Thursday, 14 November 2019

The NDCS responds to ATR.

Image result for NDCSReaders will recall BDA members stating that the NDCS as a 'Deaf' children only charity and attacked ATR for stating differently, the NDCS agrees with ATR.  ATR extends many thanks to the NDCS for clarifying the confusion about deaf child support, mainly contributed to by BSL groups like the BDA distorting inclusion policies by hearing loss charities.  

I can advise the NDCS to take care of how they spell deaf, basically, and to STOP using the capitalisation of the term, areas are abusing that term for political ends and social media is distracting deaf children's need.  We would like to see MORE emphasis on alternatives to sign being used too, to reflect reality.  Projecting BSL on NDCS vids for areas that DON'T use it also needs more careful thought about its inclusion which suggest again it is a 'cultural' thing when this isn't applicable and in defiance to the NDCS remit of including and respecting ALL.

The NDCS in respecting some have a cultural choice, using BSL suggests all deaf children are cultural.  This is how things get distorted, and parents unsure who to approach for help, e.g. the BDA has no child support system that is inclusive or national.


Thank you for your email.

As you have mentioned, we work to support all deaf children and their families. By deaf, we mean any child with any level of hearing loss and regardless of the communication approach they use. We may sometimes use the term Deaf if we are talking specifically about people who identify culturally as being Deaf. But, as a charity, we are here for all deaf children.

As a charity, we believe in informed choice. This means that we believe that parents of deaf children should be given full, impartial and balanced information about the choices available to them and their child. We believe that families are best-placed to make decisions on the right approach for their child and we work to support all families with deaf children.

For parents to be able to make informed choices, it is important that local authorities and health bodies ensure there is a wide range of provision available to meet all the different options that families might need. This means that, for example, we might campaign for local authorities to ensure that families have access to free sign language in the early years or that they can access speech and language therapy support for their child in a timely way. So on social media we may talk about a wide range of different issues relating to deaf children.

Kind regards,
Cheryllous Norris
Helpline Officer


Wednesday, 13 November 2019

BDA: We don't want deaf who can't sign.

"How come if ‘Oral or hearie Deafies’ have been seen speaking to others at BDA events or meetings & even in front of frustrated staff without signing so please can you watch out! Thanks"

ATR:  Perhaps the BDA has never heard of Palantype? 

Image result for palantype


Image result for lip-reading


Image result for note taking for deaf


BSL Interpreters?  

Image result for BSL interpreters

Maybe the BDA does not feel there are any other forms of communication we can and do use? e.g....

Related image

Image result for face time

It must be a revelation (But it's not discrimination), to find many deaf use other things than sign language. 

Incidentally, have you not read the BDA's own remit?  the BDA remit is to empower and include them so why aren't they? Not all deaf sign but we are just as deaf as you are. If the BDA is ONLY for BSL then its membership is never going to advance at all. 

I'd rather ALL deaf are included and no barriers or criticism or demands to sign as a pre-condion. Deafened people and HoH can help deaf signers a lot more than the BDA ever could, we have the alternative approaches to discrimination that don't rely on blaming everyone else, and can assist with real advice on how to manage with NO support, NO interpreters, and NO charity backing us up, we hadn't those choices. 

We had to adapt to survive, the BDA has no ability to adapt and doesn't want to. It's a throwback to the 1950s and out of touch with modern deaf view and needs. We aren't in the perpetual victim mode the BDA thrives on.  

If they want us to sign we want you to offer us access too, it's a two-way thing. It's called inclusion (not that the BDA understand the concept). Last time we tried signing at these people they made fun of my errors and ignored me, they believe themselves some 'elite', but it is THEY who are more isolated as a result.   The best signers are still hearing people, with a low level of BSL skills many rank and file deaf actually display themselves, and making worse by opposing English e.g. 

The adage still rings true, when at the bottom of the hole its best not digging deeper to get out of it.

The BDA let their members defend them because the executive cannot defend themselves.  You are the 'foot soldiers' for their bias and collateral damage.  The BDA exist in a vacuum and living in a vacuum is very bad for your health.  You can sign or you can not sign it doesn't make you an 'enemy' of some kind, get out more, mix with other deaf, the hard of hearing with hearing people, if only to raise your own awareness, if you demand unrealistic rules first, awareness won't work as it doesn't work now.

You have turned your culture into a dead-end and made yourself a martyr for someone else's cause.  If you want inclusion the BDA cannot provide it.  It demands you make as much effort as others have to.

Hear I am.

Holiday Presents for the Hard of Hearing

The 10 Commandments revisited.

