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.

No comments:

Post a Comment