering the full GFCF diet takes away a whopping great range of sources of nutrition. This parent told me she had a soya allergic child who would be undernourished following the full GFCF diet, so as a responsible parent she had reintroduced casein (dairy), and for this she had been screamed at abusively and called a bad parent, by a fanatic who runs an influential GFCF food shop service.

Folk often selfishly don't think they should have to disown groups themselves in solidarity with just 1 socially wronged member. This case shows that all who take that view are party to empowering fanatics to put at risk children's access to adequate food.

Maurice Frank, 20 Apr 2004

SF has had 2 different bizarre and inflammatory clashes with former members of Wrong Planet.

---

1. If any moderators of Wrong Planet are reading, you should know something concerning.
An ex-moderator of your site, called Catffienated, who said you thought was "emotionally unstable", made a comment about it on SF's messageboard section about Aspies For Freedom. In reply he was asked if he wished to contribute to SF an account of the problem he considered he had with Wrong Planet. Then he posted his full story about it: that is in reply to being asked if he had such a contribution. That obviously was a making of his contribution, and permission for it to appear on this site.

Yet now he has not only withdrawn it, which of course he is entitled to do, but he has denied that permission to use it was ever given. He has made that accusation publicly as well as privately. This is malicious and not true, and accompanied by an aggro threat about "need for more drastic action".

Now - as he is a member of AFF and had come to favour it factionally against Wrong Planet, don't you find it fits the pattern of legalistic games by AFF members who have closed their minds against hearing of anything bad happening in it. Devotees of a cause. Don't you find it in character? Comment from WP would have been interesting: is his behaviour towards this site an example of the same emotional instability as towards your site?
- site

25 Feb 2005

- following which, as long later as Sep 29, AFF demanded to have made clear that Catffienated's actions were a "personal situation" it was not involved in as a group and had no control over. It could have had that done at any time.

---

2. Paul McGee, who likes to call himself Pikachu, despite being banned from Wrong Planet and having his own site exposing an alleged "great net scam" there, has the illogical double standard to disapprove of SF, on grounds that he prefers AS forums not to be subjected to public critique such as SF causes them. He does not explain how else personal injustices should be prevented or fought. His site, what's more, does exactly the same thing as SF, concerning the way he thinks Wrong Planet is run. The difference is that his site isn't at all sensibly written, it's a lot of rants.
A link to his site appeared in the original text of another item in SF, and was removed by the item's writer after he objected to it. But his manner of objecting to it was to issue to SF an ultimatum demanding the link's removal within a matter of hours, accompanied by legal threats. "You have 12 hours to comply, and just to show you I'm serious about taking legal action you have 6 hours to comply. Any attempt to reply to this email will leave you with 30 seconds to comply and remove that URL Now." - absurd!
(i) It was the item writer's absolute choice to remove the link, and SF is bound to comply with that. But there are no valid legal threats against a link appearing for purposes of information - that happens all over the web! Links are made for critical purposes on many sites.
(ii) How many websites have administrators sitting by a computer permanently, 24/7, able to make changes at the instant they are requested? SF certainly hasn't. It is not technically reasonable for anyone to request, let alone demand, that anything on SF is changed within a time limit measured in hours. It may simply take longer than that before the email is read!! Suppose it took 2 or 3 days to get through? Anyone with common sense, dealing with a website of the old SF's size or with a blog, can reason that out, unless they are just being inflammatory.
Pikachu went on to deny it was legal for SF to publish for its own protection the above relevant excerpt from an email of baseless legal threats. Yet his own Wrong Planet Scam website is full of unauthorised quotes from the Wrong Planet site and from a chat he had with its head Alex Plank, made to illustrate his point. So what Pikachu himself does on the site he was so concerned not to have linked to from here, is exactly the same thing as he wrongly accused it of being illegal for SF to do.
In the end, we should have guessed - it turned out he too is associated with AFF. He has a blog, which is dotted with fandom for Gareth Nelson expressed in OTT terms resembling religious worship, using words like "hail" and "almighty" and clearly linked to their shared work on another website. The psychology of devotees of a cause again: illuminated why his attitude to threats was so wonky and wild.
7 Sep 05

