To ask if its fair that inclusivity has excluded my DC from their hobby?

"but you understand that the scouts could not tell him he’s not welcome?"

If the behaviour was disruptive and the parents or carers refused to attend and provide 1-to-1 support, then why couldn't the Scouts tell him he's not welcome? Why should everybody else have to manage/tolerate weekly disruption?

"you understand that telling what sounds like a serious ND child that “he’s being rude” is unlikely to change the situation"

If you're referring to my brother (he's approaching 50), then he will moderate his behaviour when he's told that he's being rude. He doesn't always understand when he's being rude, but he does understand that rude behaviour is unacceptable. He actually benefits from firm feedback because it means that those people willing to tolerate him for 15-30 minutes a week will continue to do so. If he 'forced' his way into all the village's social activities, I think people would rapidly tire of his presence and start avoiding him.

If we're talking about a hypothetical seriously ND child, I would question what they're going to gain from attending Scouts. If their attendance is just for 'social inclusion' then perhaps a Youth Club or non-competitive sports/games might be more suitable? Most people join Scouts for the outdoor activities, such as camping, trekking, climbing, learning survival skills, etc. If the ND child is incapable of learning/doing those things, and causes disruption to those children that do want to do those things, why is the ND child there?

I was thinking about this thread last night whilst I was coaching at the kids' club I help run, and wondering what we would do if we had to provide 1:1 support for the children we have with additional needs of any kind. Fortunately we have parents who stay close by and support their own children, but had we needed to provide that extra level of support for even one child and stay within ratio I would probably have had to send about 10 children home.
I don't take the view that being volunteers places a club above criticism or means it's acceptable to operate to poor standards, but I think that clubs are often trying their best in very difficult circumstances in situations like this. Getting another volunteer is often a great deal easier said than done! Most youth sports clubs and other activities that I am aware of are really struggling to get enough adults to keep things running as it is. For us, providing 1:1 from our existing pool would be impossible unless we permanently reduced our numbers. And that would probably kill us off financially within 2 years as our fixed costs would remain unchanged. So what's the answer? Refuse the child with additional needs, refuse a whole group of other children or get along as best we can even if it isn't ideal? I would love extra volunteers, particularly if they were experienced with and knowledgeable about additional needs, but we have a waiting list most of the time as it is because we don't have enough adults to accomodate all the kids who want to come. If parents won't stay to provide the necessary support then clubs are really between a rock and a hard place.

Most people I know in tech are not the "make everyone uncomfortable by ruining group activities" type of NT, they're the type that wouldn't be able to tolerate said behaviour. Regardless your argument is ridiculous because you could say the same about the contributions NT people have provided for ND people. There's a middle ground between terrible masking that ruins your life, and having 0 boundaries or care towards what others are doing around you and whether your behaviour is appropriate or not.

Unless the ND person does not have the capacity (ie severe autism etc) then they can't just disregard societal rules completely, where is the line drawn? Nobody has an issue with being a little bit dense to social norms and rules, talking too loud/excitedly or at length about their interests or slightly inappropriate comments, but the OP says this child is taking equipment and making the team lose and shouting very loudly and he should be redirected and kept on track by members of staff that he can't take equipment and wander off vs just ignoring it because he's ND.

To some extent yes, but people need to be firm with him and tell him that he's being rude, outstayed his welcome, not welcome, etc.

If he's given unlimited 'tolerance' his behaviour quickly become intolerable. He lives with my elderly father in a small village, so people know him and his issues. A lot of villagers are elderly and appear to be much more comfortable laying down rules and boundaries than the 'It's their legal right' brigade on this thread.

In a larger city, I fear he'd get his teeth kicked in by feral youth due to his behaviour.

Change hobby club. Tbh the ND child's behaviour doesn't sound extreme, just irritating. If there's no physical violence, swearing then they couldn't be excluded. This is very standard in each class at school with added complications of violence, throwing, shouting etc.

@ThisOldThang but that isn't what you said. You said you think ND people should "fit in" unbelievable do you have any clue what being ND is? You know what just forget it, I have no interest in engaging clueless people like you any further.

Oh and a brain injury isn't the same as being ND, but nice comparison.

Oh and whilst I'm here, half the Software code would not have been written without ND people, the tech world is full of ND people. So whilst you are busy slagging them off your pension fund probably relies on these share prices in the tech industry doing well. (Off the back of ND people)

My brother suffered a brain injury as a child. He has zero social skills and is incredibly hard work.

Some people tolerate him, but he doesn't actually have any friends in the normal sense of the word. You can't force people to spend time with somebody that is really annoying and rude.

@ThisOldThang JFC tell me you have no effing clue about being ND without actually saying that.

Farking hell

I completely agree.

The general public are not unpaid social workers and/or bit-part players in the life of Nina ND. They are going to be understandably upset if they attend an event that they've been looking forward to (e.g. a West-end musical) and it is ruined by somebody causing disruption. If they find their weekly hobby clubs are intruded upon, they'll likely vote with their feet. For smaller groups, that could easily result in the groups folding.

