Faking it....

Part 2 here Closed Captions CC available.

Mikileaks to expose deaf culture... !

Despite protests from Paddy Ladd, A G Bell Inc, Gallaudet University, and a petition signed by 36 leading figures in the deaf world, Mikileaks is certain to publish, the private memos, twitter and facebook comments, and e-mails of these people in the deaf world and reveal their innermost concerns about deaf culture, deaf language and how deaf REALLY View each other. A last ditch attempt in the United Kingdom to declare Miki revelations as a breach or privacy and an potential for extreme damage to deaf people, language and culture (Currently going to appeal), and an identical plea to zero wikipedia on the grounds of totally biased and manufactured crap, it seems certain that Mikileaks will publish 36,000 memos online next Tuesday...

Wonder what they really DO think about us ? Did Mr Ladd REALLY write 'deafhood' ? A G Bell invent the CI ? wait, and all will be revealed...

Deaf emergency text systems used to help hearing...

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland (MCofS) is urging everyone who walks, climbs and skis in the Scottish mountains to register with a new 999 emergency text service.

Usual Signal is often very poor hundreds of metres above sea level, making it hard to make even a short call, but a text message needs just one bar of signal for the few seconds it takes to send. Details will be passed on to the appropriate emergency service and the sender will receive a reply to say that help is on its way.

Originally designed for the deaf or hard of hearing, the service is only available to those who have signed up. Mountain safety adviser Heather Morning said spending just a few minutes registering could save lives. She said, "This is going to be particularly useful for those needing 999 assistance in the hills when mobile phone reception is often intermittent and there is not enough signal to make a call."

Membership development officer Mike Dales said, "This is a great idea that is bound to save lives. I've just registered myself and it took less than two minutes." Text 'Register' to 999 — you will receive a reply and will then need to follow the instructions you are sent.

The system is for use only when voice calls cannot be made and does not guarantee texts will be delivered, so users should wait for a reply before assuming that help has been summoned.

VRS on trial...

Why I prefer NOT to use it....

Deaf woman rejected by Oxford...

Oxford snub for deaf girl wih six A grades. With an impressive haul of six A grades at A-level, Anastasia Fedotova is one of Britain's best students. Her achievement in Thursday's results is all the more remarkable because she has been deaf from birth, and could barely speak until she was seven. But the 19-year-old's joy at her clean sweep in maths, further maths, physics, chemistry, biology and general studies is tinged with sadness because she was rejected by Oxford University. Now her MP has demanded that the university explain its decision to say no to a candidate who attained six As in earlier AS examinations, had an outstanding reference from her comprehensive school and has battled against disability to achieve such startling academic success.

'Anastasia's achievements are formidable,' said Labour's Tony Lloyd. 'It's an enormous shame that she wasn't offered a place at Oxford when she is so clearly capable of benefiting from that education. 'I will be asking Oxford to justify its selection methods --in the hope that Anastasia can still be offered a place, but also so that in future young people of talent get through a selection process which at the moment is clearly failing.'


Source.

Deaf Cube Launch

LINK Some familiar faces here...

Space Invaders

"Deaf Space" the final frontier, boldly go where few non-deafies now dare to ..

Police failed deaf man...

The IPCC said the officers had failed in their duty of care to Anthony Lewis. Two Gwent Police officers should have done more to assist a deaf man found dead after they helped him home, a watchdog has ruled.

Anthony Lewis, 52, was helped home after officers found him in the street in Newport. He had speech difficulties which made it difficult to assess what was wrong, the Independent Police Complaints Committee (IPCC) said. It ruled the officers should have sought family or medical help for him.

The officers were likely to have been the last people to see Mr Lewis alive, the police watchdog said. A post mortem examination was unable to establish the cause of his death and an inquest recorded an open verdict. Mr Lewis was seen by a number of people in Wharf Road, Newport, in the morning of 20 October, 2009 holding onto a lamp post. Two officers in a passing police car stopped and issued Mr Lewis with a written warning before escorting him home.

