Saturday Guardian Family Section - Grrr

[donkeyderby]

First, some nob who thinks he's really special because he's a New Dad and who refers to non-New Dads are 'Normals'.

Secondly, that twat Oliver James referring to children with learning disabilities as 'mentally retarded'

Thirdly, a guide on 'difficult' children - Although I quite enjoyed this article and agreed with certain points, maybe I just find it hard to stomache advice from a parent whose child is impossible, challenging, statemented and diagnosed with ASC/ADHD, who then turn out more-or-less NT.

I see the point about 'half-cast'.

"he should explain his terms better" - you are completely right. Unfortunately, I don't think he understands what he is writing about. Sadly, nobody at the Guardian seems to have picked up on this. (Maybe because they can't get to the end of the article without nodding off).

On the other hand, they also allowed an editor to come up with the 'wild child' headline for the ADHD/Asperger's article, so the whole paper seems equally clueless.

I don't know if baking cakes will make you any friends, but if you go to PTA meetings you do get to say no when somebody comes up with a mad suggestion that will completely exclude your child. (Whether they will listen or not is another matter).

Agreed merrymouse, I do a bit of PTA now and again myself . I think that would have been a far better point to make!

The Guardian makes some very odd decisions about what to publish regarding ADHD. I read this readers's letter recently and wondered if I reading the right newspaper.

Bejeeezies! sugar

OMG - what a shocker!

Then this is the paper that advocated voting LibDem to get a progressive Government - yup that'd be the Tories then

Ya likey my new name?

Someone called me it on another thread and I thought it was pretty!

It suits you muchly!

You know, I liked that 'wild child' article too. I thought the strategy of flattering other children so that their mums will overlook your own child's social misdemeanours was both funny and in a twisted way really sensible. I liked the bit about therapies too. And actually I thought she was spot on about the PTA mums. The wisdom of the serpent (otherwise known as applied parental psychology) is so often much more effective than being right. Also I liked what she said about professionals and diagnoses they're a flag of convenience, really, aren't they and it was nice to see an optimistic end to the piece. So much better than the last thing they published about autism, which was a 'how we cured our son by getting him to ride mongolian horses/eat whales placenta/having the heavy metals washed out of him' thingy which was utter snake oil.

Of course it was an attention-grabby subbed headline, that's what subs are for -- they're not producing a summary of an academic paper.

As for Oliver James, why does anybody read him? (God knows why the Guardian employ him, but perhaps his rates are low and they need to fill the space.)

I liked the wild child mum's assessment of professionals too and her assessment of the hard middle class heart in the Scouts v. Woodcraft folk bit.

However, her child was really pretty much NT in the end and I didn't appreciate the between-the-lines suggestion that if you follow her guidelines, your child will be ok in the end too.

I'm not completely convinced that all the problems were sorted out - maybe she explained this further but it was edited?

I don't think you go from ASD/ADHD whatever diagnosis to completely NT at 14. On the other hand, if you define somebody with ASD as somebody whose autistic traits make everyday life difficult, I think you can reach a point where the difficulties become more manageable, and you can be in an environment where you have supportive friends and family and find your niche in work and school. (But still be vulnerable if this environment changes).

There was good and bad in the article but, seriously, would you write an article and let it be entitled 'Wild child', it instantly invites comments along the lines 'that child needs a bit of firm discipline etc' and of course, not all children with ASD etc are 'wild' in that sense. In fact, it is those who are likely to get the help so things are actually worse than she presents them for many children.

But is was a chatty article about raising a child with a 'issues' and I think she is right about labelling and useless experts and other advice.

Still disagree on the PTA though - they might like to view themselves as powerful but that is very far from the truth. They are there to prop up the school and toe the party line. Cross the school about your child, and your hours spent cooking hot dogs for the Christmas fair are very soon forgotten.

I thought she used the term 'wild child' as an esoteric joke to other parents in her situation.

Bloke has two perfect kids.Writes articles about sn children.Enough said.Disgusted that the terms mentally retarded was used.Also I heard the Jeremy Vine feedback about the complaints over retard and generally there was not a sympathetic response.My son is NOT a RETARD or mentally retarded.He is a young man in his twenties who really enjoys his Life,the fact he has LD is just another aspect to his character,but does not define him.

