Thursday, 30 July 2020

Deaf Arts, WHY?

Interview with artistic director Paula Garfield on Deafinitely ...Recent announcements that £500m is to be handed over to the areas of the arts in the UK, to save them during COVID, but some are asking are the deaf getting any of it? and if so why?

Deaf arts output is not available to most deaf people, so they are pouring money into deaf arts for us to access and it isn't happening at all.  It is just the favoured few in the cities doing ok and thanks very much.  

I'd want to know why all this investment is not enhancing deaf people's appreciation of the arts?  or being made accessible to them?  Perhaps if they weren't subsidised and had to rely on a paying audience they would do what they are supposed to be doing.  One suspects the primary audience make up is pals, care support, families, and those with a vested interest.

Most deaf aren't caring about signed arts anyway because they can access mainstream with subtitles, so I am wondering why it is being funded at all.  Given a  choice between some obscure and poor copy of hearing output in sign, or watching Coronation Street etc on mainstream TV,  which would most deaf choose?  It won't be a signed program without titles, will it? Or one you have to commute 50 miles away to see and pay for.  The claim of poor access to lip-readers and text users alike is fobbed off with claims of culture, but that isn't what the majority of funding is provided for. 

Is it not a false image of 'Deaf' arts to simply sign something HEARING created? all it is, is a BSL translation and often with no text access either.  You could go watch the actual hearing thing with a terp and the claim one terp can replace a full cast on stage is ridiculous. 

Are deaf pimping hearing talent?  The only deaf worth watching are those who we can see included in the mainstream output, they have managed to include themselves, albeit a lot still believe a lecture on 'deaf do this and Deaf do that' is necessary when the reality is it makes us look like whiners. We want to watch acting not listen to a focus group blurb. Let's face it there is no fame or fortune in minority output there never will be by default.   Being a legend in your own bathtime isn't what any artist wants.  Art is also subjective which means there is no 'across the board' demand for it.  

Artists, are also claiming the maximum amount of disability and A2W support allowances to work in their chosen field, (Up to £700-£800 per week maximum for signed support alone),  so the investment in deaf arts does seem out of proportion to its value to us as deaf people, or even art made to promote culture as few really see it, access it,  or understand it.  You wonder how long the culture thing is going to excuse this waste?

It's debatable if free funded BSL programs on TV or Online are valid, or even watched, no problemo! its cultural output if one watches them all that's validation.  This is where 'cultural arts' and investment is going.  It does seem a great FOR the artists themselves, but the underlying value has to be questioned, as does the actual content of their work.  

One piece of output a few years ago was 4 deaf Yorkshiremen, but this was a deaf rip-off of Monty Python, and the punch line was quite poor.  There is little desire to appeal TO deaf people, just deaf artists doing their own thing, nice work if you can do that most of us can't.  There should be ongoing and free online coverage as well outside a city centre, not just an ad on a BSL program, nobody else is going to see it. BSLTV output is minority viewing by the BSL minority itself.

It's not providing impetus to stretch deaf artists at all. In part, pigeon-holing them to minority output forever.  Little output seems designed to foster inclusion at all.  Being lumped in with disabled isn't recognising culture either, just recognising they are DEAF. Deaf signed art isn't viable for 10m hard of hearing who I am sure would welcome a few million quid to put their side of it too. Just get deaf artists to communicate better in the mainstream then we can see inclusion on the screens and stage etc and not because of 'disability' funding.  

Sport e.g. is all about INclusion, deaf art is about EXclusivity and emperor's new clothes, in which any criticism gets 'You aren't deaf you don't understand', we won't if you don't provide access for sure! and which 'deaf'; are you talking about?  Surely art is supposed to be inclusive? or 'This is our culture' (Nope its YOUR view of it), or even discrimination responses when those excuses fail.  A lot use culture as an excuse to prolong non-inclusion because they cannot include themselves.  COVID exploded a lot of those myths.

Time they stopped being obsessive about hands too, deaf are more than that. Some deaf artists are a bit snobbish about the fact too which is all rather silly.  I was amazed they already have a 'luvvie' set up.  I'd not like to think money is driving all this cultural hoo ha but...  Have they tried being topical?  that might work.

Deaf can do anything

But apparently struggle with captioning, subtitling, reading English text or it's grammar or providing access to others it seems.  Because of COVID deaf no longer sign either! they are all lip-readers if the clear mask campaigns are valid.  

The pandemic has caught the deaf out and raised questions on their rights and access requirements too, it became a free for all, and the fact they had no norm at all has been exposed as well.  Many deaf are challenging each other over clear masks now and condemning charities for misinforming the public. 

A lot of deaf campaigners are now on a 'hit list' of people that just have to go, some of the COVID campaigns have been ridiculously dis-informative and a few dangerously exposing deaf people.  Some charities will fold too, and some, not before time, deaf awareness has not worked.  They are up against a virus that cares nothing for deaf people, their rights or their access.

Wednesday, 29 July 2020

When Social Workers were the norm

5 tips for booking and attending a medical appointment with ...On social media it was posted issues deaf were having to access the NHS, GP's, opticians, dentists etc.  

But one deaf woman wrote she had no issues whatever because she had ready access to a BSL Interpreter and a social worker as well as extensive family support, but a lot are not in that position and the fact the deaf lady was using TWO support systems, a BSL terp and a social worker every time raised a few eyebrows and responses...