Image may contain: text

And 10 more... 

(11) Thou shalt not insist that all deaf use sign language. 

(12) Thou must educate all deaf people on what inclusion means.

(13) Thou will not use adverse or confusing terminology that highlights difference. 

(14) Thou will not run campaigns on any awareness based on financial or personal gain. 

(15) Thou shalt accept everyone with a hearing loss issue regardless of how they communicate. 

(16) Thou shall not worship the false icons of bias. 

(17) Thou must not support those who manipulate hearing loss for own self-preservation. 

(18) Thou will reject worshipping the false premise of deafness being a right, and not demean those who suffer from its effects. 

(19) Thou must recognise the differences between inclusion and exclusion. 

(20) There is no 'Us', there is no 'We', there is only 'All'.

Tuesday, 12 November 2019


'Deafness is an invisible disability'

The issue, is that how do you ID such people outside of an organised event and where support doesn't exist or awareness?    It's also a well-known fact many with hearing loss AVOID being identified.  We have not seen any awareness that covers understanding an invisible disability from behind.  Signing at deaf people won't make people aware either as most don't sign.

A Christmas festival aimed at people with an invisible disability is coming to a high school for the first time. The event is taking place at Norwich's Hellesdon High School on Saturday, December 14, in aid of the Royal Association for Deaf (RAD) people. It will feature 40 stalls, selling gifts and offering tombola and raffle prizes.

Children will be able to enjoy a Santa's Grotto which will be using British Sign Language (BSL) and lipreading.

And the festival will also feature live performances from the Norwich Singing Hands and Lowestoft Signing Choir, clear signs and deaf awareness posters.  RAD events fundraiser Ellie Parfitt, 22, from Wymondham, who has been profoundly deaf since birth, said: "Deafness is challenging on a daily basis but with deaf awareness and understanding, it allows us to be independent and live our lives as any person would.

"A little deaf awareness goes a long way. Deafness is an invisible disability, one of the most common but one of the least understood." She added that the biggest problem facing deaf people at events like Christmas fairs was communication. "This is why we will work closely with the stallholders providing some deaf awareness tips to ensure they are best prepared on the day.

"Communication is a two-way process and we have to work together to meet in the middle, as the emphasis is not just on the deaf person to make themselves understood. "Events like this help to increase other people's understanding of deafness, to show that events can be easily made accessible and inclusive to bring everyone together.

"It's a great opportunity for us to show the services that RAD have to offer and how the funds raised can be beneficial to deaf people's lives and their independence," Miss Parfitt said. The festival takes place on Middletons Lane, on the edge of Norwich, from 11am-4pm.  The school venue is wheelchair accessible and assistance dogs are welcome.  Parking is free and adults will need to pay £1 per adult. Admission is free for children.

All the way from Hollyland.

I apologise for being deaf.

South Wales Argus:
A local cinema extolling the virtues of a new 'experience' in watching films.   

#1 Does it include captioning and subtitles? Or is the 'experience' just for the hearing audience?

#2 I think subtitles would spoil it for the majority.

#3 They'd be forced to read(!)

#4 Seriously, this sounds like another expensive gimmick that'll be unused in five years time.

#5 I apologise for being deaf.

Monday, 11 November 2019

How to be a true Deafie

Is There a Right Way to Be Deaf?  There is a wrong way to be one!  Reading this article I just feel sad, a deaf person has grown up being given the sign language her community demands of her only to then turn on her parents and begin the old rambles about 'Us' and 'Hearing people' when it turns out not to be such an advantage at all.  Sign was meant as a communication assist and educational tool, not, as a way of life, or a way to permanent reliance on others, but an empowerment toward independence.  One tool amongst numerous options.

Many of the issues she raises are down to belonging to this 'closed community' of sign language dependents and being unable to move outside it as a result, so back to the old stock in trade response,  of 'blaming' everyone else for issues of poor communication or 'support'.  The message offer nil hope to those coming through who are younger. Deaf take no responsibility for the way they live their lives or, responsibility, or for encouraging others towards inclusion by recognising choice in the deaf worlds.  

She fails to see the reason for her dilemma is her parents bowing to the deaf cultural view, had she been made more aware of sign alternatives and other options perhaps she would have attained an ability to be truly bilingual and made the best of both 'worlds' deaf and hearing.     The only future for deaf community is the social one, the social area is important, but it is leisure time, and the deaf need abilities to do the day job and work with hearing, they go to these deaf educational areas and, primed to fail in that respect, so the mantra is 'All hearing must sign too.'  how unrealistic is that?
Image result for being true to yourselfJust when we thought realism was creeping into deaf activist campaigns they revert to historical type again.  Many more deaf outside the community manage without all this hand wringing and misplaced blame culture, and identity angst, millions with hearing loss too, they don't have to run access campaigns, so we are probably talking about a deaf area who cannot or will never change, and trying to call it something else entirely.  Maybe call it a right or something? or a culture?  even if that changes nothing.  Of course, if you point out why they are where they are, it cements their opposition and they blame you as well.