He was found dead in his armchair by his mother two weeks later. He was fully clothed and the television was on. The two police officers who went to Mr Lewis' aid had a duty of care which they did not properly discharge. IPCC Commissioner for Wales Tom Davies said the officers had failed in their "duty of care to a vulnerable person".

RIP Tony....

Should we trust charities ?

Recent comments from a HoH charity responding to social and health care said:

"We also support the rolling out of personal budgets as a way to enable people to exercise choice and control. However, it is important that individuals are given a real choice about their options because some people may prefer their council to manage their budget. Direct payments should not be adopted as the default position."

Clearly a case of let deaf buy in their own help, but, do not give THEM the money to do it, in case they won't buy our system, empower them not us ! What gives charity the right to state deaf shouldn't be empowered to control their own support ? It seems an innocent enough comment until you understand this particular charity doesn't offer choice itself and has a monopoly with Local Authority deaf service provision, clearly they are none too confident we will choose them.

They are hedging their bets by on one hand promoting deaf people to be financially empowered to hire their own preferred support, while insuring THEY are the proffered support deaf choose. Already this charity blankets the service provision areas with bumpf and plugs for its own services (Charity disappeared as a concept years ago), as it floods online with its adverts, all care of tax payers or fund givers...

When deaf people set up to provide for themselves and own area, what do we find ? Major charities holding the funds (HEARING Ones!), and then forcing them into receivership by delaying payments, and offering their own unfair competition, while 'charity' operates an almost tax-free service provision as SOLE 'choice', some choice ! Until we get assurance Local councils and areas will NOT Give charities carte blanche to provide services unless there is valid tendering and no monopoly present, then choice is a total lottery and really unfair to deaf people.

Are national deaf charities a fair deal for deaf people ? They aren't if there is only one of them. Grass roots service provision must achieve the same status tax-wise as charity does. Should we force national charities to divide up their services so local control is the norm too ? yes we should, too much provision is determined 100s of miles from the area it is to be provided to, and with little or no local inclusion as to how that is done. Monopolies are undemocratic and unfair, and this applies to charities too, since they are run corporately and are already asset-stripping smaller deaf charities to corner the provision for themselves.

I bet !

What Paddy said when he heard of an £140,000 deafhood/genetic research grant.... won't do his image, book sales, personal appearance bookings, and bank balance any harm either will it ?

Ergo: In light of increased interest in the studies of deafhood (UK version), please click on the link and get your deafhood promo material now, before the rush starts.... Deafhood t-shirts, pens, towels, computer keyboards, paddy Ladd drinking mugs, you name it we got it.... Why not get your own PL adhesive beard ?

The NHS and the Deaf

Read the feedback

For one week only visible.

Deafhood Grant.... why ?

Paddy does it again, and manages to pull in £140K as well.

Article: Research study to examine genetics, power and Deafhood
Press release issued 15 November 2010

A new research study will look at Deaf people's concerns about the advances of genetic technology. It is thought to be the UK's first ever Deaf-designed and led social sciences research project. A grant of nearly £140,000 by the Leverhulme Trust has been awarded to the University of Bristol’s Centre for Deaf Studies (CDS).

Perhaps the fund givers DIDN'T read this.... there may not BE a deaf studies at Bristol to fund.

Might I suggest, the UK is funding AMERICAN interests ? and could I also offer input to the research ?

(1) Some cultural deaf do not like genetic technology.
(2) Many late-deafened SUPPORT it.
(3) Most hearing parents support it.
(4) 'Deaf culture' is as yet undefined.
(5) Deafhood is not a recognised concept, or even a word, it is a title taken from a re-write of the 'Emperor's new clothes' (H.C. Anderson).

Was Derring shafted ?

Text excerpts from an Radio interview (!) about the issues of Derring in receivership.

Int– The Shaw Trust say that you have been slack in your invoicing and that there have been flaws in the paperwork and that this accounts for some of the delays that you are complaining about. Are you absolutely telling me that you have been rigorous in your invoicing?