We should be so lucky!  Deaf S.W. are an issue, remember years ago? deaf deciding they no longer wanted a dedicated social service? Young deaf felt the level of interferences in deaf lives by social workers was unacceptable and went for a right for a terp instead. 

Some deaf still uses family a lot, far too many in my view rely on them and that kills demand for interpreters OTHERS need. It also defeats NHS access because they don't have to provide trained help to you, this woman allowed her GP to phone her kids instead and then let them decide when an appointment was viable, of course the GP's used family for free as well, but the family are losing time out of jobs too.

There is no excuse for that most phones enable direct access now.  Some deaf are just lazy I know, and it is easier to let someone with ears do it all.  This is the system playing on the conscience of deaf families to save money, obviously family want to help, but it doesn't look good for deaf wanting or relying on that either.

Didn't the BDA defend their right to family reliance?

The BDA?  they are still there in the 1950s aren't they?

Many years ago social services for the deaf carried deaf clients from birth to death and all in between, e.g. read their mail or had it redirected to them, managed their money, took them shopping, attended courts on their behalf, what they should be doing or way of living etc. Deaf stood by and let them and were happy enough going to a deaf club and letting them do it all. 

No-one wants anything like that again!  Deaf are doing it for themselves now.

'Some' are.  There are still many access areas being empowered free by own family.  The deaf switched from one form of reliance to another. 60% of all deaf support is not by the system at all.

The deaf lady mentioned used a terp to access a social worker, because they, of course, they do not sign, so twice the cost for the system isn't it? 

It's not deaf money is it?

That is because a terp cannot act as advisors or social workers themselves and sign papers and stuff.  Social workers have a different and 'official' role altogether.  

I don't think a lot of deaf understand what a BSL terp's role actually is. Terps e.g. aren't recognised in courts as any sort of witness to proceedings, their own organisation makes this point, in the scheme of things, this means anything a terp tells a court a deaf person has said is hearsay technically.  

No interpreter will offer any guarantee what they interpret is valid.  Using a BSL interpreter means regardless if the terp has misunderstood you the fact you asked for them means what they say is what they believe you said. You can not refer back either.  A lot of deaf are not aware of that.

That is not what I am seeing.  I am seeing deaf ASKING interpreters to help make decisions for them on occasion because they don't follow properly even in meetings WITH social services.  Some treat terps as friends and that is not their role in officialdom.  Deaf need to distance themselves but don't.

The issue of their support is chaos and a lot of it their own making, god knows what their support or charities are telling them. Don't use family if they do not have a signing qualification, and of course, using family means you abandon your choice and right to them too. They may act in THEIR best interests not yours because it's easier.  Medical or legal Jargon can be beyond hearing family too, and if their level of sign is as mum taught them it simply won't do.

Redirecting phone calls to your family instead of you should not be allowed it violates privacy, I'm surprised there are still deaf allowing that.  If a deaf patient has NOT signed a waiver form in the surgery a Dr can be in serious trouble.  Deaf need to understand if they DO sign such a form they give their rights away, and have said their family are their carers too.

GP's love 'helping' deaf this way because it means they DON'T have to pay to provide deaf with a terp, or even use this system to avoid an interview with the deaf patient altogether, get wise... It's hearing making things easier for themselves.

You cannot get independence by relying on others, simples. I love my family, but I love my privacy and making my own decisions too! To that end, my child is NOT allowed to act as my support in any area, because that is MY duty as a parent. we don't have children so that we get free help.

If my GP started phoning my family instead of me he'd not be my GP any more!


Tuesday, 28 July 2020

Awareness the first casualty or emancipation.

Emancipate Meaning - YouTubeThere is too much misinformation being given out by deaf activism, and awareness it isn't. 

Ergo how many deaf exist in the UK (No statistics available), how many deaf can effectively lip-read? (No stats available), how many deaf rely on sign language? (No stats available), how many Hard of Hearing are there? (No stats available), how many deaf have issues the make them exempt from mask-wearing? (No demand identified), etc etc...  

Deaf don't need clear masks, it is HEARING that do if anyone, so lip-readers can lip-read them.  They may be deaf people, they may NOT, they may be Hard of Hearing, or other areas too.  Charities have lied to the system for 20 YEARS, nobody have the numbers or can identify the people either, simply because a LAW prevents anyone knowing, it's called the DPA (The Data Protection Act), which stops any survey taking place mainly because it means identifying people and keeping records of them, so we get the areas like AOHL  stating 10m of us all, the BDA year on year doubling its sign using statistics, and all with no validity.  

Nobody spotted the glaring flaw in the information presented, the charities were producing their own stats themselves, and without anyone asking for proof, such statistics varied and/or multiplied according to what they think they can get away with to make the Deaf or Hard of hearing look needier and needier, so they could gain more and more funding, but providing less and less support because the deaf left charity behind years ago, mostly to DIY and then they screwed that up too.  Systems failed to question charitable 'proof' even when they have access to the reality.

The ONLY way to identify any need or support is to interview and assess the person, or simply to ask systems how many have applied for help and support? that is the prime statistic because that is actual people identified and asking for it, but not a single BSL  or lip-reading campaign lists THOSE stats, perhaps because they are one quarter and less of what THEY are claiming or simply unavailable.  Official support stats are manipulated too and often stated lower than actual as well, so politics are involved.  One campaigner asked for local statistics of deaf people requiring help, it was he said, to determine what type of support was needed for his peers locally.  