The reality is being deaf doesn't always suit you to a culture or a way of life or to other people, the individual will out and blame emerges.  But the die isn't set you can attend different areas and learn ways out of it.  The world revolves around hearing, and the written and spoken word, some deaf are refusing to recognise this basic fact of life.  we KNOW deafness is an issue, but we also know sign isn't the be-all or end-all of the answer or if we are all able to live a lifetime in the restrictive area of the 'community'.  

It's sad when it means kids turn and blame parents for it all and accept her 'peers' support that too. They blame hearing and their areas, have they not seen the illogic of their argument? can 2 out of 3 main  areas be wrong?  Can 6 times more deaf than in the 'community' be wrong? or, millions with hearing loss too?  Apparently yes.

The sole argument against lip-reading seems to be based it on oralism hang ups more than anything, the only concession we can make is to agree the tuition is at fault and not started early enough.  Once sign is used, these deaf won't attempt anything else, let's face it.  So education needs to bear this in mind.  Deaf are never taught what they need to learn, to be included and end up left out as a result. 

She is really saying "My parents chose sign and it has disadvantaged me," but she still won't blame the real areas responsible for that choice.  Her own peers, and her own community, where their spokespeople are desperate to avoid integration and inclusion whatever it takes, 'because it is our right'.

The Article:

“Your whole life, they’ve been trying to take you away from me,” my father says to me, referring to the deaf community. But the deaf community could just as easily say the same about my father.

More than 90 percent of deaf and hard-of-hearing children are born to hearing parents like mine, who have little to no experience interacting with deaf people. When it was discovered that I was profoundly deaf at six weeks old, my parents faced a common decision: Should they adapt themselves to their deaf child, learn sign language, and embrace deaf culture, or have their deaf child adapt to hearing culture, give her cochlear implants or hearing aids, and train her in the precarious art of lip-reading?

My parents chose the former, believing that sign language would provide me with equal access to the opportunities afforded my hearing twin brother.

Sunday, 10 November 2019

The NDCS and the BSL campaigns: On the fence?

Image result for NDCSThis is a blog held back because ATR requested clarification from the National Deaf Children's Society regarding claims by social media BSL activists the NDCS was a 'BSL' charity dedicated to culture, unfortunately, the request for clarification sent to the NDCS was ignored, as was clarifications from the BDA, so readers can make up own mind why that is.

"i am afraid i don't quite agree with your perspective at all sorry which is why i mentioned NDCS as it is predominantly for Deaf children, while you may feel it's not suitable they can point the researcher in the right directions."

ATR:  "The random usage of your D/d's seem to be your/mine (!) and the NDCS's issue, we aren't alone, nobody knows what to use or whether to use those perceptions or terms at all.  As I  understand it the NDCS serves ALL children with hearing loss/deafness who ask for its help, their remit is inclusive, not exclusive.

It's important to state that difference, hence their (NDCS), reluctance to endorse one communication format over another. Like most charities concerned with hearing loss and deafness apart (from the BDA who will ONLY  support signers),  they all sit on the fence and claim to be inclusive, as they don't want to be bogged down with complaints and moans, from over-indulged BSL activism, of 'discrimination' or lack of 'inclusion', most are already polarised to a degree.  The RNID is pretty much recognised as a hard of hearing and not a signing charity.

The NDCS policy is to support the widest possible options to deaf and HoH children, that is their remit without endorsing any one communication approach over another. It isn't a 'Deaf' charity in regards to the signing/cultural only approaches, only in that where possible it recognises those areas exist, but the holistic approach rules.

The problem we all have is the emphasis on the sign language to the exclusion of other forms, based on the viewpoint sign is best for the deaf child. (Mostly a concept-driven by deaf adults not hearing parents or state provision, which wants any and all approaches that help). I recognise this desire to promote BSL but feel it is more a misplaced dogma.  What our children need, is any and all options they can take up to manage in a hearing world.

My understanding is the NDCS won't support a restrictive or 'immersive' BSL approach as it is against what they stand for, the inclusion of deaf children. I would agree on the face of it, their remit focuses on the 'D' terminology in print, but that was adopted before the concept of D and d (deaf) came into being.