SD– Yes, I am. We sent the invoices by paper and by email.

Narrator– Stephen Dering’s complaint is not accepted by the Shaw Trust, which prides itself on running a vital national service with a 100 million pound a year turnover. It also prides itself on dealing fairly with its sub-contractors. It’s just launched a new government work programme called Work Choice, in which it has enlisted 50 smaller organisations as its supply chain for a 5 year contract worth well over 200 million pounds. The chief executive, Sally Burton, denies any responsibility for the demise of Dering Employment Services.

SB– We are very sympathetic to the situation Stephen Dering finds himself in. Mr Dering isn’t right though to say that we’ve made late payments consistently. We work for government; all our funding comes through government in these employment contracts and it’s very clear that we can only receive the payment when the evidence has been produced of the activity that’s been undertaken, and critically, of the outcome for the customer. We’d have no reason whatsoever to avoid making payments that were legitimate claims to any of our sub-contractors.

Int– You might have no reason, but he’s saying it’s happened. He’s saying, for instance, that he’s had, himself, to deliver copy invoices and other evidence by taking a trip to Birmingham in order to put the invoices in your hands.

SB– I am aware of a number of the things that Stephen Dering has said and we have had a very thorough internal review of our procedures and our policies to ensure that we are not disadvantaging any smaller organisations. There have been a few occasions where we have made payments a few days later than we would have liked to.

Int– Well, he’s not talking about few days, he’s talking about up to a year.

SB– We’ve been looking at our figures over the last week and we don’t believe we owe £43,000 and we believe that our figure that may still be outstanding is more in the region of £15,000.

Int– So you do accept that you owe him something, the question is how much?

SB– The money he’s owed now could not be paid earlier, because we didn’t have the evidence. We’ve been working with, or seeking to work through the liquidator to make those payments.

Narrator– While liquidation proceedings continue, we’re unable to discover who is right in this disagreement, but we have learned that it illustrated a widespread area of conflict between some of the other giant organisations which act as contractors of public services, and the host of smaller sub- contractors who provide many of the services.

Comment: Why does the UK government give HEARING charities the money to dole out to deaf people and not pay then direct ? Withholding fees they accept they owe, have contributed to the problem of Derrings by affecting its cash flow. So the hearing charity keeps the monies, the state saves, and the Deaf endeavour goes to the wall ? Shaw Trust ? and they say 'umbrella' organisations work better ? maybe for hearing it does, Shaw trust isn't up to the job clearly as a major 'contractor'.

The Lowdown

We have more access than the Americans and the LEAST awareness in these forms of media, DOH !

How NOT to run a Deaf TV program..

The Brits have enjoyed (Or not), an ground-breaking TV program for its deaf on the BBC for well over 26 years, but it is now in terminal decline due to a completely apathetic approach to its deaf viewer base, and a decision a few years ago to 'include' hard of hearing and others, which then resulted in deaf viewers leaving in droves, and hard of hearing moaning it is all sign language, and dedicated signers claiming it is a sign form they haven't seen before, over 30s viewers not understanding it, and the program content irrelevant to them.

In the drive to be with it, the program created it's own Blog, and even ventured into the no sense area of facebook (That's where it's 'at' isn't it ?), then promptly took no further interest. The blog rarely got 3 comments a week, 8 at most, often none at all, and the facebook site inundated with adverts:

"Join Beyond the Rack and save on one of the world’s best online shop! Up to 70% off designer brands! Free to join, start shopping today. 3 or more items free shipping. Check on: www.panamashoeshop.com."

None of the BBC sites set up are monitored or regulated at all, and the link on the BBC site TO them, takes you to some obscure American site, not the BBC one, and hasn't changed for 9 months. Most input is meaninglessness banter about nothing at all related to the TV program. It also created a message board for 'feedback' then promptly ignored it for 3 years,expecting it to run and edit itself, while offering no connection between the program and those who contributed to the program, in the end the contributors took over the board and talked about other things instead.