He was told 314 deaf existed, which puzzled him given his local deaf community was regularly at about 30 or 40 at his club and most not from the locale either because the nature of the 'Deaf Community' is they travel club to club, area to area, until Local authorities started demanding proof of how many locals were actually availing themselves of local provision they were funding?  Many deaf clubs/rooms were provided and rents paid for by Social Services etc, so when the Local Authorities started asking for proof of local residency a lot of small clubs couldn't do that, one near ATR has to register members every attendance, and a few small clubs have already folded.   Deaf are told to 'Ask your own LA for a club we aren't funding it for them for free..'  Only areas with a large deaf population are now viable.

One deaf club found 60% of its 'Members' did not even live in their own area.  On going back to his local authority to ask why the discrepancy with figures, was told, sorry, we don't update our records any more since the deaf social services were disbanded, so probably a lot have since died, entered homes,  or moved away etc.  Thus rendering his project unviable, or did it?  He then launched a campaign and approached the charity commission for help in raising money and support for..... 300 neglected deaf people.

The system could challenge but why bother? if a campaigner manages to get money for support, that is less they have to provide for. But, basically, all deaf won't comply with assessment, HoH won't nobody will, it is why every survey is less than 1,600 people or so and as such is not viable either.  8 out of 10 cats say.... The DWP assess deaf people for allowances but they tuned down 46% of the applicants as not needing any help.  Hard of Hearing had 63% turned down. The Local Authority assessment areas say less than 5% of the deaf have ever asked for their help.  To read current campaigns you would think 95% of them do.  Lies damned lies etc...

Systems and Deaf campaigners support 'freedom of support choice' for deaf people, which means they have a right to use untrained help like families or friends etc, again thanks very much from the system, it means less support THEY have to provide but, the campaign for more of this unused support goes on.

BSL use has no real stat other than those that use terps to access NHS or such and the NHS does not differentiate between someone deaf or someone hearing with loss.  Many areas have no statistic at ALL for lip-speaker provisions so its a perennial puzzle why lately so many are suddenly reliant on lip-reading. BSL is listed in the NHS alongside Urdu or even Polish, (because deaf demanded language status it gets lumped with every other minority or ethnic area that requires translation), nobody knows anything really because they don't ask if e.g. a deaf Urdu person uses BSL or not, they could be listed twice over as Urdu speakers, and as Deaf BSL users, thus doubling stats and rendering stats unreliable, except to the deaf campaigner of course who realises this could suggest more demand, and thus more effective for whatever campaign they are running.....   Being compliant with the D.P.Act (!) of course they don't identify those facts too much.

E.G. the Senedd (Welsh Assembly), lists deaf people under ELEVEN different descriptions, (including hard of hearing, the deafblind even Alzheimers), because clinical identification is listed as the same as 'cultural' support.  You can be deaf, can have Alzheimer's, have a limb missing even be partially blind etc, then you get a mention 4 times.  Sign and culture are just 2, but they all are one and the same stat for support purposes, so deaf-blind are the same as deaf BSL and they are both the same as some severely deaf who neither sign nor lip-read, or is disabled, BAME, or something else as well.  

It's all about effective book-keeping and nobody does that. You can quote whatever you like.  Attempts to identify WHO was cultural wasn't possible either because of the clinical identification of hearing loss. Systems tried to placate cultists and then it all got logged in together for everyone else to sort out.   The primary issue with records is that the deaf screwed definitions up by capitalising the d. Online and system record-keeping, cannot differentiate between one deaf area or any other so no statistics are viable, rendering all access, inclusion, and supportive campaigns suspect of being exploited from that chaos.  Think of a number, who can challenge it?

Deaf managed to exploit and screw up Google/Youtube as well who are unable to validate who the deaf are any more because of the grammar software's inability to show that difference and the campaigning deaf using the Deaf & HI remit for own ends by adding tags that did not really identify them alone but capitalised on the d/D thing. USA attempts to get HI out of the running is another avenue for their activists to expolit.

In essence, it is all quite clever, but in practice making things harder for everyone.  There are so many goalposts it is too easy to score for everyone.  Log online any day for hearing loss and you will probably get ASL or something, so it appears the Americans are the prime culprits abusing the system to make the most for the ASL user.  The Brits tried it but there is no real push from the deaf there would rather continue to practice their apathy instead.  They don't have time for the ASL or Audisms of the world, and the mask campaign has faltered too.

Nearest we got was copying BLM and that was hijacked by anarchists as well.  Currently, the mask issue is getting attacked now as 'Deaf' paranoia and even invalid a campaign because it conflicts with the prime mantra of the signing community, in that sign takes precedence NOT lip-reading.  Sadly for them COVID has zeroed face to face sign support and there is nothing they can do about it. Some areas decided instead of 'all deaf sign', it is now, 'all deaf lip-read' and have got opposition from their own purists.

If COVID has done anything useful at all, it has exposed the myths deaf have promoted the last 25 years... Culture and sign have met its match, many campaigns exposed as dodgy or manufactured, awareness a distorted sham, but we suspect it won't deter those who abuse it all, nice earner for them and money talks louder than principle.

Monday, 27 July 2020

Dr refuses mask exemption for deaf man.

It was alleged on social media a deaf man in Wales (UK) has complained of discrimination after his GP refused to give him an exemption note so he would not have to wear a mask, the patient deaf suggested he needed to lip-read and also needed other mask wearers to lower or remove theirs so he could follow.