The D/d thing is also not a concept many HoH or charities agree with because discussions regarding support etc always deteriorate towards discrimination claims and division (Which is how most see what the 'D' stands for).  The deaf activists have screwed up reasonable discussions on the way ahead for the deaf.  Too many big fish in small ponds rule and some deaf ego's out of control.

Personally, I don't agree with concentrating deaf children in deaf surroundings, this limits their ability to integrate or understand inclusion, makes it harder for them to equate with hearing peers, it is why I support the state opting for inclusion and mainstreaming and want deaf schools gone.   Breeding grounds for more deaf activists and more isolation approaches. 

The days of sending your deaf kids off to some large old house in the middle of a field to educate them apart from everyone else, so they leave school unable to integrate or communicate effectively, is not a concept anyone should support.

'Annexes' are also something I don't agree with, they are not integrational, they aren't supported properly, and not inclusive, a sop to inclusion. I believe inclusion is eminently possible assuming we don't paint the deaf child into a corner day one. It's not an 'attack' on the sign, (Which is the response I mostly get from those unable to defend their own view), it is identifying the realities of its use and also identifying why its just not enough.   It's also a lie there is no other choice.

Obviously, other forms of deaf education are possible e.g. Oral schools which have an excellent tradition of enabling the deaf child. Its an open secret the best deaf school in the UK is the Mary Hare Grammar School an oral-based educational system. (Which for some strange incomprehensible reason is churning out dozens of born again deafies), perhaps it's their ability to cash in on it. 

True success in education is enabling the deaf child to be more effective in communicating with hearing.   Medical advance, better hearing aids, CI's etc also mean more options are available.  (I don't feel at this point lip-reading is viable as it stands).  I've no interest in the politics of deafness, deaf need to get out more, only in that, no deaf should be supporting need via bias, nor should anyone else,  the child comes first. 

I think a fair amount of rose-coloured glasses are being worn regarding sign as a novelty or gimmick. My concern is over the hype of it because it is a paying format, and lip-reading the poorer hoh/deaf and unsupported option creating great inequality of support for most with hearing loss.   Awareness isn't happening despite the millions going in to it.

Deaf sign and culture pulls in £ms, I am not comfortable with that, where money is involved people with less interest in the deaf move in and BSL and culture become a saleable commodity. It's not advancing the deaf child, and there are concerns on how the money is being spent with a number of dedicated signing areas closing down via poor financial management, mostly down to promoting culture instead of deaf children's need..."

An Interview with Graham.

Graham's Interview from St Roch DDE BSL Project on Vimeo.

One wonders how such interviews would take place if the person did not sign and had serious hearing loss and poor lip-reading?  A non-starter?  One of the major disadvantages of 'deaf awareness', you don't interview people with real problems?

Ashley's Dad (Uncensored)

Saturday, 9 November 2019

Awareness: Doesn't happen!

Image result for what is in it for me?Deaf or HI awareness its a con act isn't it?  Jobs for the boys, an income?  None of it really works at ground level, (At least that is what Hard of Hearing are saying).

#1  "I wear badges, a lanyard , hearing aid jewellery and still it makes no difference! Even when I tell people eventually I'm deaf. Need more deaf awareness for everyone."

#2 "If I had a neon sign, I don't think people would take any notice!"

#3 "I have to admit I've been wearing my ‘I have a hearing loss, please speak clearly’ badge on my work lanyard and either people aren’t noticing it or don’t seem to care or maybe I’m just not observing any difference. I’ll keep wearing it but sadly don’t feel it’s done a great deal."

#4 "Oh and i took off mine, I am a lip reader one because someone got the completely wrong end of the stick, i can’t remember what it was now.. but they definitely didn’t know what lipreading was"

#ATR:  " Lip-reading demands three things, 

(1) a good and clear lip-SPEAKER, 

(2) Ideal environment and compliances, and 

(3) a well trained and adept lip-READER they don't exist. 

LR classes have less than 3% success rate mostly because lip-reading itself is a secondary point to the class, and most of those are people WITH useful hearing anyway. The kickback is when hearing deteriorates beyond useful hearing the lip-reading fails too. Back to square one.  A db loss degree, either way, it doesn't work and as far as I know, no lip-reading/speaking national support area exists either. 

I don't know of any such support area in the NHS here e.g. When was the last time anyone here saw a public service video with a lip-speaker on it? or on the TV? You can get sign or captions, (sometimes!), that's it. 

What encouragement to lip--read is there?  It's never treated seriously as an option."

Friday, 8 November 2019

Is there a 'Plan B' ?