Sep 14 - on seeing this Pikachu mailed in irately demanding to take personal responsibility for his own views and have AFF recognised as "nothing to do with this." That's fine, AFF is not responsible for his actions, it's just his factional sympathies for AFF and against the folk it has hurt that are an insight into his judgment.
In a blog entry of Sep 13, he accuses "the owner of Spectrum Fairness" of "sucking up to Wrong Planet and Alex Plank", though no views for or against Wrong Planet and Alex Plank appear anywhere on SF. Alongside making up that story about an innocent person he accuses SF of making up stories about innocent people! and of containing lies. But he does not itemise these accusations at all, and SF has already invited him to use the right to reply against anything on SF, not only about himself, whose accuracy he thinks he can fault - and he hasn't done it. So he's just ranting hatefully, isn't he? On his 2 sites, which (Sep 14) he mailed in to strongly deny are hate sites though they contain statements of the form "I hate you". It's not rational to take the position: that he can expose his feelings of unfairness towards Wrong Planet and call that truth but insist that other people's feelings of unfairness towards AFF must be lies because he personally doesn't want to believe anything against his friends.

This is a Scottish parliament report on adult services. Scroll to and read the end sentence, which shows the National Autistic Society claiming to embrace the democratic involvement of aspies in improving the nature of our scene. This should be argued to include fulfilling the function of the SF site.

You heard it here: the NAS was caught here saying it will start being responsive to ordinary aspies - which of course it still isn't. For years the position has been that NAS offices and officers don't even respond in writing or email, to ordinary aspies' issues and concerns that they cynically want to keep the NAS out of, but they are willing to give their backstabbing answers verbally when they meet you.

The NAS is sponsored by Vodafone, btw.

---

The Same As You? noted that there are not enough facilities for assessing and diagnosing ASD for older children and adults in smaller local authority areas and in rural areas. The Scottish Executive’s ASD Reference Group, Sub-group Diagnosis recently held a professional study day which, amongst many issues, looked at developing national standards for diagnosis of children and adults.

Services

ASD is wrongly perceived by some to be a childhood condition: ASD is a lifelong condition and children with ASD will grow up to be adults with ASD.

Consequently, thousands of children in Scotland will soon need to access adult services. Currently, appropriate services which meet the needs of adults with ASD is patchy. The forthcoming NAS publication A Place in Society highlights the fact that statutory entitlements available to children and young people with ASD ‘disappear in adulthood, with entitlement to services typically dependent on an individual’s presenting needs. There is no equivalent for adults of the raft of current policy initiatives designed to join-up children’s services’.

The Same As You? said that ‘even when there is a diagnosis, services may not be available as no agency sees it as their responsibility to provide them’. A survey found that adults with Asperger Syndrome receive either mental health or learning disability services, but often there is a lack of clarity between these services within social work or between social work and health. Many people on the medium to higher end of the spectrum are often assessed to be ineligible for learning disability services because of their average or above average IQ levels.

Moreover, the recent Scottish Executive review of therapy services found that increased demand for therapy services have come from ‘children with complex health needs and children with autism’. Yet, when it came to adults, the review found that there were no adults with ASD and without an accompanying learning disability waiting to access speech and language therapy services in 2002. The review goes on to say that for this group of adults, ‘there are indications that services for the last client group are poorly defined and there are gaps in service provision’.

Forty-nine percent of adults with ASD are still living at home with their parents with 8% living independently; only 6% of adults are in full-time employment with 4% in part-time employment; almost a third of adults are not involved in any social activities; only 11% of carers said that the adult they care for had ever used an independent advocate with 54% of carers being unaware of an independent advocacy organisation in their area which the person they care for could access.

Types of services

Although current provision is patchy, there are examples of specific services provided by statutory agencies and voluntary organisations across Scotland. For example, the adult autism co-ordinator for Lothian Primary Care Trust, Jane Neil-MacLachlan runs the Regional Autistic Spectrum Disorder Consultancy Service for adults with ASD. This is a multi-disciplinary assessment and diagnostic service for adults in the South East Scotland area.

Voluntary sector organisations provide a variety of services for adults such as residential and day services, outreach services, short break/respite, supported employment, social groups and support groups such as the Scottish Society for Autism (SSA), The National Autistic Society (NAS), Moving Intowork, Edinburgh Lothian Asperger Society (ELAS), Parents of ASD Adults (PASDA), People with High Functioning Autism (PHAD), Strathclyde Autistic Society, Grampian Autistic Society and Fife Action on Autism, amongst many others.