His Doctor said no.  The reasons for refusal, were, that as his regular patient of many years he had never presented as an effective lip-reader, or asked for a lip-speaker to support him, to all intents and purposes had never exhibited that he could lip-read effectively at all, and had always attended his surgery with a BSL interpreter, or a family member as support.  Indeed had just presented his demand with a hearing friend who said 'He can't lip-read much, he can't get an interpreter so I am helping him follow.'

The latest idea to request exemption notes from medical areas appears to have hit a wall of refusal. Many GP's suggesting deaf don't require exemptions if they sign they would need someone signing to them or translation help, not mask removal.  This suggests many current BSL campaigns have been misleading the general public by not really explaining issues of deaf awareness.

There was some light a the end of this quite dubious BSL tunnel by one area in Cambridge (England), who are offering 'cards' for a nominal fee, explaining difficulties deaf have with COVID at present, to its credit not using the lip-reading angle.

The only reservation I would see is that anyone can buy them, including hearing.  In 30 years of watching various cards come and go, few if any have actually been seen to work but...  They could also have suggested speech to text can be used as well as the deaf themselves using the apps on their phones, (if deaf show willing then others will too).

Read one response that was to a deaf video telling other deaf to 'stop whining' about masks.

It's been a long time coming but putting a stop to these excuses and campaigns for masks etc needed to be challenged. As said on another post a GP refused to exempt a deaf patient from wearing a mask because his claim he lip-read wasn't accepted. The deaf man had attended his GP for years with no lip-speakers and used sign language, so this deaf excuse had been rumbled. 

It also suggested deaf need to lip-read was a false demand because in essence many signers couldn't so campaigners were misleading the public as well. Now we need to put a stop to AOHL and the BDA still plugging this mask idea. PROVE you can lip-read then maybe it will be supported but, ONLY for yourself.

Some deaf are saying they need to lip-read when they can't?  Why would they do that?

The issue is that BSL campaigners demand SIGN LANGUAGE not lip-speaker support. With or without a mask if the other person doesn't sign they will have issues following. I am supportive of lip-reading, deaf are pretty rubbish at it usually, there are good lip-readers but they won't rely on sign will they? or find with a mask removal hearing are good lip-speakers either. 

You can be sure post-COVID the deaf demands will be for the sign again and NOT lip-reading! It's time deaf were more honest. They use aspects of facial features to follow and that is what they are wanting to supplement their visuals, but not lip-speaking. It would be better if they said 'We need to see your face, as this helps us to follow..' not, we need to see your MOUTH because we lip-read, when a lot actually can't.

Sunday, 26 July 2020

Deaf-blind woman called a liar.

A deaf-blind woman and her teenager sister were verbally abused on a train after the young girl briefly lowered her face mask so that her older sibling could read her lips.

Karolina Pakenaite, who has Usher syndrome, was travelling to Southport with her 16-year-old sister Saule and guide dog when they were confronted by another passenger. Despite explaining that 24-year-old Ms Pakenaite's condition meant she was both hard of hearing and visually impaired, the woman refused to accept their explanation.

Their ordeal was recorded on a mobile phone as they travelled on a Merseyrail train from Liverpool Central on July 16. The woman can be heard in the two minute-long clip questioning whether Ms Pakenaite was really 'deafblind' after she was able to respond to her comments. 


ATR: So why are some deaf BSL sites refusing to acknowledge the LINK?

Tuesday, 21 July 2020

2020 and still not really deaf..

An operator's concern about 0.5% sulphur cap from 2020 - SAFETY4SEAThey are still at it, when exposed for quoting 50yr old issues, they move goalpost to under 3 years of age to challenge the perception we deaf from years ago got a lot more support than they do. In fact, suggest support is worse...  This is 2020, it isn't 1950, or even 1888.

#1  I agree there is a difference between born deaf at birth to going deaf afterwards, but how many here are in that category? or have the same experiences of years ago? we have CI's, better hearing aids, and more focused education, as well as more inclusion now.  I should be so deprived!  Why make a big deal of it with OTHER deaf people? it looks like they treat us as second-class deafies.  It's hardly a privilege to struggle is it?  

#2 I get this all the time 'you don't understand deaf' not even deaf in the same position as me, is there some 'pecking order' on who is 'really deaf' and who isn't?

#3 I am profoundly deaf in both ears have been longer than some posters here have been alive, I can sign and have a born deaf partner, to be told I'm not really deaf is ridiculous.  I am not surprised they are isolated with that attitude.  I don't really feel empathy with such people telling me how deaf I am supposed to be, how long, or even how I communicate, I thought the idea was to widen horizons for the deaf not improving them in some false sort of community ethos that ONLY functions if you have no ambition to include yourself?  I'll pass!  

#4 It's a shame really there are a lot of deaf already out there and included, and adapting,  who could really help those struggling, they are frozen out by misguided deaf who believe only they matter, as they born with the silver spoon of deafness at birth, and attended schools in some field somewhere.  They celebrate that?

#5  This is online so is not on the street, and there they don't count with their negativity and strange views, so feeding their own isolation really and trying to make a virtue of it by blaming others, the penny is dropping and the system is more challenging them now.   As are other deaf.   

#6 They are pissing me off! This is 2020 and I can recall when 888 (TV access), wasn't available, the net wasn't around, we didn't have access to a phone, there were no BSL or lip-reading classes, no support to find work, when social workers ran deaf lives and read their mail, and deaf schools waged constant abuse on deaf children with impunity, jobs for the deaf were just two, men worked at labouring/woodwork, and females did sewing, mostly they got pregnant early and didn't work at all and got abused by their partners they were also from the 'good old days in a deaf school' background, which it wasn't for any of them.  Even their religious support abused them.