For those in the know this is NOT The way to run a deaf program or illicit any feedback. For a number of months a year there IS NO SEE HEAR program at all, the whole thing looks like an minority obligation the BBC has to adhere too, but in reality has no interest in perpetuating, firstly cutting the program by a third, then moving the program from prime time, and finally moving the staff out of London altogether, now there are rumbles the message boards will go,because of THEIR lack of dedication to keep it going, but for the contributors it wouldn't even exist now, it's been allowed to bleed to death.

Instead of debating with contributors alternative ways and input to be included in the program (Recognising the internet exists would be a start !), was met with an almost deafening silence, and a comment, of 'technical difficulties' prevent live TV. Hearing can do it, even a charity can do it on a zero budget, but obviously the will or interest is no longer at the BBC to serve the deaf community. "You got subtitles, what more is there ?" They hire presenters although looking youthful enough are almost impossible to understand sign-wise without subtitling,and look very dated, perhaps it's an view at the BBC to be looking sober respectable, and dress like your grandfather, I don't know.

There is no deaf child inclusion, and little or no real youth output either. They could not make it any clearer, the deaf program has served its time and the BBC wants out. Being as the law stops them winding it up, they are letting it bleed to death instead,by poor output lack of interactions, and an almost total apathetic approach in general. we are at the point now where we almost agree, Deaf TV is dead at the BBC, are the deaf interested in keeping this access ?

Online they say no, it has gone too far to exclude them from the remit and if the program cannot be bothered, why should we...? Sadly they CAN produce the occasional decent program (Like last week, the first decent one in 6 months), but they are letting it die, why ? They blame lack of deaf interest, and the deaf blame SEE HEAR as dated 1980s rubbish now aimed at non-deaf. Will someone get a grip on SEE HEAR or get rid ?

American Awareness Vid...

Nothing near it in the UK ? Why ?

You can't force awareness.. don't try.

I'd like to respond blog-wise to 'Liz' regarding her question "Should we make deaf awareness compulsory in the workplace'.

I'm not really a fan of compulsion in anything Liz, I feel unless people are wanting to be aware and can proceed at their own place, awareness can look like some politically correct thing imposed on people, and be a very negative thing via response. Offer people the opportunity to be aware by all means, but no compulsions, or the reaction will be not what we want.

Of course the primary issue, is we have nobody in the UK deaf world who can offer unbiased awareness yet, or will agree on what format the awareness should take or by whom. Would it be 'Deaf' awareness, or 'deaf' awareness or 'HI awareness' ? you see where the problem really is. If you take in the whole UK scene of deaf and loss support you will see many clear divisions and charities and areas, NONE of which want to operate an holistic approach to communication, nor awareness.

Will the Lion lay down with the lamb ? not likely at present is it ? If you run BSL awareness lessons, does this raise awareness of e.g. signed English ? of lip-reading ? CI implanted deaf, acquired deaf issues ? or vice versa ? Already 99% of signed access ignores these other areas, we simply are not ready in the UK to run awareness classes, because we are still not aware or fully accepting of each other. Much awareness is mooted via social site areas, personally I don't believe a word of it, all that happens is those deaf who have a good English appreciation can look 'hearing' because they text to these places, there is not much 'proof' they then meet up with no issue, some sort of acceptance and awareness by proxy is not what it is about. I'd really like to read about social areas online that have regular face to face meet ups between born deaf and hearing, and how it is working out.

If you look back to the blunt awareness tried in schools a few years ago, where hearing children were asked to 'pretend' they were 'deaf for a day', the organisers nearly got sued for child abuse. The problem with deaf awareness, is the divisions by decibel make it near impossible to proceed fairly so we all can benefit from it, and as a deaf person I would object any sort of compulsion, or half-aware approach. I feel sure hearing would not get the right message, and who pays ? Employers won't, and we haven't the wherewithal to do it ourselves. Our best advocates are OURSELVES. If we promote positivity to mainstream most will react positivity too. I don't want awareness to come via diktat. We have laws on access, but we can't make a law on awareness....