Oh, I see, ha ha, a joke! That won't compund the assumptions people have about children out of control and bad parenting etc etc

I disagree. People aren't going to change their assumptions due to the name of an article. But people who did have negative assumptions may have read it because of it's title all ready to pass judgement and perhaps had their preconceived opinions challenged by what she was saying.

I see you point corsilk, I do. I suppose my axe to grind is that everyone expects every child with ASD to be a 'wild child' and yet many aren't and it is very difficult for those of us with children who don't behave like that to get anything, anywhere from anyone in terms of meeting our children's needs.

If my son's teacher read something like this, her reaction would be, well I understand that this is autism, which means he can't have it as he doesn't wreck things, shout, scream, etc etc. It's a stereotype and there may be mileage in explaining things behind that stereotype but it still means that people think -autism = badly behaved wild child.

I'm a huge fan of Oliver James ever since he started putting together surveys of other people's articles, several of them to the effect that working mothers cause high level of cortison and therefore stress, aggressiveness, you name it, in their children.
Perhaps I could try and get a job like he has, doing f** all BUT (crucially) getting paid for it? I don't know about DS, but my levels of cortison, aggressiveness, stress, you name it, would most certainly improve.
And I'd even take care not to be an a*hole

Hi, hiding in here in case anyone from the LA fancies a peep. Got my response today and have been shaking the whole day with fury and upset and just the pure vile crap that they have written about what we are doing and what we need.

Some (but not a lot to be fair) of their words are lies, a good amount is deliberately misleading and conclusions drawn from no hard evidence.

A bit of it is a slur on me, and an indirect accusation that I am deluded, stupid, and damaging my ds for no reason other than to fulfil my own needs.

They are requesting 4 witnesses (usually allowed 3) PLUS an observer for training purposes. They also have an OT on standby should they hear of a private OT assessment that they need to refute (I spent a year and have the evidence of many attempts to get a referral to NHS OT).

Sorry, just wanted to rant and talk to people who 'really' understand. Friends in real life just think all I have to do is tell the tribunal what has happened and of course we'll win, and it just ain't so simple!

OMG Star, that is truly awful. It all gets so vindictive when it's amount money. The fact that there is a child at the centre of this gets forgotten. The fact that you have to endure slurs and be made to look like a mad conspiracy theorist (I think we all know that feeling) is dreadful.

How dare they try and suggest it is they who are looking after out children's welfare? You are with friends here.

Oh yeah Debs40 I wasn't expecting anything less, and they haven't disappointed. There were no surprises really, but you have to believe in peace, love and the greater good because otherwise you are only left with evil, and you have to always have hope, otherwise you wouldn't make it through the days.

I just can't being so hurt. How do these people sleep at night? Do they manage to convince themselves that they truly are acting in the best interest of DS? or do the do it for the greater good, i.e. if Starlight wins then the budget will not stretch to others, or they do it because if they didn't they would lose their jobs and their own children would be at risk?

I can't understand the system, but have even more trouble understanding the motivations of the people within it!

It's not personal - it is about MONEY! These sods will use any means necessary to protect their budgets and yes, that means, in a state of denial, they will justify to themselves the tactics they use - e.g. well the child will probably be alright without a statement, we've seen worse, we don't usually do this so we can't be wrong etc etc.

But it is institutional bullying. And it is an institution. People lose sight of their own moral code because they follow the code of ethic prevalent in their own environment. No one pays them to question and they hate their jobs so they get out at 5pm and forget all about it.

But this is NOT about you. It is about their MONEY.

NO ONE, NO ONE who ever stood up against the crowd got treated nicely. But you are doing the right thing. You are Star, our living legend and we are behind you 100%!!!!!

Sorry Starlight, that is awful. I hate the way my LA has portrayed me too, they have selectively quoted and twisted things to suit their own agenda.

And 4 witnesses is truly aggressive. Do you think that it could drag the hearing into a second day, especially if the bundle is as heavy as you've described?

Oh no, I never thought of that. I, personally don't think the case is all that complex tbh. The LA have sent an enormous bundle of nothing. Ofsted reports of 2 schools, Ds' learning journal, some letters that are just bog standard format letters, nothing specific to us or the case.

Prolly just trying to dilute what we have. Barely even mentioned our evidence. I just need some hours now, to sort it all and work on it. Gimmee some hours.........

Forgot to say debs Thanks very much for that. It has helped a lot. I know what you are saying, but that doesn't stop it really hurting anyway. It's very cruel.

Still, I have no intention of giving up.