#7 I have to laugh when I see deaf 'concerns' now, they don't know they are born.  It's deaf of my time that went out and did things, not did youtube and rambled online about things they never experienced themselves by quoting other people's hard lives. 

#8 Nobody here can tell me what I know and don't, or who I am supposed to be. It is sad we have to patronise these deaf and feel sorry for them, but they cannot keep telling others what to do, who they are, and how to live and communicate, nor tell systems lies either.  I suggest they look up deprivation in the dictionary.

#9 It is a hard-core of well educated deaf monopolising things for personal gain it seems to me, running awareness campaigns that isn't etc and advising people to provide things we never use.  They get well subsidised and supported for it too.  I've lost count how many pointless access campaigns they run.  There must be a conveyor belt going somewhere. 'Who do we say discriminates against us this week?' etc.  What IS discrimination? seems to be an issue, either that or everything is.  I'm sure breathing will be at some point.

#10 I agree. The whole concept of demanding access and support for the deaf is based on non-inclusion, since if they are included their jobs aren't there.  They have apparently 342 focus groups. all doing the same thing, complaining!  Those who advocate some glorious cultural isolation and non-access don't do it themselves, its jobs for the deaf purists. They just manipulate the deaf vulnerable that's all and create more martyrs for a cause most of us don't support.  It's the era of fake news, memes, and hashtags.

#11 They cannot name a single cultural lobbyist who has not been well taught in English and supported to do what they want.  Others wouldn't have the wherewithal to blur the truth.  Paddy Ladd included, who was at University, to suggest HE and others like him are hard done by is ridiculous too.  I suspect even he wasn't old enough to remember Milan either.

#12 They advise others not to do as they do, but as they say.  The recent COVID epidemic has smashed down all their demands and exposed their duality of purpose, you cannot challenge a virus, by saying it is unfair.

#13 They went on to endorse 'Sign matters' and 'Deaf matter', didn't they? and BAME deaf tend to do their own thing and segregate.  I don't think INCLUSION really matters to them frankly.

#14  Like I said its personal GAIN driving these people. Whose interest do they really have at heart?  You challenge them they revert to personal attack or respond in sign and refuse to caption, or ban etc, it is designed to frustrate and re-enforce deaf isolation, show you they are right and who is boss, and the 'Deaf way' whatever that is, by spreading fear and loathing instead.  

#15 We should be isolating those people.  To be told by privileged deaf who have never gone without how it was when they were never there, defies belief. 9 out of 10 of them would panic if their phone battery died, get real!  Better still get some experience before sounding off on what we all want and need.

#16 but for areas like ATR/Reddit etc I doubt most of these comments would ever see an airing.  A truth lockdown has been a deaf norm for some time, and non-censored deaf sites are a rarity.  They claim it is to prevent deaf abuse then use it to abuse others themselves and snipe and undermine from closed site safety. They just cannot validate in the open forums so avoid or criticise them.

Monday, 20 July 2020

Beyond the Norm

Beyond The Norm - White" Poster by RensDigitalArt | RedbubblePerhaps post COVID, the realisation all we did before was pointless and not helping the deaf or anyone else with hearing loss? 

So many pointless campaigns emerged that were/are based on hysterics, emotion and in defiance of fact, or truth.

We demanded clear masks for others (But not us), insistence on 'all deaf lip-read', which was also untrue, (And will revert again afterwards to 'all deaf sign' etc), even claims deaf were denied COVID signed access when the signed visible proof was on the TV screens twice daily, and online 24/7.  

Of course, the deaf activist, ever struggling to rally around any cause in a stormy teacup, were not going to let proof or fact,  spoil a great campaign, and started challenging the sign used, and the grammar used by their own interpreters, even claimed most deaf were not online.  They said captioning/subtitling was no use either, because the deaf struggled to read.  

This, of course, is not our experience is it?

Not content with that, refused to take their own dedicated and freely subsidised BSL televised media and charities to task, for sitting on their behinds, even ignoring their own signing support for (quite rightly), refusing to turn up face to face not wearing a mask, just another ridiculous demand these people started making.

Endless links/blogs etc BY some deaf areas online to explain in signed detail were just blanked as the activists continued to insist there was none for the deaf.  Tech apps like speech to text weren't good enough either, it is not clear what the demand actually is, but the text is an attack on the sign too of course.  Leading hearing loss charities joined in the reluctance to inform and blamed hearing mainstream for access they had ignored too, despite their largest one deciding deaf care was too much of an expense and bother to continue with, because nobody knows what that is supposed to be.

They too blanked updates and refused links proving the case. Selective listening and selective deafness too.  They really were only 'deaf when they wanted to be.' When taken to task switched to 'Deaf don't want English or to use text technology, they have own grammar and sign and...', you get the gist, any positive, they can find 20 negatives to 'prove' that black is white, or indeed any colour they choose.  There was hostility to further education claiming (Quite wrongly), deaf people had no access to literacy lessons, but when sent links of where they were or offered support to demand it,  then claimed it was an attack on BSL and its grammar.

It was pointed out BSL and its grammar was/is still an untested tuitional format, had no curriculum, and had no trained educational staff, to make it educationally happen, it ignored the state or parental options too, just sign language 'lessons' that actively discouraged speech use in case it 'offended' deaf people, however it failed to respond when it was pointed out that lip-reading access campaigns would never be viable if people didn't talk, and clear or no masks wouldn't help many sign reliant deaf, there was nil 'demand' for clear SPEAKING either, so all is clear as mud.