No Plan B"So what wrong with British sign language?! I don’t want to any change sign by other countries to involve at all! I notice some sign from the USA in our country is spoiled it in my view!"

Complaints British sign language has too many random influences in it and complaining sign isn't universal at all, the comment came from a deaf immigrant to the UK struggling to make himself understood to other deaf and is asking why UK deaf are opposing a 'Norm' and allowing outside influences in?

ATR:  I will try to explain the Brit way of things (As I see it anyway).   Initially, Sign language skills depend on the person, how they are educated, and factually most deaf don't bother to improve or hone it when they finish school. I.E.  once a 'plateau of signing skill' has been reached that's it.  Any issues it is the terps fault.  Hearing people have to continue learning a lifetime, deaf stop at leaving school and education.  You will find few if any of them in further education or Uni etc... and the classes WON'T be about improving their own communication skills.

I am deaf, take or leave how I sign or a campaign is in the offing etc... Regional signs are a distraction and nuisance and aren't a cultural thing to be welcomed since it openly challenges the norm, and because they confuse, and create issues training Interpreters.   Interpreters spend a lot of money attaining 'BSL' skills and regional judging has failed them by arbitrarily failing them to attain certain levels simply because a signing level judge will declare 'I sign that differently so your signs are wrong'.  

That means students lose a lot of money and have to do it all over again, some cannot afford that and give it up.  The problem is you get level 6 Interpreters trying to assist level 2 or 3 signers, and that is without learning difficulties kicking in making things more difficult.    Systems say most deaf don't need a level 6 terp and level 3 would be OK.  Level 6 would be legal areas medical specialisations etc, in reality, few at that level specialise anyway.

The UK does need a Signed English norm to enable deaf to follow what is written if nothing else, and to dispense with 'BSL' which is really an excuse to sign any old way you like really.  Its a mess masquerading as diversity and culture.  The reality is that many Interpreters are already using S.E.

The BSL dictionary is a dusty old farce really but it was made up mostly at day one because the community was so fragmented in sign use the creators had to make up signs for things there just weren't there, nationally recognised, or it depended on how the deaf individual signed it themselves. There was/is no norm.  Deaf opposed the norm as this would create issues with how they sign and make issues with regional variation which they say is integral to their cultural aspirations.

Sadly need is taking second place.  E.G. 'BSL' has changed 4 times in living memory leaving a lot of deaf people unsure what terps are signing at them. Different area terps could not make themselves understood properly. Court cases difficult to operate causing deaf an inability to follow properly.  This also means different age groups of deaf people are not able to follow current 'BSL' signs.   In 10 years this generation won't either.

ATR reported a case where a deaf scientist had no signs at all for the work he was doing in research and had to make up his own.  It's not 'progression' a la BSL signing and takes little account of people who sign, their education, their background or their own sign skills. The 'best' signers academically are still hearing people.  

Paddy Ladd launched a tome that confused and still does USA deaf convinced it's treasure map showing the way for the holy grail of culture is in there somewhere.  Unfortunately, he used format deaf aren't aware of,  English and terms only know to professional studies of obscure terms in language terminology.  Undaunted USA deaf decided these obscure terms were something special too although have yet to decipher any of them.   It was dubbed the deaf equivalent of the Emporer's new clothes, an old fairy tale.

We understand many sign users spring to its (BSL) defence but they aren't looking at the whole picture or accepting the reasons they are left out. 63% of deaf can't get a job and the reason?  Their communication is unwanted by employers and unsupported by the state.   Even handing some of them £1,000 a week to support them in work hasn't done it, they are just stuck in a cultural arts rut or charity or trying to teach hearing signs they know for a living.  Unfortunately, each area has its own random approach to that.   BSL exists because it shows a profit.

We can shout discrimination but the same old excuses will still come out in defence of it rather than accepting where the problem really lies. Deaf education is primarily to blame arming deaf to fail as adults, aided and abetted by cultural activism who put need as a secondary issue to its cultural drive. 

The best signer in the world is not going to do well in a hearing environment, so they need a plan B.  What they are doing is sticking to Plan A, a known failing except in financial terms, more out of sheer defiance than accepting the realities. So in answer to the question is there a BSL/sign norm to help this person, erm... NO!

Deaf man's fake bomb hoax at Super Bowl.

Andreas Dowling, 24, (pictured) of Torpoint, Cornwall, admitted 30 counts of communicating false information with intent between October 2014 and February 2016
A deaf man has admitted carrying out a campaign of bomb hoaxes against targets in the US, Canada and the UK, including the Houses of Parliament, the Super Bowl and dozens of schools. Andreas Dowling, 24, of Torpoint, Cornwall, admitted 30 counts of communicating false information with intent between October 2014 and February 2016, after he made a string of hoax bomb threats in Britain, the US, and Canada. 

