The National Autistic Society Responds To Katie Hopkins’ Tweets On Honey From Born Naughty
Here is The NAS’s response to Katie Hpkins’ Tweets from yesterday on Honey from Born Naughty:
Yesterday, we told you about the new Channel 4 programme Born Naughty? The first episode raised some important issues about autism, including Pathological Demand Avoidance, but most of the coverage since has been about Katie Hopkins incredibly offensive tweets. The NAS has issued this response, which has already been widely picked up by the media.
Jane Harris, Director of External Affairs and Social Change at The National Autistic Society, said: “It’s unacceptable to talk about children in this aggressive way, regardless of whether they have a diagnosed condition like autism or not.
“We recognise that writing to shock and offend is what Katie does, and nothing we can say will change that, but this is a new low. As well as being offensive, her comments took people’s attention away from the important issues raised in ‘Born Naughty?’. Most concerning for us was how she made light of the importance of a diagnosis and getting the right support for the 1 in 100 people who are diagnosed with autism. In many areas of the country, parents have to wait for years for an assessment and diagnosis, not knowing how best to support their child. We should be focusing on what we can do to bring waiting times for assessments down and improve the support people get after diagnosis.
“Despite the judgemental and damaging nature of her tweets, we were encouraged to see people responding by showing they understand the very real challenges faced by the estimated 2.8 million individuals and families affected by autism in the UK. If Katie wants to really understand autism, we would like to invite her to come to meet some members of The National Autistic Society and hear about the challenges they face every day.”
To find out more out Pathological Demand Avoidance click here: http://bit.ly/1JMFMPv
For information about the Channel 4 programme Born Naughty click here: http://bit.ly/1G6caOf
Same Difference 
DOUBT SHE WILL WANT TO FIND OUT. ONCE SHE DOES SHE WILL HAVE TO APOLOGISE AND SHE WONT DO THAT.ANYTHING THAT’S NOT PERFECT IN HERRRRRRRRR EYES IS THERE FOR HER TO TAUNT AND BE NASTY ABOUT.AS FAR AS SHE IS CONCERNED.WHERE THIS WOMAN IS CONCERNED ITS BEST TO IGNORE HER BUT I KNOW HOW DIFFICULT THAT CAN BE.
LikeLike
As an ex member of the NAS (who saw with her own eyes that money from memberships goes anywhere *but* towards helping those of us on the spectrum) I have absolutely no time for them and cannot take them seriously.
As for Ms. Hopkins, I have this to say: by responding to her trollish behaviour, organisations and individuals everywhere are giving her exactly the publicity and notoriety she craves. Surely, if we stopped talking about her and caring about what comes out of her disgusting mouth, she would sink back into the obscurity from whence she came?
LikeLike
Do not forget she works for the Sun newspaper, and so would not disappear if her online tweets were ignored.
LikeLike
I don’t know anybody who buys the Sun; I do know that Lorraine Kelly has refused to have this woman on her morning show, so with luck others will follow by her example!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
If people refused to watch her and didn’t follow her Twitter and so on, she’d disappear out of the public eye. A boycott is in order. We’d get more beneficial celebrities if negative ones were ignored.
LikeLike