There were claims BSL is a real source of learning for the deaf via enabling bilingualism, (to enable English literacy), but then that got opposition too, as they insisted they had a right to sole BSL use, and deaf who acquired sign use then tended never to improve that English ability or use it to access more literacy either.  The sign became an end in itself, so the current basis of deaf learning is unable to enable deaf inclusion, the deaf wouldn't acquire the 'tools' to do it, it relied on all hearing signing or all deaf with a translator and some sort of 'back to the future' system of deaf schools again which is non-viable.  

Not just non-viable but, unwanted by areas of deaf because they abused deaf people. Now they say teaching deaf English is abuse too.  The lip-reading issue is still contentional there is never any detail of its use or effectiveness with deaf signers. Indeed lip-reading par se is suspected of massive issues with its classwork and nil proof any adult deaf ever attending such a class.  Either they were all excellent lip-readers already, or as suspected, had chosen sign instead.  If they are e.g. excellent lip-readers then why the objection to its tuition in deaf education?

Of course, that is oralism isn't it, something else they don't like.  Poor signers don't attend better BSL skill classes either, apparently, they are all excellent signers (which isn't true either).  Of course, the activists came out with suggesting literacy lessons for deaf struggling to follow is patronising and an attack on deaf culture and its people as well.  People deaf 50 years were told they really weren't unless they attended a deaf school, which they also claimed didn't actually work for them, so why defend them? They are well out of it on that basis. They are using a system that is 60 years old, unwanted, opposed,  and no longer exists.

If COVID has done anything it has exposed the myths, lies, confusion that has come out via 'Deaf Awareness', and the distortion of truth in pursuit of a system as yet undefined and unable to operate, one that confines deaf people more and makes them more reliant on support than they are now.  Mitigated as a right.

The UK will never adopt another 'Gallaudet' here, if that is the aim, we learnt the lessons from the failure of the USA version where students ran riot, vandalism and deaf bullying was a norm and teaching staff running scared of witchhunts by misguided ASL promotors, even the hard of hearing students ran the gauntlet. There seems to be a lesson here in not encouraging all deaf together this way?  It gives these activists a breeding ground for dissent which they obviously control.  Deaf have never been so misinformed.

The only upside is these dodos are getting fewer and fewer, but the fact remains they still have too many listening to them, including politicians and supportive charities (for obvious reasons, it's their livelihood).  Who knows? perhaps the Emporer IS wearing clothes?

Friday, 17 July 2020

Why I embrace my English Privilege.

It enables me to challenge nonsense from sign using (Most actually aren't), campaigners/activists, who claim to have own grammar and an unfinished visual language who spend lives complaining about it never using it to make the point. Perhaps BSL grammar is some sort of deaf 'Esperanto' or something?

English is, funny enough, our national language and enables deaf to be taught how to include themselves, bugger I know given campaigning needs to be based on NOT being included, and would result in 100s of UK 'Deaf' focus group workers looking for a job.  'We need to be seen as persecuted or its a waste of time..' as one sage cultural adherent once told me after 11 pints.    I also noticed those complaining those advocating or using English are an elite or cut above them, so respond with BSL videos that you can't follow, ya-boo sucks etc, 'we cannot even print our own grammar',  so use English instead.

I am detecting some dissent in the ranks.  If I am with this English elite it's time they paid their dues and were a bit more respectful, or I'll join a charity and start patronising them.  The curious thing about their claims is they use English to complain about it, indeed 78% of all deaf output online is in the mother tongue (written ENGLISH), and to be fair a lot of deaf are quite adept at using it (Paddy Ladd an exception, his writings are still subject of some debate, ergo to bin? or not to bin? is the question.). 

Perhaps it is those weird BSL focus group people? who are struggling to prove they need to reject an English education, in favour of some undeclared and unviable alternative (Because they can).  They are unable to succeed since they need to use English to raise their point. It widens English awareness which enables them to demand they shouldn't nor we shouldn't, be using it.  I'd ask them to explain the logic but... 

Someone cruelly suggests they need to go this way it means lots of work for people who don't rely on sign to demand hearing change their wicked ways and adopt whatever it is they are not using themselves, in case the point it cannot be followed comes out..  

We could suggest they have no BSL grammar references for a start.  Other than 'Deaf do this or deaf do that' (God knows what hearing are using, perhaps its this awful 'English' or something), which is hardly proof of an academic basis for an unidentifed grammatical base for sign.  Taking into account poor educational attainment, I have to admit the deaf have done quite well-attaining levels of English, which is all to the good, I just don't get what their gripe is?  English HAS empowered them, and what happened to bilingualism anyway?

So the idea is to what?  Reject bilingualism? demand they are taught in whatever they claim is their grammar instead, and then insist mainstream accommodates it?   Only last week we saw demands for LESS BSL use and MORE signed English being used, so the deaf majority can more easily access the world outside their own. These grammar demands are unrealistic and holding them back.  I  blame COVID personally it affects reason in some cases.  They will be asking for clear masks for the deaf who cannot lip-read next.

No I DON'T want a clear mask!

These Funny Surgical Masks Will Help Children To Live Better The ...In response to the UK's largest Hearing loss charity asking people if they would ask others to remove their masks?  Of course, half the BSL community posted they don't want people wearing masks, let alone clear ones, NOT going to happen of course, but AOHL gets it in the neck for past inertia (And for asking silly questions).

