Wednesday, 11 July 2018

Charites who Betrayed the disabled: Withdraw from their support?


One social media poster lays it on the line, name and shame the charities who sided with a UK government who oversaw 1,000s of deaths of disabled and elderly, were found guilty in the Human Rights Court, but never paid the price, so the charities could still get funds, and then signed a disclaimer never to criticise what they do.



Poster:  Charities don't exist, they are business' or wannabee business outlets pimping off the care industry and being run by well-meaning people working for nothing to keep charity CEO's in £100,000 in wages a year. It's pretty profitable if they get well in with the state and get regular funding handouts or the lottery hands them cash. 

Currently near £7B a year, so not peanuts, hence they hire corporate strategists and bean counters from the jobs for the boy's corporate sites. We are just a commodity they can make money on, and few if any of them allow US to run our own care and support area or decide how it is dispensed, they won't 'bite the hand that feeds' or support our rights campaigns. I asked for an FOI request from 15 national UK charities (including 5 major deaf and HoH ones), to name those who had signed up to a 'be nice to the DWP ministers' clause and they refused, claiming charity is 'exempt' from an FOI request. 

If they have nothing to hide, why would they refuse? We are talking about the UK's MAJOR charitable sites, with a turnover of many millions a year, refusing to back their 'clients/stakeholders'. (Or as they describe us, the mugs).  We can start by refusing to accept any 'care or support' from charities we find out are NOT acting in our best interest, if anyone has such a list with proof I'd print it, and then ask the charity commission withdraws their charitable status.

First, we have to REMOVE the charity commissioners themselves because the state planted a 51% majority of yes men to run it.  A stacked deck? BELIEVE IT!

Workplace Sign Course

Hearing Loss Summer Festival...

Image result for joyce Dunbar who will be at the Summer Deaf Festival on Friday
A festival celebrating deaf, hard of hearing and deaf-blind culture and community is coming to Norwich this week.


The Summer Deaf Festival will be held at The Forum on Friday from 10am until 4pm. It will feature a range of entertainment, from deaf dancer Chris Fonseca, to deaf author Joyce Dunbar to hands-on exhibits from Cambridge Science Centre.

There will also be stalls from organisations such as Advanced Bionics and Hearing Dogs for Deaf People. All talks and demonstrations will have a British Sign Language interpreter, captions and a lip speaker.

There is even a chance to try on a Subpac Vest, a new innovation which turns music into vibrations.

Eleanor Craik, deaf teacher and chairperson of the festival committee, said: “An event like this in rural Norfolk is great for the community, for building support and giving equal access to information.”


Gays angry at Netfilx...

The Fab 5 of Netflix's 'Queer Eye.'I Rely On Closed Captions to Enjoy a Show And I Don't Appreciate Netflix's Way of Censoring Them

When Netflix first rebooted Queer Eye as an original series, I binged the first season in record time, revelling in the joy of the Fab 5. Their easy kindness, even in the face of surprisingly difficult conversations, was a welcome respite from the toxic masculinity that plagued headlines across 2018. Fortunately for me and other fans, the second season (which was filmed at the same time as the first) dropped on June 15.

One of the first things I noticed about the second season was that the Netflix original newly introduced a bleeping sound to censor profanity spoken on the show. The next thing I noticed was that the censoring carried over to the closed captions, but not in the normal way.

Instead of bleeping out certain words, Netflix seemed to replace those words with more generally accepted ones.
Normally, closed caption subtitling bleeps words in a variety of different ways: phrases, such as (bleep), [expletive], or [censored] may be used, though sometimes hyphens or asterisks are substituted instead (f–k, f---, or f*** are all examples. Did you just say that word three times over in your inner voice? Me too.)


ATR Comment:  I rely on captions too, but can do without a constant tirade of swearing. The alternative is to publish a disclaimer of the show along the lines, it contains offensive language, and/or content is unsuitable for those under age 16, which Gays would still challenge, so I'm with Netflix on this.  

There are many areas of television that don't allow sex/violence etc and some swearing, there is a UK 9pm TV watershed on it because they know it isn't just adults who believe anything goes, that are the only viewers.  Some of these programs go out well before that time, go online etc, get streamed to get around the safety aspect.   Yes kids will still try to get around it, it doesn't alter the basic approach to limit poor examples of communication or output designed to offend to get more viewers in.  Deaf have issues enough with English without obscenity in every sentence.  Deaf don't need lessons in swearing.

Do people have a right to be offended?  I expect they do, and I am sure Gays do as well.  What would happen if an anti-gay rhetoric TV program went out, we all know that answer.  Censoring of some areas is necessary and vital, I do it, others readers do it daily, new laws are addressing online etc, it is to stop abuses of all kinds and bullying/terrorist recruiting drives etc.  ALL UK Newspapers have a ban on any number of swear words and block them too. As do USA medias.  

Frankly if you can only express yourself via expletives, you need to get it sorted.   Because you can say Bum or Fuck on a TV doesn't make you clever does it? Good on Netflix.