Bristol Crown Court heard that one of the charges relates to bomb threats made against Jewish schools and will be sentenced as 'racially aggravated'. He also pleaded guilty to a single charge of 'encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence believing it would be committed' under the Protection of Children Act 1978. This related to Dowling threatening to 'ruin the life' of a 17-year-old girl in the US unless she sent him nude photographs of herself. The hoaxer was caught following an international investigation led by Counter Terrorism Policing in the South West of England, who teamed up with the FBI and officers in Michigan.

Wednesday, 6 November 2019

New Technology.

Hearing Impairment with CC.

Hearing loss and you

Even mild hearing loss as a child can have long-term effects on how the brain processes sound. 

When we are born, our brains have a lot to learn. For the newborn baby, everything they learn about the world around them comes from their senses. Therefore, if a child’s brain is deprived of sensory information, it will continue to develop, but in a different way. 

A good example of this comes from children who are born deaf. Research has shown that adults who have been deaf since birth show changes in the way their brains process sensory information. Parts of the brain that would normally process sounds (the so-called auditory cortex) are also activated by visual stimuli, for example. 

However, we also know that timing is everything. If someone becomes deaf as an adult, their brains won’t suddenly change, if at all. But if a child is born deaf, early intervention is key. 

Such children would need to be fitted with cochlear implants within the first few years of life if they wish to maximise their chances of being able to hear. Until recently, scientists believed that these sensitive or critical periods only applied in cases of severe sensory deprivation – for instance, in deaf children with little or no access to sounds. However, our research found that even mild-to-moderate hearing loss in childhood was linked to changes in the way sounds are processed in the brain during adolescence. 

In our study, we measured the brain responses of a group of children with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing loss while they were listening to sounds. Sensorineural hearing loss is a permanent hearing loss caused by damage to the inner ear, in this case the cochlea. Those with “mild” hearing loss have a loss between 20-40 decibels – which typically makes it difficult to follow speech in noisy situations. Those with “moderate” hearing loss have a loss between 41-70 decibels, which makes it difficult to follow conversational speech without hearing aids.

ATR: Losing my hearing at 10-11 age via gradual hearing loss,  going profound at  20, definite changes took place, at both early and adult stage.  Acquired loss effects little or no change? of COURSE, all hearing loss effects change.  

Adults who lose hearing suffer trauma and depressions and huge isolation, hardly 'little or no change at all!'  Younger sufferers of hearing loss, suffer deprivation, isolation educational and learning issues and poor mental health etc.  The primary difference is born deaf suffer it a lot earlier, 40% of deaf children have mental health issues.  

Of course, those deaf DON'T suffer hearing loss, they are DEAF so no hearing of use to lose.  There is no proof of any research that shows acquiring deafness as an adult change little! (Where you been living?)  Acquired deaf brains also adapt similar to those of born deaf where visual sensors re-adapt to loss of sound.  We become more aware of surroundings e.g.  

We can also adapt differently to communication obviously having pre-knowledge, not enough research is done on our area which could enhance those born deaf struggling to adapt by learning how we did, mostly without the sign, without the support and with hearing aids little more than ear decoration, etc...

Monday, 4 November 2019

Deaf online savage the British Deaf Association.

Image result for bad charityWho are still refusing to tell people what is happening, gagging members with legal threats, and unwilling to admit the fact they are in debt, or able to function, and without even Trustees to blame.  The primary refusal to explain is that only members have the right to know, which is incorrect as a charity depends on the public, and the public purse they are expected to be open with all their dealings.  

As regards to FOI refusals that doesn't apply to larger charities with a 'national' basis, only to minor charities with limited resources.  Both the UK charities of the AOHL and BDA have funds of over a £million.  It's ridiculous they can use legal avenues to tell funders to mind their own business!

#1  I'd be just happy if they were an inclusive deaf charity, not a dedicated sign one. I don't feel I am 'non-deaf' because I was never a member of some old deaf school.

#2  Sadly the BDA is irrelevant these days and obviously in debt and struggling, I believe that is directly down to the non-inclusive approaches they take, it is more about Kudos for the upper staff than it is about members, with their trips to the World Deaf junkets, and martyrdom to the cause, etc.