There are 100s of different sectors vying to make 'mainstream' aware, if they all have the same right to force awareness in employment areas, will there be ANY time for work ? I think what you are trying to make people aware of, is the rise of real bullying in the workplace, but awareness doesn't stop bullies. It Id's our weak spots to them.

Deaf see Better (But only if you are born deaf).

The eyes have it.......Is this valid use of charitable money in research ? Deaf children can see better than hearing children, (But not until teenage), and... ? How will this improve the deaf lot ? There was also research into how accurately the deaf and hearing used their eyes, except this one gave hearing the advantage.

It isn't what you see it is what you take in. Deaf should be experts on body language, again they aren't any more accurate than a hearing person. Is the purpose of this research to bolster the battered deaf community, badly in need of something positive to be said about them ? It stated a pretty obvious thing in that deaf use their eyes more by sheer necessity. We needed research to tell us that ?

This research funded by a charity we never mention on this site, because it is unsupported by deaf people, is just more proof of the sheer waste of vital funding. Deaf people's accuracy in understanding each other is legendary, not so hot understanding anyone else, and that's where research funding should be going. To search for an communication system that will work effectively with hearing people, so we can dispense with the misunderstandings, sheer guesswork, and heavy reliance on others. This 'research' I suppose poses another question (It's what questions do, raise more !), in that if born deaf have better eyesight, does that mean acquired (Late deafened), deaf don't ?



Below is an excerpt from Science News:

Deaf Adults See Better Than Hearing People, New Study Finds. Science Daily (Nov. 10, 2010)

— Adults born deaf react more quickly to objects at the edge of their visual field than hearing people, according to groundbreaking new research by the University of Sheffield.
The study, which was funded by the (Name witheld so as not to offend deaf people), has, for the first time ever, seen scientists test how peripheral vision develops in deaf people from childhood to adulthood.

Dr Charlotte Codina, from the University's Academic Unit of Ophthalmology and Orthoptics, led the research and found that children born deaf are slower to react to objects in their peripheral vision compared to hearing children. However, deaf adolescents and adults who have been without hearing since birth can react to objects in their peripheral vision more quickly.

Source

In defence of Holism

Not that he needs it but, I agree with Holism's latest blog on 'Whiners', actually I have had this term applied to me by deaf for years, there will always be those who don't want serious issues raised, or hate people who disagree with them. I think there is an 'hard core' of deaf people who cannot see beyond their navel and convinced everyone is having a go at them. The golden rule is to debate the viewpoint, NOT attack the person. Certainly here in the UK the disabled and deaf, are the most prolific 'whiners' about their lot second to none, it is important to separate the 'Marvins' (The miserable robot!), of this world from the genuine campaigners, and that isn't always clear.

Anti-'audistic' people are probably the most paranoid deaf on the planet, probably just ahead of the 'deafhood' fanatics, and the twittering-facebook non-intelligensa. It is perfectly acceptable to disagree with a view, even poke fun at it if the point is not open ridicule and designed to defame or bully the person. What I can't go with is the almost religious zeal applied by certain sectors who want to ostracise fellow deaf who have a different view, it's how it all starts isn't it ? GO holism !

Disability doesn't hold Susan back...

An article by Susan Stern, shows going deaf is no barrier to advancement once you know how to handle it.

"If you didn’t know me, you probably would never guess I have a disability - especially when you learn that I’m the founder and president of a growing public relations and marketing agency currently celebrating its 25th anniversary. My progression toward profound deafness began in my twenties and gradually worsened into my adult years. As my disability intensified, so did the success of my business, prompting me to adapt a management style that played to my strengths. My disability ultimately sparked the development of important leadership skills that I believe are the core of my company’s success.

