Monday, 25 November 2019

What the BDA didn't want you to read.

Despite very effective blanking of response to concerns at the British Deaf Association, concerns are still emerging on social media about this charity, an area they cannot control (except THEIR online social media where responses are removed as fast as they get sent in), and their charity primary site won't include.  No accessible record of the EGM debacle, no response to 7 trustees resigning (Or of the 7/8 new ones), and No comment or inclusion in the BDN news itself, however, they can not keep us ALL in the dark.

#1 Strange the BDA going on about voting when they operate their own charity in secrecy and ban members telling other people what they do.  As a lead-in to joining this charity, a death wish. The emergency EGM simply called so the person who called it could get the top job! presumably on the basis to toe the line and carry on speaking for everyone and silencing the dissent.  'Ignore it until it all goes away'. The 7 trustees leaving over allegations of bullying and the BDA living in the 1950s, never happened(!), do the new trustees represent deaf people? or just chosen for their dedication to maintaining a closed shop approach?  The damning silence seems to suggest nothing has actually changed, they have found more trustees who know when to keep their mouths closed.  Of course, as soon as they take the public stage they are going to have to respond then.  Sign use and culture won't be an excuse they can use.

#2 The charity commission needs to investigate how the BDA operates to the deaf detriment, it's neither an open or inclusive charity, which surely violates the condition of its existence?  If you log in to the BDA site no mention whatever of what the executive members of the committee get up to, grass root members are warned never to publish whatever info the charity gives to them, the only hearing loss site in the UK that operates with this level of secrecy or removes without reason any comment that asks why.

#3 (regarding Prince Andrew leaving as patron too): I think the BDA has far more pressing issues concerning its own viability than a dead-beat Royal with dubious middle-eastern contacts.  The deaf can not support charities that make beggars of them and trading on their disablements, their culture and deaf children.  It's an approach based on patheticism of 'these poor people who need our help'.  We are all entitled to rights and support by law it shouldn't be left to biased charity to decide WHO they will support, WHO is actually deaf, WHO is part of the Community, and HOW such areas should be supported, decided by what format they use to communicate (Or should be using!).  

Far from promoting sign and culture, they are creating a sect of it and promoting the isolation it brings as a virtue  and 'all hearing are against us' campaigns, combined with attacks on the deaf who use alleviation, or assists to hear. Some deaf sign, some don't, some use a mix etc, some have no effective means without help, so failing to include everyone deaf, is a form of discrimination.  This hard-core are determined to oppose real inclusion because it means the big fish running the signing area have to put up and justify themselves.

#4 Engaging royal support is a form of snobbery, (as the RNID found that out when they wanted to rebrand themselves), they found removing the 'royal' from the charity title meant funds plummeted,  They have two titles online now to cover themselves.  RNID and AOHL, and because corporate fund givers only give to the BDA (Or any other charity),  IF there is a chance of them getting a royal award with an 'E' at the end of it after, they don't really care for deaf people.   The whole concept is an exercise in being cynical, and deaf charities are as mercenary as those who prop it up.

#5 On Princess Diana:  What use was Diana to the deaf? she managed to sign her name, that must have taken all of 5 minutes.  Some deaf seem easily pleased, not so much with Phillip who told them to stop listening to loud noises.  Prince Phillip's family also kept pretty quiet about his aunt being deaf. Prince Charle's uncle changed his german name 'Battenburgh' after Hitler waged war on us, but the Queen's uncle abdicated and had parties with him in France but not before teaching Queen Liz 2 how to do the Nazi salute.  Prince Andrew prefers Pizza Palace to sign language and his involvement with the deaf was near zero, what is to lose for the deaf?    

#6 The Deaf are manipulated, they know it, but they want the money, so I doubt much conscience or any moral high ground exists with charity or its benefactors.   Rights, nor Charity should be what we all support. The deaf leaders have no qualms about ignoring others with hearing loss, the area needs a spring clean to get rid of the deadwood and the very obvious bias and polarisation of people via db and mode.  

Charity needs to stop speaking for the deaf and hard of hearing too, nobody has given them the right to speak in their name.

No comments:

Post a comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.