Friday, 21 June 2019

I'm not racist... really!

Image result for im not a racist
While the USA, a country built by migrants that also has controversial views on who and how many to admit has its issues, here is a typical UK view.

#1 London lets them all in, then they 'export' them to Wales and Northern England etc after. It is time they examined the criteria for refugee status, starting with a refusal if they come here illegally or pay to do so. Genuine Asylum seekers don't need to violate our laws to get admission, and, the refugee/asylum rule states 1st port of call not last.

#2  Right, a number have crossed 3 war zones and 11 countries, which suggests they don't at least, feel Europe is a safe haven if they are intent on coming here to the UK. Many from Northern African countries come to Europe for a better life, i.e. they are 'work' migrants, not refugees, and tear up ID papers if they feel we demand proof and assume then the refugee status.

#3  I doubt the genuine refugee really exists as such as we understand that definition. The ridiculous blurring of 'oppression' and 'discriminations' terminology by the ECHR, the EU, and the UN has left world borders wide open. If all else fails when caught out, insist you are fleeing persecution, its ridiculous.

#4 The reality, is that Europe has no borders enabling anyone with a rubber dinghy to get here must suggest the EU is to blame for a lot of it. As I understood this 'freedom of movement' gig, it applied only to EU member states, did they simply think these immigrants/asylum seekers/work migrants or plain randoms would not see that actually, Europe has no border controls at all? Apart from anything else the middle east issues leave Europe and us, wide open to people you really do not want here, terrorists and IS supporters e.g.

#5  Many come here with language, health issues, different ideas and alternatives to UK lifestyles, and with a lot of educational need, that puts a heavy strain on current provision for our own people.  The law such as it is in the UK also enables them legally to pursue options that don't really encompass integration or inclusion at all, but enables sectarian and 'stand-alone' areas, that defeats multiculturalism as a format supposed to integrate us all.  Lots of different people lots doing own thing etc.  Integration is about inclusion primarily, not going it alone and doing whatever you want.  That's taking advantage.

#6  I'm fed up of it, and it is frustrating to get racists and discrimination jibes thrown at people who state these simple facts. Sadly, the huge influx of immigrants means the very services and things they come here for, will collapse under the weight of their own need demands.

#7  Europe is a continent we are just an island, and a number of islands in the med have been flooded already, replacing or outnumbering the local population, I fear for the British way of life. 

#8 In the end, those nearest the flood of immigrants are re-establishing individual country borders again, so the European 'Union' is accepting a tiered approach to things and that some countries have a right to re-erect borders within that union, which ultimately means nationalists can and will, undermine the basic freedom to roam rule with impunity, I don't see the EU lasting long at that rate, and annoyed the EU and well-meaning here,  is insisting only the UK has to comply with anyone can come here.

Sweet (But uneccesary), charity?

Image result for charity tinsATR's challenge to charity met in social media and you get a history lesson too.  ATR claims charities are a self-perpetuating brake par se on independence for deaf or disabled people and as much the cause as the cure.

#1 I'm going to challenge you on what charity always was.  It wasn't to replace the NHS, which didn't exist, but to replace a lost/destroyed mediaeval welfare state.  Charities were set up as a tax-avoidance scheme under Elizabeth I. Henry VIII is known for whats is now called the 'dissolution of the monasteries'.  The church had been, in effect, the welfare state.  It provided healthcare (or, more realistically, palliative care), homes for destitute (albeit often as nuns/monks), education etc.  What Henry did was to steal most of the land and resources, leaving the population helpless.

People with money also tried to provide for others after their death by 'uses' which were like trusts, bypassing death taxes.  Henry legislated them away but before he died, lawyers invented trusts, which were the same dodge.  Give your money to someone else before you die to look after your family or whoever, and you bypass the death tax.  Elizabeth created the 'charity', using this new 'trust' set-up.  The legislation she signed off on is known as The Statute of Elizabeth, and is, to mix metaphors, her crowning glory.

The original definition of charity, slightly amended in the late C20, was basically where someone or some people did one or more of the things we think of as the welfare state, like the relief of poverty, tending the sick, education etc.  Thus it was an official way for rich people to avoid death tax, which would otherwise have gone to the crown.  It was how Elizabeth and her government and civil servants set up a new welfare state.  Not a good one, far from comprehensive, but nevertheless that was what it was.

It remains the case that a charity is a set up where someone or some people get tax concessions if what they're doing with their money amounts to things that we would, in other contexts, call the welfare state.  Thus Charities and their function as a tax concession (with no requirement to be 'nice') precede the NHS by a few centuries.  And it remains the case that most charities are small and most aren't well known.  Even the not-so-small ones are generally not campaigning charities in the way we know one.