The Scottish Executive recently announced funding of £1.5 million to pilot a one-stop-shop of service provision for adults with ASD in the Greater Glasgow and Lothian area. It is envisaged that the projects will be an access point for adults with ASD and their families to get advice, information and support on diagnosis, health issues, training and employment, and much more. Evaluation of the projects will inform the development of services for adults across Scotland.

Complementing this work, the NAS recently launched a consultation on a proposal for a National Autism Plan for Adults. The aim of the proposal is to create a single UK-wide good practice document for providing services for people with ASD aged 14 and upwards to assist policymakers and practitioners in service planning and provision. The proposal state that the recommendations and outputs should be driven by the views and experiences of adults with ASD who will be involved at every stage of its development. In addition, policy makers, professionals and members of the academic and research community from across the UK should be involved in framing NAPA. The proposed themes NAPA will cover are: contact with statutory services (e.g. health, education, social services), employment/meaningful activity, lifelong learning, relationships, impact on carers, and leisure activities. The consultation closed on 1st May 2004.

Complementing this work, the NAS recently launched a consultation on a proposal for a National Autism Plan for adults. the aim of the proposal is to create a single UK-wide good practice document for providing services for people with ASD aged 14 and upwards to assist policymakers and practitioners in service planning and provision. The proposal states that the recommendations and outputs should be driven by the views and experiences of adults with ASD who will be involved at every stage of its development.

12 May 2004

In view of the situation with Aspies For Freedom, the news today {as was} Feb 15 of the McLibel Two's victory in The European Court of Human Rights was of interest. These were 2 ecological campaigners in London who were sued for libel in England by Macdonald's over some leaflets about agricultural practice in Brazil. They had to conduct their own defence for financial reasons because of not getting legal aid. They have now won a decision by the European Court that this situation deprived them of the power to present their case properly, so they did not get a fair hearing. Fair "trial" the news says, though this was a civil court case not a trial.

Many big organisations, in environmentalism and overseas aid just as in Asperger's, are unaccountable and just publicise whatever material they like without giving a damn about listening to ordinary people including their members. They won't like to hear, and have already not been publicising, something that voids what the McLibel 2 have achieved. The European Court of Human Rights is a void and illegal court that has not legally existed since 7 July 1999! The entire media have covered that up.

You might think Spectrum Fairness would welcome what the court has done today. We would, in principle, but that is no excuse for silence about the true position of the ECHR, which the media have covered up deliberately for 6 years because it shifts power in favour of ordinary people. Nevertheless, it's on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are "open to open ended fault finding by all parties and recapitulation therupon" instead of final.

This, which I shall term "the court change", follows from European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on an insurance scam of evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last inland decision stage was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR made itself illegal, by claiming finality in issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time. It violates every precedent of member countries' laws recognising the chronology of cause and effect, in evidence.

The European Convention's section on requiring a court to exist, now requires its member countries to create a new schismatic ECHR that removes the original's illegality, by its decisions not being final. It follows this requires inland courts to be compatible with open ended decisions and doing inland work connected to them. Hence inland decisions also cease to be final and become open ended, in the 46 Council of Europe countries.

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further return faultable, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

This is now the true position around all court cases, including libel cases. There is no finality of outcome, and the court change can be used to fault-find for financial fairness in the process of conducting cases. It is a BIG democratic advance - if it was publicly known and hence operational.

15 Feb 05

This new principle applies to every bid AFF makes to destroy SF.

[Oct 3: A curiosity. The Margaret Thatcher Foundation of all people says it is sure her lawyers are aware of the court change and would apply it to her present problem with the DeLay investigation (on US Senator corruption) if necessary. Well now, if that's the case and said on record, they could choose to make the court change known to the public. Don't see much sign of it happening yet!]

---

Aspies For Freedom, the least free aspie site you have ever seen, first came to SF's notice by the sudden shock authoritarian takeover it suffered in July 2004.