Although I am able to carry on conversation in quiet venues and have unimpaired speech, I rely on state-of-the-art cochlear implant technology (surgically implanted electronic devices that stimulate the auditory nerve to provide sound) to give me the ability to hear and communicate. "

Source & More

The psychology of blaming deaf parents

"After all, the deaf parent has no voice to stimulate the child in the way that others do." And other misogynistic 'facts' in this recent article... Why do we deaf put up with this 'blame culture' ? Is there ANY proof an CODA is going to have behavioural issues because a parent is deaf ? We didn't see those statistics... my hearing child has NEVER been asked to act as an interpreter for me, the law empowers me to be supplied with trained people, so why would I do that ? There may be lazy deaf people who put pressure on their kids, but I'm not one of them...But read on...

Behavior problems specific to the child of a deaf parent might include acts of rebellion in the long run which stem from resentment, boredom, and even guilt. As you begin to question whether there are behavior problems specific to the child of a deaf parent, it is advantageous to realize from the start that behavior problems in a child do not automatically reflect the child's lack of self-esteem or unwillingness to do the right thing.

On the contrary, the child of a deaf parent has often been put in a position to develop a maturity and sense of independence which far exceeds the normally anticipated development of others the same age. This maturity--in the form of advanced coping and social skills--has come about because the child of a deaf parent often has to become the interpreter between the deaf parent and the hearing world.

Owing to an emotional maturity as well, the child of a deaf parent has learned to tell the difference between the human uniqueness which is bad or un-trustworthy and that human uniqueness which only needs understanding and patience. If there are in fact behavior problems specific to the child of a deaf parent, then, from what emotional state or circumstances do they arise?

The Conflict Between Childhood and Emotional Independence

As impressive as they may be in achieving a mature relationship with a deaf parent, the child of a deaf parent is still a child.

Source

Dealing with Cold callers if you are deaf...

Being deaf I don't usually have this problem, I just tell whoever is at my door "Sorry (We love to apologise for being deaf), but I cannot lip-read you, understand sign language, and speak only Swahili (Northern dialect only)," this usually that works well, and they run a mile assuming deaf have just landed here from Pluto or something (Actually, Neptune would be more accurate).

I had TWO Jehovah witness's annoying me yesterday, one of them even attempted sign language, which country it was native to, rather escaped me...so I have put up this poster outside my home for future reference (along with burying land mines in the drive).

(1) NO SOLICITING (Unless it is a freebie or taster session, and the wife is out for the day)..

(Approved exemptions): None, unless you are someone giving things away that are remotely useful.

(2) I don’t want your magazine because I already have a subscription to its rival.
(3) I don’t want your newspaper because I subscribe to everything written by mankind already..
(4) Charity cold callers: I don't know you, why would I give a total stranger money ? let alone put them in my will.
(5) Sponsorships: I do not want to pay you to run, walk, swim, sit in baths of baked beans, shave your left ear off, cut off your testicles, jog, jog-walk, swim-jog, or walk-run, count how many pebbles are on Waikiki beach, or otherwise do stupid exercises and runs, via land, sea, or air for a good cause, I AM the good cause.. give ME the money.

(6) I will not pay you for ultimate research into a cure for nose-bleeds.
(7) (wildlife): As far as saving whales and less than cuddly wild animals in the Jungle, and cats, dogs, wild parakeets in Borneo, or donkeys in Siberia, I'd be bloody wild with people like you around, leave them and me alone. I can manage OK without them..

(8) School sponsors): I don’t want to fund your school trip to Mexico, Africa, Australia, or Brighton (Unless I have it in writing you are NOT going to come back again, and the max donation is less than 20 pence).

(9) Cures: I genuinely hope that together we can help stop cancer, and I'll pray if that helps, just leave a note with your chosen religious preference so I know which church to go to....

(10) While I’ll be more than happy to give you a free medical exam, I do not want to pay you to examine others in the Congo, or infringe on their privacy. Last thing I need is YOU contracting some exotic foreign disease and then abusing our health service to get it put right again, while you spread it around here.