"Why would anyone do that? 90% of deaf sign users cannot manage on lip-reading alone, and those that do (including the HoH), adapted to technology, it's (Clear masks), are a campaign for campaign's sake, given they had to accept signed support via face-to-face Interpreters wasn't a viable demand.  If Interpreters can be accepted for refusing to be infected, why can't everyone else?

Unless EVERYONE wears a clear mask it is pointless. (And they still won't sign at you).  AOHL could do a survey on the real effectiveness of lip-reading classes (Where NO deaf attend), or sign language classes (Also where no deaf are in attendance), and where BSL learners are actively discouraged FROM speaking, making LR academic and a real challenge to lip-reading deaf as well demanding these masks.  

We asked the old RNID 15 YEARS ago to scrap these classes of bias and develop a single total communication approach, if only in support of its own membership fed up with the communication divides.  We also asked them to develop pools of support so HoH can access what they need, at present unless you are a sign user there is no support to obtain. 

I doubt AOHL has any handle on WHAT Hard of Hearing need.  It seems to survive cleaning out hearing aids or something.  We could suggest the fact no realistic campaign has been evident for 15 years is a start.  Hearing loss support is banging its head against a cultural brick wall.  AOHL has the clout to challenge and it is time they got off the fence because a dozen BSL activists are wiping the floor with them, making a biased battlefield of access and support.   

Either challenge or cut the cord.  We suggested already 3 viable campaigns that would really benefit the UK HoH community, why ask for suggestions then stick to the same old, biased and tired mantras? and not reply? AOHL goes online 'zooming' and invites questions, then ignores what really counts, as PR I would say it is a pointless exercise, who are they fooling? 

Unless we challenge the status quo 10m HoH are not going to get anything at all.  The proof is there, exposed by something that HAS challenged, and those with hearing loss and deafness cannot counter, COVID 19.  It doesn't care if you sign or lip-read.

Navel contemplation was never a system to advance support with, nor pandering to the vociferous few. Backing off from annoying BSL activism is casting doubt on AOHL's credibility.  They should actively be challenging the 'Deaf & HoH' remit as discrimination because it supports division by decibel, social activity,  segregation,  and biased communication mode, using human RIGHTS, which was designed to do the opposite, and an area the USA have exploited online to promote ASL instead because social media and google won't stop them using a 'Hard of Hearing' (even 'UK'), tag to promote something else entirely.."

Tuesday, 14 July 2020

Idris Elba: Stop removing racists media

Coronavirus: Idris Elba says illness had 'traumatic' effect on his ...
Idris Elba has said he disagrees with the "censorship" of TV shows after a string of British comedy programs now deemed offensive were pulled by broadcasters. 

The BBC joined other media outlets in removing content found to be racially insensitive in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, with Little Britain removed from iPlayer due to its portrayal of minority characters. A 1975 episode of Fawlty Towers was also temporarily removed by BBC subsidiary UKTV for racist language, and The League of Gentlemen was taken down by Netflix over concerns about a character in blackface make-up. 

Elba has criticised the recent steps taken to censor programmes following Black Lives Matter campaigning, and believes even outdated attitudes to race found in older TV shows should be aired and understood...

ATR COMMENT: A sign of sanity in a world gone mad via BLM. If you remove racist, historical, and sexist and whatever output from view, you remove the proof it existed.  NONE of the TV shows removed fitted any of the offensive categories either.   I.E. unless you are a snowflake purist of some kind offended by everything.

Dated? sure, but you don't have to watch them.  I'm rather worried John Wayne is going to be removed and Charleton Heston from cinematic history too.  Although to be fair Mr Wayne's headcount of the indigenous population was uncomfortably high.   Why stop there? Mr Ford's films should be removed too.

Frankly, the UK comedy shows are the only TV laughs we get.  Yanks don't understand Brit humour anyway.   New 'inclusive' comedy is a turn-off, who watches it?  Unless you are at the cutting edge, it has no impact.  Humour challenges perceptions no challenge, no laughs, no awareness. 

No amount of 're-educating' us all, is going to succeed, the NAZIs tried it without success,  BAME campaigners failed in UK education too.  What next? make it illegal to criticise politicians? Welcome to North Korea or China.  The day the world stopped laughing, the BLM campaign launch is called, and it was hijacked almost immediately by Marxist rabble-rousers, criminals who attacked the police, lockdown breakers, and common vandals..  British media banning any sort of feedback on BLM is already censoring printed media in the UK.

PressReader - Scottish Daily Mail: 2015-11-16 - Genius those silly ...
TV Shows like those that had Alf Garnet in it, and later shows that actually showed it is OK to show Gay Black people have been removed too.  Oops, that wasn't the idea, was it?

Alf actually did more to expose racism and bigotry than a dozen new 21stc world comedians ever have because he did it when criticism was risky.   Now, modern smart alecs are attacking us for our norm.  1 down 78.9m of us to go! Basil Fawlty poked fun at the Germans, which is fair game, they WERE responsible for millions of deaths, horrific concentration camps, and two world wars, do we pat them on the back?  We aren't even in Europe any more come December.

BLM are the new censors? does that mean we cannot ID black crime activity etc?  and all helped via a National TV Channel, nobody really watches any longer and threatens over 75yr olds unless they pay to be ignored by them. ALL lives matter mooted as racist too.  Stop the world we want to get off, what's up America? Is paranoia the new religion there?  I was surprised the land of the free, is free no longer.  If white people knelt on the ground with a raised fist they would be racist?  I've not read such rubbish since Gays complained the NHS stole their rainbow logo.  Isn't sport supposed to be FREE of politics?  