In the beginning it claimed to be a movement for self expression and advocacy and lobbying for aspies, so that we wouldn't be spoken for by professionals to our disadvantage. It opened as a forum, intending to grow into "real life" activities from there. But the members were only able to post their thoughts on group democracy, and how there should be no bannings without a democratic process, trustingly without the moderators ever actually implementing them. This was fatal: on July 10 moderator Amy introduced a regime where she could:

• ban at her discretion all further discussion of a topic, at any time, without allowing a member about whom personal comments have been posted since his own last post, to answer them. This constituted AFF libelling members. No forum can operate this way in legal fairness to its members: you can't start a topic knowing you will be allowed to finish, or to react if topics are edited in misleading ways.
• ban certain members from posting on certain topics, and without even telling the other members so. This was claimed to be for the sake of keeping a "balance" of flowing topics, but it means political manipulation and censorship, and falsely making members look like they have nothing more to say on the topic by choice. This was an experienced event, and AFF members at the time saw that onsite reference to it was not contested by the leaders.
• take moderation decisions like these without allowing members to argue against them onsite. The claimed reason was to prevent arguments developing onsite! That is a dictatorship, with political repression done smarmily behind the scenes.
• have the final say on whether a member has been personally misrepresented or not, again without allowing the member's arguments to be put onsite.
• decide arbitrarily that some members don't have to answer any questions about anything they write, but others do.
• agree with a member to discuss a problem in the chatroom at a fixed time, but come that time, hold him to ransom at banning point with the authoritarianism "I've made my decision ... are you going to accept it? ... if you don't you will have separated yourself from our cause ".
• ban members for expressing an opinion, on another site, of what future policy directions will mean he can or can't continue to support AFF. Members of proper political movements are allowed to express opinions on their future course, but in this group there are signs onsite of a purge of members. You notice that bannings are not under democratic control after all!
• refuse, with a selfish "I don't want to get involved", to solve a personal problem between 2 members offsite in this obviously sensible way: to tell each of them all the ways the other still feels misrepresented, exchange their answers and remove anything mutually offensive from them, then post the agreed final result onsite in a locked topic.

It had shown a pattern of disposing of members' problems behind the scenes, off the record. It necessitated raising with the spectrum services community a legal alert against any involvement by AFF in advocacy or lobbying, on the reasoned grounds that it is made medically unethical by its social unfairness hence can be expected to hurt those who approach it for help. An immediate start was made on this in Scotland. Wouldn't you think spectrumites should actually be protected from AFF? It became a ruin in 2 months flat, and it should now be analysed historically as a case study of how freedom movements for any oppressed group go wrong if there is no practically working check on the use of power. Compare it to the loss of freedom in the early Soviet Union, completed by the Kronstadt sailors' massacre in 1921, after the revolution was launched on a theory of trust in the oppressed group's better natures and no checks on power had ever been allowed to be introduced.

Aspies often like to generalise that we are more aware of personal fairness than the mob is, but we still can't all be trusted to be fair characters when given leadership roles. Also, any aspie who knowing these things chooses to remain a participating member of AFF is automatically party to an abuse of the public's confidence.

In a message board that SF opened for the AFF members at the time of the authoritarian coup, AFF's Gareth logged in to write a serious libel and to reply sympathetically to an AFF member, and choose to keep him as an AFF member, called Bawbag who writes extremely sinister physically threatening and foul-mouthed messages!! For over a year, a query at the logical implication of sympathy for the violence Bawbag was writing about, sat on SF's old site. Suddenly only on 29 Sep 05, Gareth on behalf of AFF asked for it to be recorded flatly that they have no sympathy for violent behaviour. About time! There was never any unfair accusation: he allowed his loose words to Bawbag to carry that implication and he should have denied it promptly a year ago. At the same time, Gareth accused that the talk of a "takeover" of AFF was a lie because he and Amy founded AFF. But nothing conflicting with or denying that has been said anywhere. To change the way they ran the site, ending a democratic pooling of ideas where there was no active leadership and putting the leaders' will in charge on pain of exclusions, is an "authoritarian takeover".

Meanwhile, on 16 July 2004, within a week of the takeover, AFF closed its original site at a speed that looked like legal panic and opened its present one with less than a third as many members. On July 22 SF reported: take a look at this page to see how AFF is being moderated on its new site, and how several users have reacted against their treatment!! Within a few months they had wiped the topic linked to, hence we will keep available the message concerned, here!