I was a director/trustee for many years of a charity with an annual income the best part of £5million p/a.  It was known in the local area but we weren't asking the man in the street for donations.  We got the money from grants, including the EU, the council, other charities, businesses etc.  We provided schooling for 'disaffected' pupils, nurseries, groups for elders, out of school activities, youth training and activities, a couple of playgrounds, a bit of greenery, place for craft groups etc.  We provided somewhere for people to meet, somewhere for the people no one else could be bothered to help.  Sometimes the most important thing we did was to get people in a deprived area to get what they were entitled to.

The trustees (like me) were unpaid, and we took care over salary ratios.  As we had a school, the CEO, who's been one of those that had set up the charity, was entitled to pay on a national salary scale but had a distinctly lower level of pay at her own request.  I don't disagree with your descriptions as they apply to a relatively small number of well-known charities, but they do not represent the majority of the many thousands of charities in the UK.

More to the point, whilst I agree with you that it is wrong for the welfare state to be destroyed and for people to be expected to rely on charity, I fundamentally disagree with your analysis of what charities are.  I think that your image of them is based on relatively few well-known ones, not on the vast majority of them. Apart from anything else, I would draw a sharp line between what you describe as exec and campaigning levels.  In relation to those charities (which aren't the majority) that campaign, I can see the issue as regards visible disability, although I'm not sure the basis on which you'd say it for invisible disability.  

I'm also very dubious as to whether you've actually got any reliable statistics for executives of charities overall.   I think you've developed a very fixed notion of a charity as a modern thing and as being the sort of charity that just a few, well-known ones are.  As I say, I would agree that there are lots of problems with them, but I disagree that they are representative of charities overall.


There are no two ways about it.  Charity should NOT be a substitute for any state provision, it is the onus on the government and respect for human rights they look after and provide for the most vulnerable of the populace.  Apart from anything else 76% of charities are run by people unqualified to do so, so aren't able to provide the support they claim effectively.  Most are set up by people well-meaning who may well have vulnerable relatives, but that still does not qualify them to provide the right support.  As a result, most fail or there is a mass duplication area by area scrabbling for a cut of the ever decreasing cake to provide the same or similar services as the people in the next county or areas.  National charities you would really struggle to FIND any disabled people leading those or, making the decisions of support or where to supply it.  62% of ALL Charity HQ's are based in London or Southern England.  Anywhere else the queen won't give them a gong.

The charity relies on the goodwill and occasional funding from the government it's just not good or reliable enough to supply the needs of the disabled and vulnerable population, meanwhile, the DWP is taking it all away again.  I confess disappointment disabled are involved with them, I suspect most were fooled by 'Disabled know best how to help other disabled' mantra, this was an image sold to them by the uncaring state, and, we bought it.  So disabled take the blame again when charity doesn't cut it.  The Charity Commission has a 51% government stake thus ensuring our desire to set out what is really needed (which of course costs money), is restricted.  The CC also has no ruling on vetting people wanting to set up a charity not even if those who apply can show an ability to run one, or enough knowledge/ability to provide the services they claim.  A 'good idea at the time' seems to be it.

10 years ago The deaf had 48 charities in the UK all doing the same thing.  They multiplied to 163 today still all claiming to provide the same services.  The national charities of the BDA/AOHL have next to NO deaf members at all.  We deserted them after they pushed out deaf people at exec level and claimed they could not prioritise the deaf grass root or train them up to required levels, because "That would leave our charity open to claims we are discriminating against hearing people..'  I said yes, you mean the 94% of hearing staff who run your charity?  or the 11% of hearing immigrants from the EU eastern bloc you hired? and you paid their visa fees with our money?   At that point I got racist jibes hurtled at me.

The reality is disability support is in excess of a £16B a year plus income, to think for one-minute corporate charities are going to allow us in...  As I said before there is no end game with the charity they need us reliant on them so they can survive, we should be running our own services either as individuals or supervising state support by us for others to ensure we come first.  Charity is dead in its original format and premise now its an area for only corporate professionals to run.  National Charities also defy the reality health and other services are devolved to regions too.  National charities are screwing up regional support.  There is too much money at stake to allow us to do it ourselves, and money is the only thing that really matters.  The rest is a distraction.

New subtitling technology trialled in New Zealand Cinemas.

The Gift that keeps giving.

When Telarni Wilson and David Lehfeldt were expecting their first child, Mum endured a normal, healthy pregnancy. The usual morning sickness in the first trimester, and then smooth sailing until their son Wylder was born. 

But in an unfair turn of events, Wylder’s first 13 months of life have been filled with heartbreak and struggle. After a routine hearing test at the hospital, while Wylder was just days old, his mum and dad were told some news they weren’t expecting: their little boy was deaf. “Both David and I were very calm and taking in all the information being provided to us, which meant we didn’t have much time to react,” mum Telarni tells Kidspot.