(11) I do not want a “trial” anything, let me have a freebie when it works out. I object to being a guinea pig.

(12) I do not want to pay you to leave me alone, that’s what this sign is for, I also have a rottweiler as back up, and I don't feed it......

(13) I do not want you to keep standing in front of my door, reading this sign in the forlorn hope that I might have posted an exception for your particular breed of begging or cause celeb. I haven't.

Finally, If you want my money, feel free to try robbing me. I am trained in 4 self-defence and lethal Kung-fu martial arts, I also carry a knife with a 10-inch blade, and the house is wired to self-destruct if you don't know the correct way to enter, and I will gladly extend your smile to your ears.

Have a nice day, but give me a better one by GOING AWAY.

Lip-reading a violation of American civil rights ?

Cost this ball player $50K ! Should lip-reading skills be used to this way ?

Mendoza versus deaf, the last stand ?

Mendoza Against the Deaf: The Last Stand for the Deaf in California.

Special interest groups with a lack of ethics are currently making their way through the Capitol in Sacramento to lobby for the bill AB 2072. On one hand, in the legal prose, AB 2072 is about parents’ choices for their Deaf newborns. On the other hand, analyzing the jargon, it is about corporations’ eagerness to privatize human beings.

The Deaf and bilingual community have done everything by the book to save the future of Deaf newborns. They went to Sacramento to lobby politicians to oppose AB 2072. They showed up at the hearings and floor votes. They made video testimonials. They wrote articles. They called their Assemblymen and Senators to oppose the bill. They tried to meet with Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, the author of AB 2072, several times even though Mendoza repeatedly ignored them. They exhausted their options.

They are educators of the Deaf, parents of Deaf children, siblings of Deaf, mental health counselors, social workers in the vocational rehabilitation field, grassroots community members, college professors, business owners, non-profit organizers, interpreters, and many more in the spectrum of the Deaf community. They knew the bill was not balanced and catered to special interest groups. The only thing they did and do not have: money. An implanted Deaf child can generate a profit of $60,000 and up.

Source and More...

Think of a number, double it, then...

It's a global deaf conspiracy, I am convinced of it. 15 years ago, 50,000 people were guestimated as using British Sign Language in the United Kingdom, since then 40 deaf schools have vanished, multi-formats of communication and mainstreaming has been adopted, and 163 deaf clubs have closed. 9 years ago we suddenly saw another 20,000 people added to make the UK's contribution to sign language in BSL, making it 70,000.

Time for a pause, but let's wind forward another 3 years, yet ANOTHER 20,000 people were guestimated as being BSL using deaf people. Ladies and gentleman I now produce the recent DAART power point (Don't laugh some still use this), which has declared not, 50,000, not 70,000, not even 90,000 BSl using deaf but ......

160,000 ! (Is BSL some virulent sign form in the UK or something...).

Two official UK statistics here might interest readers:

70,000 BSL using deaf (DWP) The DWP officially notes as a statistic for national support reasons.

This one I like better: "It is estimated that British Sign Language is the first or preferred language of between 50,000 and 70,000 people in the UK."

Who said so ? erm...... the UKCoD ! who hosted the DAART presentation. Is it an American boo-boo ? or were these people trained at the RNID....

The 21stc Luddite says...

Or Why I do NOT think social sites like twitter or facebook can or are being effectively harnessed to advance the deaf aspirations of equality and campaigning. Here is a recent posting I made regarding the ridicules being addressed at me for refusing to go 'social' online. Primarily with charities. The original comment was Facebook and Twitter are now THE main ways deaf campaign, I say not....

"Can they GET deaf people interested in debates online about their lot ? or campaigns ? lots of twit-talk little or no action at all, no marches, no heavy lobbying to the system, not even the pointless online petitions are being used. I know of just one aggregate in the USA that has managed it, and no British site ever has, probably because the Brit mind-set is so class and clique-ridden still, despite claims to the contrary, everyone has their pecking order here.

