Wednesday, 30 October 2019

10 reasons Why the BDA fails.

Image result for where did it go wrong#1  'The BDA has failed us. BSL still isn't legalised as we need it.'

So goes on the anger of BDA members still being denied the truth of the BDA's shortcomings, and as reported, still not able to get enough trustees in to do their daily job.


Where did it go wrong?



(1)  The BDA initially misreported the pre-2005 EU declaration on sign language. Insisting it meant BSL 'rule', but all the EU did was recognise it as a language for the deaf along with a dozen other minority languages, the devil was in the detail. For it to work, the host country (The UK), had to enshrine it in law, the UK didn't, deaf got access to terps that was about it. 

(2)  As regards to usage in education and immersion use of BSL, the DoE has consistently done nothing to endorse it but pay it lip-service, and leave it all 'on the table',    (as they recently did with a demand for a BSL national class in the curriculum submitted by a deaf teen).

What does it mean to leave something on the table?
To leave (something) on the table v. phr. to refrain from taking the utmost advantage of something; to not address every aspect of a situation; in the form leave issues on the table, to negotiate a deal that is less beneficial than is expected or possible or just leave it for another day. Generally, it is a method of placating or meeting a demand without actually acting on, or endorsing it.
The NDCS didn't endorse BSL in education on an official level because they have to respect the parental choice. 

(3) At the time of the EU BSL thing, the BDA was on the skids, had lost 100s of members and was riddled with controversy by a threat from the hard-line 'Fed' to take them over. They were desperate to rally members, so they made a meal of the EU declaration.  As deaf know, recognition and empowerment are two very different things. If it was law today it would still take 20 years to work, since the staff and systems would have to be re-trained again, as in the last 30 years the entire deaf school educational set up has been decimated and their professionals retired or scattered to the four winds.

(4)   There are said to be near 100,000 deaf in the UK but only a few 100 terps at most to serve them, the whole thing about the demand for BSL interpreters is unrealistic and piecemeal, virtually none are being trained as we write.  You cannot elect a law on demand because the support isn't there to make it work.  Also, we don't know what the demand is, nobody knows.  There may or may not be as many deaf as they claim, no statistic exists to support the premise they are all BSL using either.

(5)  There is little state desire to maintain deaf schools, since, the state directive is inclusion.  E.G. Wales no longer has any deaf schools.   The BDA is bound to include but we know it specialises instead. Specialism and Inclusion are incompatible concepts in BDA deaf terms.

(6)  The BDA has always used emotional campaigns run by fear, and never addressed the practicality of what they are demanding. It's like demanding a place on a ferry to cross a river when the ferry hasn't even been built yet, even if it was, the river too shallow for it to float on. 

(7)  What we've seen is the BDA deaf exec enjoying junkets to the obscure World CD in Europe, ta very much, but just legends in their own bathtime really, and the BDA is in debt too.

(8)   I do know my local deaf club the thrust of support there is not the BDA but the AOHL who are supporting signers.  No doubt because the BDA has other fish to fry.

(9)   When PIP came out, the BDA in Wales had NOBODY trained to help the BSL user claim, it was left to the RNIB or we were told to commute to England and pay someone there to help us claim, 61% of deaf lost all ability to claim, the shortage of BSL terps also disempowered the deaf from claiming, there just weren't enough to support deaf welfare claimants and the daily 'bread and butter' work BSL terps already did.  Terps just didn't turn up when the DWP hired them.  The nature of BSL interpreting is they are a law to themselves not the deaf.   Deaf are over a barrel and they are the sole support.

(10)   If the BDA was any further out of touch we would need a satellite to communicate to them. Basically, the BDA isn't supporting deaf people just 'playing the cultural game' instead while deaf go without.  If deaf raise concern they are 'attacking deaf people' to kill off their antics being scrutinised.

No wonder they don't want deaf to know what is going on there perhaps because NOTHING actually is.  They use BSL and culture to hide the fact they are a spent force, sadly Deaf are buying into the politics of fear and it is left to the deaf outside to Identify why the Deaf signer is being let down instead.

No comments:

Post a Comment