#3  I am aware other (d)eaf are feeling annoyed and marginalised by areas like the BDA who label them as somewhat 'inferior' to the (D)eaf school others and when they do campaign they don't include anyone else. We abd the HoH are the majority and in the end, this will play out against the BSL user.   Who will limit the concept with apathy.

#4  Many BSL vids contain no text access for us either, yet they insist others do it for them, I don't understand why they would do that. I've even had to go to health authorities to ask why are they producing BSL only health awareness videos and leaving us out? It means I have to ask for another video to be produced with text on it, and they say they cannot afford to do two of them. When I pointed out the issue for me, BSL campaigners said I was discriminating against them it was their right to have BSL only. 

#5  If someone told them the same thing about signed access, they would be up in arms about it, wouldn't they? 

#6  My area (the deafened), has to spend most of the time correcting politicians and such that all deaf do not sign and we are being left out all the time, we say awareness is polarised and biased and leaving other deaf struggling, especially the elderly deaf who have been dumped basically in clubs that are pretty pointless for them, and 50% populated with carers and social workers. Community it isn't. 

#7  It is not in anyone's interest deaf people are pitted against each other for the same rights, and the BDA is the prime mover of this 'sectarian' approach to deaf access. I think the deaf signer needs to take notice of how other deaf see them and adjust accordingly. The BDA approach isn't working for most. 

#8  The AOHL got rid of the BSL CEO that went there, the reason being he was too singular and unwilling to include others with hearing loss too. Such like-minded deaf then gravitated to the BDA with the same approach adopted the same cul-de-sac mentality. 

#9  Change is vital at the BDA. Get rid of the old guard. If the BDA actually worked with the other hearing loss charities on a united platform then we have access to near 9m potential campaigns not just a few 1,000 who sign, the illogic of deaf recognition just maintains their own marginalisation.  Lemmings really.

#10  I believe the BDA have gone past their sell-by date. A radical change is needed - a revamped organisation and perhaps smaller with regional outlets that truly represents the Deaf community. They need to engage with other Deaf led organisations. They need to muck in to make a difference. Too long a self-serving organisation that thrives on self-recognition!

#11  I am still waiting for the report to come out that talks about all the things that the poster can't tell us about!

#12  You have to wonder what charity has come to with all these legal gags, and refusals to be open to people, be they members or the public that supports them. We know many cannot be forced with an FOI to reveal details either, what is needed is the charity commission to change the rules on charity. 

#13  If they are asking the public for money or benefiting from their donations, then, they should front up. It seems once they have funding from us, then its 'none of our business' what they do after.   I've never read a more vague remit of a charity and they changed it recently without telling members too.

#14  A lot of deaf charities AREN'T sticking to the remit they send to the CC. Frankly, a lot of 'services' they claim to provide are very vaguely described. In wales, we had a charity for deaf created that started by first getting £17K for 'assessing deaf need'. Then they had the BDA supporting a first meeting whereby the audience were asked to volunteer to run it, after the charity creators refused to run it themselves.  

You could not script that! 2 students from Cardiff volunteered nobody local deaf did. Mainly because locally the deaf had never heard of the group, (nor did after). It took 18 months to get a free room, they did a website that posted nothing but 'where to get a form for reduced rail travel' they cut and pasted from online. 

3 months after it all folded, no research was seen to be done, no deaf locally were even involved, and a computer and the rest of the funding had vanished basically. 

A quick perusal of the Charity Commission rules suggested this was all perfectly legal and because it was a small set up (!) the Commission exempted them from any checks. They don't really list these small setups either, but looking online we are talking 40 of them draining away resources and producing nothing of value for deaf people. To my view these are frauds and taking away real help from others, its a scam basically.   LINK.

Sauce for the Goose

Well if charities and deafies can organise these things for the Deaf why not for HoH too?  Albeit this is a voluntary thing, and the Deaf helpers would want cash up front!  It's a new Facebook idea so up to you.  


Take care you aren't making yourself vulnerable to strangers, and that the site is legit.

10 Commandments of deaf culture

(And they still claim it is not a cult!). Perhaps 2 commandments should be:

#1  Make it all accessible?

#2  Get over yourself?

Deaf blind support: More cuts?

Ruth Lowe with her dad David
A teenager has spoken out against potential cuts to funding for the borough’s deaf and blind children, should they get the green light. Ruth Lowe, 17, has been deaf since birth but has led a happy, normal life thanks to crucial support from the NHS and Wigan Council, including the audiology department, nurses for the deaf, teaching assistants, and speech and language therapists. 

But children just like her could face difficulty getting the same help in the near future, after a Freedom of Information request revealed that Wigan Council was proposing to save “a minimum of 10 per cent” from its education budget for visual and hearing impaired services for children. 