On Aug 15 Gareth's family contacted Spectrum Fairness and made known how AFF's founders and leaders, Amy (Amber really) Roberts and Gareth Nelson based in North Wales, were a socially divisive pair of lovers aged 34 and 16. The point of a site having several moderators, besides workload, is for them to be fairly unpartisan in their actions. This couple, working together with their shared agenda, obviously never were. So AFF was founded less fairly constituted and under tighter control than any of the original members could tell. It's all their personal reckless escapade.

The following email has been sitting on SF, published with consent, ever since that time, and it is public insight into where AFF came from:

I have read your bit about the above site and agree with most of what you are saying. What you may not be aware of is the fact that Gareth is our son who quite suddenly left the family home at the age of 16 to live with Amy (34). He turned 17 when he was there and we can't get him back.
It is destroying the family. In the meantime I have certain traits of the syndrome but at the age of 46 it is impossible for me to be diagnosed as such....
It hurts to be cut off from him by her. e-mails are not responded too.
I am the ogre because I do not understand what is going on.
EXCUSE ME? Do you know of any way we can get him back? Is there anything in the groups that you know who could help us?
Sincerely,
Phil Nelson.

Any readers who know of leads that could help him, can still post them on the message board or as comments.

BTW you certainly can be diagnosed AS at 46 or older. At any age, it is best to establish your AS first with a group if you can find one, because understanding of AS is still inadequately spread among psychiatrists, and psychiatrists' politically abusable power of opinion makes them dangerous to go anywhere near unless you are known to an AS community as mentally healthy before you go to one: then it becomes entirely safe!

• All spectrumites should have nothing to do with the Autistic Pride Day first declared for 18 June 2005, which was AFF's invention. Pride in dictatorship, pride in telling the world that spectrumites are gullible zombies? No, that's a con, don't have anything to do with it. What's more, if you browse the AFF site to see how they have been discussing promoting this (without any success), you will notice that it's all about trying to make socially uppitty connections with the NAS and with professors who go around lecturing in favour of prescribing drugs. AFF has COMPLETELY ABANDONED the line it was founded to take, only last year, against the medical establishment!!!!! This is exactly like the ruling pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm, when they abandoned "all animals are equal" and made rulers' deals with the neighbouring human farmers. And of course like the real-life emergence of arrogant elites in communism which Animal Farm was satirising. AFF now only exists as a name for its leaders to use in craving for influence among the same medical toffs as they created AFF to oppose.

• Now, at the date of posting this, AFF's purging of its stalwart New York based supporter Joe Mele, known in forums as "the AS Man", shows that it is turning in on itself and devouring its own like extremist or revolutionary movements often do, like Robespierre. It comes a couple of weeks after AFF also purged the founder of its first local group in Australia. If AFF finally collapses because its leaders risibly destroy every AFF initative with any automomy over its own actions, including every local activity remote from North Wales, then its dozens of purge victims can just watch its nemesis with satisfaction. But we aren't there yet, and meanwhile AFF's self-appointed claims to speak for the world's aspies in an advocacy role, starting Autistic Pride Day and getting in New Scientist, while in reality controlling and hurting aspies, make it really dangerous.

• Yahoo group FAMSecretSociety is a sympathetic spot for anyone who has suffered at AFF's hands, or indeed have been hurt by other forum groups. As such, it can be said at present that it is being run really carefully with an eye on members' fairness to each other, and the only folk it has ever banned have been the perpetators of bans elsewhere who brought to there the spiteful arguments for them. No matter how nice any group is, it's always an active work to keep it that way,and SF stands as an independent failsafe. AFF itself seemed decent in its first month of existence, that's how the authoritarian takeover was such a sudden abuse of trust towards the early members - but hindsight shows that AFF had always been deceptively under Amy and Gareth's site control from the beginning.

  When the purged speak their minds on other forrms about what has happened to them, any AFF spokesmen present in the same forums have tended to accuse them of mental health conditions and to accuse that their aspieship is fake. These are pretty malicious forms of harrassment. Harrassment is when you follow a person with attacks and slurs, a series of actions, in the places where they are. By comparison, what is not harrassment is for an item to simply sit on a website for a long period, but AFF has regularly called it a harrassment instead of simply replying to it. AFF proved irreversibly how rattled it is, indeed. The aspie public have a consumer right to scrutinise the total lack of ethics of a membership group that claims to be an ambitious global movement for them.

