Sunday, 27 October 2019

BDA still moving to silence members.


Never mind Brexit follow this!  How to ensure Deaf people know their place, a prime example of how an overbearing elitist charity is determined to show them who is boss, 7 trustees resigning, followed by gagging orders, demands for member silence, refusals to allow open debate, read it here! (We've been asked to withdraw names to protect concerned BDA members against hostile feedback if they break the secrecy demands or seen expressing concern.)


#1 i proxy vote, what was result?

#2 Wait a minute ... move on to what? How can we support the BDA if we don't know what they intend to do? Why is there all this secrecy and can't talk about it? If you want people to support the BDA you must change policies to ones that are more popular. Einstein once said that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, is madness. A change is needed.

#3 No no no it’s confidential to members only! Will be announced by BDA themselves so please be patient! If you are member, you will know - not member nothing we could do...to be honest

#2 Who do you think you are? The Mafia? It's a public charity financed by public donations. It is discrimination to exclude other deaf people.

#4  I have to agree, It's regrettable the die-hards of the BDA are still defending secrecy, the whole idea of an EGM was to make public an explanation as to why 7 trustees felt the BDA was no longer a viable option for them. 'Members Only' I find it incredible the BDA is ABLE to silence all of them and prevent anyone knowing what is going on, it's rather uncomfortable to know they have an ability to do that. What it WON'T do is encourage people to join the BDA, I envisage a mass exodus of members unless this is sorted properly. I disagree non-members have to mind their own business, (Which is what is being stated), its laudable you want to protect your BSL charity but there are bigger issues at stake here, democracy and being open just two of them. the BDA is a UK national charity and responsible to the government as well as using deaf people to gain funding, should we not have a view on what the BDA does in our name? If I join today they will gag me? I'm obliged to be offered a view, sadly his organisation the BDA has refused outright.

#2 It is especially relevant when the BDA goes to the Government and speaks on behalf of Deaf people. They are certainly not representative of anyone but the BDA.

#5  At the beginning Deaf community heard the rumours about BDA then they arranged EGM. Deaf community were relieved to hear but still worried what will the outcome be at the end of the play 26/10/2019. Now you cannot share the outcomes with Deaf Community?

#3  If I join the BDA they will take my money then tell me I cannot say anything?  Is it all funny handshakes and rolled-up trouser legs!

#4 Well charities all use these shut it approaches, say nothing, respond never, and hope it will all go away, but for a few concerned voices online that is exactly what would happen. The irony is the only thing keeping the BDA extant is they fly the flag of BSL but for that, they would have vanished years ago because of they no longer represent deaf people their membership is proof. If we read concerned comment little or NONE is being allowed by BDA members.

#2 That is exactly the point. The BDA wants the Government to think the BDA represents 100,000 Deaf people. Where are all these Deaf people hiding?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATR:  Maybe they don't exist? Not all deaf BSL users?  we know they AREN'T members of the BDA, we are back to blurred explanations of who is deaf who isn't who is cultural who isn't, the D/d debacles, who uses BSL and who doesn't?  the BDA are masters of this distortion.   They are a cultural backwater, but for the image only THEY are promoting BSL they would have disappeared long ago.  I think deaf people need to understand what is going on in their name and not just rubber-stamp all this BDA nonsense because they fear nobody else will support sign, that's rubbish, deaf people have already voted with their feet against the BDA.  It hasn't stopped the deaf using it!  Deaf want in out of the cold.  The BDA sells only ice.

Deaf Children's teacher turns back on them and speaks instead..

A teacher for the deaf comes under criticism for turning her back on deaf children when in a pre-school class, as usual, BSL campaigners are angry about this.    ATR attempts to cut through the hysteria about sign to suggest the realities of teaching deaf children and the misconceptions over the signing approach.

"There does seem issues with the deaf child.  A lot is down to what deaf ADULTS want and what the state and 'society' feels deaf children need in the way of communication support.  It looks like a wrong approach here, some teachers in wanting the deaf child enable to follow SPEECH, use that approach disproportionally, they do fear that a total BSL/Sign approach will enable further isolation later on because the mainstream doesn't work that way. 

A teacher turning her back on a deaf child has no place in a classroom of deaf children or indeed those with any hearing loss.  

There is no doubt a singular BSL approach to learning sets up that child for life regardless of what other skills they might learn.  It then becomes difficult to get them to adapt as adults and I don't see ANY deaf adults improving their ability to communicate to hearing post-school.  If we accept sign is a right, we also have a duty to enable our children to be bilingual in the true form of the word. Sign isn't an inevitable and sole means a deaf child can attain, much depends on parental support, teaching approaches and the individual ability of the child itself, there is no one size fits all.

The right to sign has to be taken in that context.

An ability to read is vital more so than speaking or signing, but an INability (Or unwillingness) to develop that ability to communicate with hearing is the real issue.  You can have a culture and a language and still manage OK, welsh people do it.  The campaign for culture seems to be running on the fear factor, the fear it cannot sustain itself alongside an equal accessible hearing platform.  We should not be using the deaf child to make a deaf adult point.

The 'Deaf' approach is to aim for a total BSL environment despite no deaf schools e.g. Wales at ALL, and deaf clubs you can count on one hand. Dis-abling the deaf child the training, or empowering the ability to cross cultures, is going to be very bad for them in the future.  We simply create child martyrs to whatever cause celeb campaigners are running.  

Parents need to concentrate on how best to enable their child to succeed in what is a predominantly HEARING environment not pursue immersive sign approaches when in reality the support for that to function or be TAUGHT properly, is NOT there.  BSL interpreting is in 100s, deaf signers allegedly (Not proven because there is no system to collate figures), are in many 1,000s.  You don't need a degree in mathematics to work out BSL isn't enabled to function, and deafness under the 'cosh' of medical advance and alleviations too.

It should be noted the NDCS is NOT behind a BSL immersive approach, they have said so, also that while recent profile campaigns aimed at politicians for a BSL option in all schools, it has not got off the table, neither, has the 2004/5 declaration by the EU of the acceptance of BSL in education, the BDA misreported or misunderstood that, what the EU said, was it 'recognised' deaf people using sign language, (along with 37 other minority language approaches), but empowerment of that use was/is still the duty of the host government, ours in the UK has chosen not to do that, mainly because many hearing parents wanted to choose themselves what approach was used and were not confident sign was that approach.  

They (parents), were also concerned sign was being seen as some 'novelty' approach and supporters od 'learn the A, B, C of sgn', were not really understanding the implications of lifetime use or dependence on it or the deaf politic that drives it all.  Supporters were looking at the sign and ignoring the cultural elements of it, including its extreme areas.   The issue with children (and cute animals), is that emotion replaces logic and getting down to basics then becomes impossible. 

We doubt the shenanigans and rows and various crusades against speech/Cochlear Implants/Oral approaches etc has swayed parents towards sign either.  Last year we saw vicious attacks by deaf signers against a mother who wanted her child to have an implant accusing her of child abuse.  Social media e.g. has just enhanced these more extreme elements.  It's a perennial issue online and everywhere else, culture versus access and need etc, I expect it will ramble on for years and years, but in the end free choice will defeat the negative and lack of the holistic approach to supporting the deaf child, who isn't just 'Fodder for deaf culture' to exploit."