As an article exclusively revealed in the Wigan Post last month, this would result of a deficit of around £90,000. The authority provides vital support and visits from specialist staff for 493 children across the borough. The National Deaf Children’s Society and the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) have said that any cut would be devastating for the children affected.

Sunday, 3 November 2019

Last Hiccup: No deaf community.

Image result for SUrvivalI suppose every area needs its extremes and loners railing against the Windmills of advance, but Last Hiccup is in a league of his own.  I rather fear his over-zealous approach to culture and sign language has affected his posts a lot with his random uses of the D and d thing.

As regards to a deaf community, clearly, there isn't one (Assuming we recognise the lack of capitalisation of the term LH is an avid fan of! and the UK doesn't really support).  Large parts of his posts online are littered with so many errors of using those D/d terms I suggest he doesn't really know himself who HE is what or where we are all at.

Of course, his rantings against A G Bell are legendary even if looked upon as the ramblings and thinly-veiled hate messages they really are, and against a man dead 97 years.  If you target the organisations, you target the people in it, i.e. fellow deaf.  The fact the USA prides itself on freedom of choice and will, has obviously annoyed Last Hiccup who feels others should not choose differently from him and orals are a 'choice too far.'

To speak, to Sign?  To hear or not? These are non-questions as a choice, it is the parents, and enablement and ability, that decide not culture.  Certainly not random deaf who feel an oralist charity set up is a personal affront and a threat. If cultists were not so oppositional to choices, perhaps more would go in their favour but we won't know. It's not an issue the UK has because the charitable setups are different here, indeed we are pretty much anti-supporting most of them as a rather tired and patronising image of the old days, few if any at all run a rights campaign as it risks being removed from charitable status to go political.

There is no future for the deaf/Deaf community based on permanent confrontation, or being a martyr for a cause very few support anyway.  The continued usage of the sign only approaches etc just serve to keep those areas in the isolation they say they want out of.  Dressing it up as a cultural right doesn't change the reality of what that entails. 'Help', 'Support', 'inclusion' (Sort of!), and charities that are no longer charities in the sense of the term but 'corporate' care areas for an area of deaf people who insist they don't have an issue needing 'care'.  They use terms like 'empowerment' and 'right' to blur issues instead.  But they still aren't INCLUDED.

Only they see it differently.  It's as if they accept day one inclusion is never going to happen so let's do our own thing, call it culture and just not bother to integrate anyway, all resistance is futile but keeps on raising issues, they still need the funding that provides. Cynical?

Such areas only thrive where there is a concentration of like-minded,  In reality, it is the cities deciding what everyone else wants by sheer numbers and the fact access for them is pretty much there already, though not if you aren't in those areas, but hey collateral damage is unavoidable we can't include everyone!

Enabling the deaf options to have a choice is surely the best way forward?  You cannot do that if you are determined to insist only one option is viable, as YOU see it.  Like the USA well over 60% of deaf in the UK don't have a job worth a S.H.I.T.  either.  If you ask an employer why they don't employ the deaf they say their communication is a prime reason, or, the lack of it.  We can complain this is discrimination, but nothing changes, its economics, there are 1,000s of hearing that won't need that support.  Even throwing near a £1,000 a week via supporting some deaf in work does not seem to work (Unless messing about in deaf arts is your bag!) and deaf arts is only in the City anyway.

The world we live in is at a fast pace and under constant change, and the deaf are left behind.  Hearing employees have to update skills and retrain as they go, you cannot stand still, the deaf are nowhere near being able to do that as it stands. Their basic education is at fault in reality, it lacks drive and options to enhance the deaf ability and even improving their own sign language skill seems to cease at leaving school.  

It's a breeding ground for the unemployed deaf and complainers who feel short-changed and blaming hearing for not empowering the choices, Last Hiccup doesn't want anyway.  They neglect to declare the 'community' of activism is the main area blocking those empowerments.  They exist via pitting 'Us', against 'them'.  Deaf versus hearing. Deaf live in a hearing world, and unless they have more options to cross that divide NOTHING will change.  If A G Bell IS offering those choices, they should be supported, because at the end of a very long day only deaf people count not dogma.  

They need to separate the social from the actual and find the middle ground.  Quit the bilingual con, nobody is buying it.  The UK e.g. is getting rid of deaf schools, and clubs are dwindling too, that would suggest our deaf are already moving away from the 'community' concept and the world 'out there' isn't as bad as is LH is making made out.    

The pseudo online community is also exposed for what it is, desperation to keep the community concept alive.