• On 5 Feb 05 Gareth emailed a third party with no responsibility for SF's content concerning AFF, threatening to sue for libel. These emails were copied onto the old SF site, in our defence and as a form of giving AFF its right to reply - which it hadn't asked for! It was done with a promise that the emails would be removed at any time at AFF's demand provided the legal threats in them were withdrawn - this never happened. Publishing the emails made clear to all readers of SF that Gareth denied the truth of everything said about AFF on SF. The emails did not contain any proposed refutation of any of the details, though, while everything on SF was sourced - hence wasn't libellous. That attempt at threatening was just stupid.

• But then on Sep 29 came, out of nowhere and with no clear explanation for the timing, AFF's intervention with domain host 1and1 which got a result. 1and1 reacted by the illegal flagrant authoritarian bullying of SF and refusal to answer even legal challenges to its own behaviour, making it guilty of the offences listed in this site's intro. It was out of character with what until now has usually been seen to happen when malicious accusations are made against any website. Not high-handed non-listening bullying dictation to comply with everything the accuser says with no interest in scrutiny of the facts. Many websites that unlike SF contain shocking or illegal content, and far more personal content than SF ever has, carry on quite undisturbed. Are there any hidden agendas in the control-minded doctors' levels of the "autistic spectrum" scene, that are working in AFF's favour and helping it with backing to carry out legal intimidations? Because it's very desirable to the drug promoters who want to lure aspies into pharmaceutical dependency, and to the big psychologists who would prefer aspies seen as disordered and in need of intervention, to encourage AFF in its multi-continent claims to represent all aspies without in reality taking any notice of them?

  In one of 1and1's phone contacts with SF during the crisis, when its dictatorial hit-man Choudhry was annoyed with not being blindly obeyed, he let slip a mention of contacts by a lawyer hired by AFF. This is something 1and1 never mentioned in writing and were clearly trying deceitfully to conduct the whole crisis without ever mentioning. That's all the facts we've got: speculate as you will. The cost of hiring a lawyer just to posture with is not huge, but following up the postures you imagine would have a greater cost. If 1and1 were seriously and behind-the-scenes being made to fear a follow-up, only financially because there can be no fear of follow-ups legally when AFF is in the wrong, then what forces were backing it on AFF's side? or would have any motive to?

What was done to the original SF site was medical deception and an extension of a personal cross-site stalking by AFF. 1and1 was told this and disregarded it. That makes its behaviour knowingly illegal with evidence recording that it did not even dispute so.

A notification of it has been made to a relevant police office. Any other domain host tempted to behave in the same way as 1and1 did, is hereby told that you are constrained by this: it would be an interference in a matter with an already preliminary crime report.

I say "preliminary" because it was just a declaration that the case exists, made to refer to in SF's own protection if needed. Before any full reporting of it, I declared an entitlement to have the SSA and NAS assist in showing how the stalking and the suppression of info impact the whole spectrumite community. This puts the SSA and NAS in the position that they are legal witnesses, the whole community can be told so and by it they are pulled into taking an active part in protecting personal fairness against socially ruthless groups. Something they have previously resisted doing, despite it having always been an axiomatic ethical duty for them. Delivering this change in the SSA and NAS would damn force them to be less arrogant and remote than in the past, and than still at present in the NAS's case, and help with directing a lobby at the police against any possibility of choosing not to bother, on grounds of obligations to a whole social group's safety. Also, if you don't like the word "autistic" in the SSA/NAS's names, or used about aspies, that is no reason for not wanting such a change in these 2 groups to happen. Instead, it's all the more reason why you should want it.

I am also told by the Blogspot company (not the hosts here, so I thank them for their independent information) that it is against Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act to remove material in response to arbitrary allegations of libel. So there you have it: on Blogspot's legal information this site accuses 1and1 of breaking the law, and while this isn't libel anyway because it's verified, under the same legal terms 1and1 can't get it wiped by saying "we allege libel."

Putting this in place, turning this case into a leverage for reform of the SSA and NAS, was necessary before restoring SF content about AFF and analysing why like the pigs in Animal Farm, the leaders of AFF have become indistinguishable from the medical elites they started out protesting against.