I feel Deaf endevour is being drowned in a sea of apathetic nonsense on social sites. Once the 'word' IS out there, I still do not see progress in real terms. If you had 2,000 'followers' for access to telephony or something, then why aren't 2,000 people doing something about it ? or even 200 ? One site which I am ashamed to say I looked at, because it is so appalling I can't believe deaf log in to it, had 3,561 'followers' a campaign they launched saw 68 actually post a plea for access, to source...

You can't mix social garbage and trivia, and still progress a campaign at the same time, charities (And I was discussing this on another site recently), they need to separate 'social' from the rest via input, offer a filter system on twitter and facebook so social goes to one area and campaigns another. Some tried this and it still 'deteriorates' into 30 word asides about bus rides or something, and when debates about campaigns or politics was set aside, it was ignored. I have to go to America just to post this really.

I see charitable twitter and facebook sites rather dubious and guilty of deliberately using social site options, for grooming/trawling of potential fund givers while giving a very false impression they are our friends. Charity is NOT your friend it is in the UK, a corporate BUSINESS and basically they want free help and your money, that's the bottom line. You need 'distance' so each knows where they stand, the blurring of the 'social lines' makes me very nervous personally, If you wanted to hang out some corporate charity CEO to dry, or take them to task, you have to fight your way through a few hundred followers calling you a killjoy or worse, it can end up some sort of mob rule. Bad charity is becoming adept at utilising followers as a screen.. Twitter allows very limited text responses anyway so difficult to expand on why deaf are campaigning and where they are coming from in 20 words or so so it makes real sense.

I find I can contact a charity or service direct with no need to waffle on social sites, if I can do that, so can others. I think if you read forums and boards online (Especially the ailing and badly run archaic British ones), they are trying to recreate twitter and facebook approaches there, this is pointless. Competing ? why ?

75% of people who log in to charity social sites are there to socialise and many are not even IN the same country, 49% post once and never return. Like 'followers' abroad are going to post money here from where they are, would someone in Ohio send dollars to Leeds ? 'Support' online is transitory and unreal, and in reality cannot be effectively harnessed to put bums on seats, you have to cut the waffle.. I'd agree POTENTIAL is online at twitter and facebook, but the reality is that potential is social not campaign led."

Note: If you choose to respond to this blog, I won't print trivia or ridicule, so stick to the point. Convince me these social sites make real advances in campaign and debate terms. Provide proof, statistics, I'm not challenging whatever benefit it might provide for social purposes. Views too, on whether twitter and facebook should provide a filter to weed out social from campaign input especially on charity and business sites so deaf people can lobby without the social hindrances these sites encourage.

Marlee Matlin Decent work for disabled people...

New accessible Radios for the Deaf ?

Though hard of hearing, Amanda Comininos is "listening," or reading the radio. Towson University and NPR have teamed up to create the first ever radio for the deaf and hard of hearing.

"The deaf have never been able to access radio before and this is the first time they'll be able to do it," said Dr. Ellyn Sheffield.

When in the car, the driver sees a GPS screen but the passenger sees the radio text of anything that's on. "The opportunity to hear emergency alerting, disaster relief information, local school closings, Amber alerts," Sheffield said. Born partially deaf, Comininos has always felt left out in car rides but not after using a caption radio prototype.

"It's very important to be involved with what's going on, not feel like an outcast," Comininos said. With NPR, Sheffield has been working on the technology for four years and hopes the public can access it by 2012. It's a multi-platform technology so the hearing impaired will also be able to plug in mini-HD radios into their iPad or iPhone and read the text as well.


AMANDA

The ability to access something that many of us take for granted. "I can't wait for it to come out. Hopefully I will be the first to use," said Amanda Comoninos. Dr. Sheffield recently won the Daily Record Publication's Innovator of the Year award for the Caption Radio. Developers expect it to cost anywhere form $100 to several hundred dollars.

SOURCE