“The audiologist who did our testing at Queensland Children’s Hospital was quite surprised at how accepting we were of it. I don’t know if it was shock or just both of us trying to process what was being said.” But it didn’t take long for reality to sink in and the worries of what might come for their baby boy began to make their way through. “Once we left the appointment, we were both silent driving in the car. I started crying. I didn’t really understand or ever think this was a possibility. We went to lunch and Dave called his dad to tell him what was going on. He walked away from the table and I just saw him crying on the phone. 

It just suddenly hit us both. We were both very confused. We didn’t know anyone who was deaf, especially profoundly deaf.” While their first days following diagnosis were filled with confusion, uncertainty, fear, and plenty of sadness, Telarni and partner David were grateful help was readily available. “The system that is in place here in Queensland is one that is heavily geared towards getting children with hearing loss the best access to communication as quickly as possible,” says Telarni. Telarni and David came across a not-for-profit organisation called Hear and Say, which focuses on developing speech and listening skills for children with hearing loss. 

It was through their help that they were able to give Wylder the best chance in life – together with a cochlear implant. At nine months old, Wylder was fitted with a bilateral cochlear implant and just 10-days later he heard for the first time. “He was so chill at the time they switched it on. 

You watch the YouTube videos of children hearing for the first time and you see this textbook reaction of amazement. Wylder wasn’t like that. He turned and grabbed his head like: ‘what was that’? Then went straight back to playing with the toys,” Telarni recalls. “There were moments when he was frightened by the sounds, but that faded quickly and he was just again, so chill." cochlear implant Thanks to the help he received, Wylder can hear his parents telling him they love him. Image: Supplied Taking the small things for granted Now witnessing their baby boy communicating and responding like any other child his age, Telarni and David admit they are also just as chill as Wylder at that moment. 

 “Looking back, it was probably naive to have had an irrational fear as there are many ways to communicate. But Dave and I both had no experience in the deaf community and we were scared that Wylder wouldn’t be able to communicate effectively with everyone, or participate in the world we have always been a part of. “Listening to the birds in trees, the sound of the fan, talking to family, singing … all the things that we take for granted now were all but guaranteed never to happen for our boy, unless we looked into technology and support that could help.” Telarni and David hope by sharing their story about their precious boy, they will give hope to other families who might be experiencing the same sort of news they did when Wylder was just days old. 

“Having your profoundly deaf child responding, listening, learning and talking is amazing. Every day we think about how lucky we are to have access to the Cochlear Implant technology and to a centre like Hear and Say. “What is an absolute game changer is he can hear us tell him we love him - and the smile that comes off of that is priceless.”  

DDPO closed down. Deaf support being questioned?

Lewisham's deaf and disabled people will be without a a dedicated organisation for a year.
Second time this week we have seen issues emerging regarding deaf support, first in Northern England  (Where 70 lost their job at a charity), and again now, in London, probably the most over-served support area in the UK for the deaf.  Are local authorities questioning deaf support provision?  

London seems awash with them.  Every area is demanding own independent support system, which by and large isn't inclusive, even here we read of deaf demanding 'We are different to disabled..' even different to other deaf and most with hearing loss too, fragmenting the entire support system and demanding specialisation etc..  Has that premise now been questioned?  Are deaf just disabled when the situation suits them?


Southwark Lewisham's deaf and disabled people will be without a dedicated organisation for a year. Lewisham's deaf and disabled people will be without a dedicated organisation for a year.   

Inclusion London, has called on Lewisham Council to release more information about its plans for the borough’s deaf and disability services. This comes more than six months after the borough’s former Deaf and Disabled People’s organisation (DDPO) closed down, with its work not replicated elsewhere until the borough's new DDPO, called the Accessibility Commission launches in December. 

This means the borough's deaf and disabled people will be without an organisation to promote and protect their rights for a year, causing concern for local disabled person Ellen Morrison, who is also a media officer for Inclusion London. She said: “Deaf and Disabled people’s organisations are run and controlled by Deaf and Disabled people, they are committed to the social model of disability and they’re instrumental in campaigning for Disabled people’s rights,” she said. 

“Generic local services cannot always meet the needs or understand the specific concerns, of Disabled people. In addition, DDPOs are big employers of Disabled people. When we lose DDPOs, we lose accessible services and the voice of Disabled people locally,” she added. “We would like the council to publish and to discuss their plans for accessibility commission. “We are disappointed it has taken this long when an Accessibility Commission was in the manifesto and in the corporate strategy. “We hope that the council will publicly announce how disabled people can get involved.