This is why, and I know some people will hate this suggestion, I think that the onus should/must be on ND people fitting in with the majority whenever and wherever possible. We are doing ND children no long-term favours by shoehorning their behaviours into situations such as the OP's. As soon as people are old enough to walk away, they will do and the ND children will be left wondering why they've suddenly gone from a 'thriving' social life to one of being ostracised and isolated.

In a school, a child who persistently failed to follow instructions - whether NT or ND - would probably have a risk assessment in place. That was certainly the case in the high school (Scotland) where I was a PTC/Faculty Head.

Admittedly, it only happened when staff below SLT level pushed for it.

What I don't get is what's inclusive for the ND child when nothing is done in order for him to really be included; help with following rules etc. I have a ND and a NT child and I choose activities carefully for my ND child. For exemple he can join any one to one sport like tennis or badminton but he wouldnt be able to play in a team like football or basket-ball. Even if they would accept him he would struggle and 14-year old boys are not tender with someone making them lose a game..
He's going to summer camp for two weeks (daytime only) this summer with NT children his age but there will be a special assistant for him and another child to make sure they are integrated and explain rules/appropriate behaviour and to make sure they are not being manipulated as quite vulnerable and naïve.. Every place that calls themself inclusive should have extra ressources to be inclusive for everyone's sake..

With so many things, inclusion of some people means exclusion of others.

It's not just NT people. One of the great causes of distress for one of my friend's ND children (ASD) is people not following the rules and / or being disruptive. It causes him very great distress to the point of tears and leaving the room (my friend is always there so if he needs to leave, he can). I'm not sure how you balance those two things but it's not just NT people who are disadvantaged by loud and unruly behaviour, often the impact will be huge for ND people who are ND in a different way, with different behaviours.

Disruptive enough to ruin it for the OP's dc though. Which isn't fair on them, or on other kids similarly affected.

Insisting others put up with obnoxious behaviours on the grounds of neurodiversity is going to create alot less tolerance for ND people in the long run, NT people can't be forced into dealing with unpleasant behaviours ruining their leisure time for long before they get sick of it imo. This attitude of Nina ND can stim as much as she wants and everyone has to put up with it is going to create alot of bad feeling.

It seems that we make children put up with all kinds of behaviour in the name of being kind and inclusive and fair which we ourselves would never put up with for so long as adults.

Part of the problem, I think, is the adoption by a lot of organizations of the idea of complete inclusion, without really thinking about what that means with regard to their core activities. Because of the way it's become the be all and end all, with significant moral implications, means leaders in groups like scouts feel they have to accommodate anyone, even when they simply don't have the resources

This. It's become another of those subjects where it's very difficult for anyone to question whether inclusion in an activity is the right thing for the child themselves, never mind whether they can be accommodated safely and without disruption for others.

Even within my specialist field of special education (with a focus on high needs autism) my colleagues and I couldn't always agree on whether including some of our children in some events and activities was right for them, or for the other NT participants/members of the audience.

In my opinion too many people misunderstand exactly what inclusivity means. It is not just letting all children join in and hoping for the best - that is unfair on all parties.
It is providing the right support or scaffolding so all children can both participate and get full enjoyment out of the activity. This support could be many different things but the most obvious would be for this child to have 1:1 support maybe in the form of their parent oar an additional volunteer.

That’s kind of the point of the thread though.

Why should we enable one child to participate in the way that suits them at the expense of all other participants?

Not every activity is centered around just including everyone. No one would try and claim a high level sports team should put the kids in a position where they weren't able to develop as players because of having to work at the level of one child who had some kind of disability, be it something like autism or a physical disability.

Groups like scouts, contrary to what some believe, are not just about having fun together. Especially as kids get older, they are about skill development. Planning, leadership skills, things like planning and executing wilderness trips, there is badge work that is pretty extensive. The stuff the kids do at the lower levels underpins a lot of the later, more independant work.

If this kid is not participating in the activities, it seems like there isn't much he is getting out of it. Maybe he is having fun, but the other kids are not there to provide an opportunity for that one kid to have fun, any more than a field hockey team is there just for one kid to have fun. They are there to play the game, or in this case, be in the activities.

Part of the problem, I think, is the adoption by a lot of organizations of the idea of complete inclusion, without really thinking about what that means with regard to their core activities. Because of the way it's become the be all and end all, with significant moral implications, means leaders in groups like scouts feel they have to accommodate anyone, even when they simply don't have the resources. The ONLY way it's seen as acceptable to demure is if there are significant safety issues, since safety is also now a core value. But ruining the actual activity for the other kids doesn't seem to feature at all. If their leadership activity, camping trip, theatre show, is ruined they just have to suck it up. (I'm not sure why high level sports get a pass on this? But they seem to.)

This kind of problem is ultimately likely to impact negatively on inclusion practices in the end.