It goes without saying any sort of censoring is doomed to failure.. and is already spawning a new breed of closet racists using the assault and 're-writing' of history as a reason to attack or block the BLM campaign.  Again not supposed to be the result is it? As per usual errant white people will adopt the atypical sympathetic pose, nod in agreement sagely, and celebrate Cest la Vie, then IGNORE as per usual, and BLM has no answer to it at all. 

Telling us what we can laugh at was a demand too far.

I can't read your lips

So they advertise a campaign with a Deafie wearing one you cannot lip-read him with either?  Time to fess up folks how MUCH can you lip-read? through a clear mask or without one?  I thought all deaf used sign language?

Sunday, 12 July 2020

Awareness was this the real 'Casualty'?

Casualty cancelled: BBC medical drama won't air tonight - Here's ...
Being urged to watch a recent inclusion of deaf issues on a medical soap opera, I was astounded but puzzled as to what the plot was actually about.

The idea (I think), was to raise awareness an errant hearing parent had stifled a deaf daughter improving herself because medics viewed her unable to do anything for herself even talk, and she had become totally reliant on her hearing parent, who actively deterred sign tuition via advice from medical and other areas,, and that speech etc would be delayed or even non-viable if she took it up, in essence, the Mother (Hearing), opted for the oral approach.

Of course, this was/is, still, a norm in many respects, as many experts in the field are reserved about immersive sign approaches and point out that in the case of sign tuition today, adults are discouraging speech, to be avoided, as it is upsetting to deaf people.  So how would the nurses mum lip-read her peers if they don't speak? or others?  We didn't see that covered in the TV program so it appeared a bit one-sided from that perspective.  Taking her hearing aid off in work was less than subtle, another 'dig' at 'alleviations' for the deaf.

By far the most puzzling aspect was some sort of relentless dreamy expression on a nurses face and relentless 'white noise' being played in the background.  Was it Tinnitus? we weren't really told anything about that or why it was included.

As awareness of being deaf, I doubt anyone at all watching could be convinced this nurse was, either as a deaf adult, or born that way.  There was a lack of explanation really of the background, which the nurse claimed as horrific and she went from one foster home to another, but, managed to lip-read perfectly and sign along the way apparently, so not all bad news.  Dumped at age 3 because she was uncommunicative and not speaking, I doubt the system would have just shrugged that off the nurse is far too young for it have been allowed to happen, it would have been picked up after birth.

I understand Deaf took active part in the script this time? but I think 'work in progress' was the overview, probably fell foul of their own fence-sitting on the hearing loss issues.  The deaf woman (Apparently her long lost mother who dumped her because Gran had enough on the plate with her and viewed another deaf relative was one too many), was rather unkind and unrealistic, even via artistic licence.  Of course, social services never existed in this woman's time and she couldn't have attended school anywhere or they would have picked it up?  Unlikely.

I can recall way back when the obvious result of a deaf child being born meant shipping them off to institutions and deaf schools where there wasn't really much to choose between either.  The 3 women involved were too young for that to have been the case.   Looks like another hatchet job on bad parents not letting deaf children sign, ah, NOW I get it!  

At least we were all spared 'This is what Deaf people do...'  So one lesson has been learned.

Friday, 10 July 2020

AOHL on the ZOOM trail...

Having watched AOHL (Cymru), recent Zoom offering I feel compelled to respond to it.

I have to disagree with a number of AOHL statements made regarding lack of BSL to Boris/English COVID updates, as early as March 18th he was on screen with a BSL terp explaining the lockdown, and I published the link to it here and on social media at the time.

There WAS a breakdown as regards to not informing deaf BSL access was already there on the BBC news channel, but have to say when informed of that access later and on-screen, not only by myself but on screen later on the BBC1 channel, campaigners chose to ignore it and decided to campaign on the basis there was none instead.  

As regards to lack of BSL online, also not true,  a number of charities including the RAD and SignHealth as well as many individuals went to social media giving a breakdown and daily updates as well in sign language.  The prime question was why the dedicated BSL channels of BSL ZONE and SEE HEAR chose not to do their part? It was very late in the day before the COVID penny dropped for them and only after criticisms. They are both funded to educate and inform the BSL deaf and failed, choosing to cover trivia instead and standing by watching the prime BBC media doing their job.

Maybe we should withdraw funding for those areas?  Of course, many elderly deaf/HoH don't go online, so perhaps that is an issue AOHL can address as to how you get them to do that? I can point out to an around wales videoed survey undertaken at the time by the BSL Zone (who visited near all major deaf club in Wales), only to find few if any deaf had heard of them.  Cardiff being the least interested with just 9 people turning up. A lot of deaf are not regularly online although they have iPhones and such because they tend to use them only to contact each other or family.  

Much is made of poor BSL access and is unfounded in reality, the major COVID campaigns were about lip-reading not BSL, although there was no background to the demand for that lip-reading access or if it applied to BSL users, or just the HoH who mostly rely on that.  What we did see were 'Deaf' demands for face mask removal at NHS staff, which was never going to happen. 

There was and still is ample BSL access to health areas, obviously, a lot is currently by remote, and it seems there was some reluctance in certain BSL areas to adopt remote interpreting.  What I didn't really see was any great demand for HoH access, or campaigning for it, this is mostly down to the fact they adapted to text and technology possibly.  

There are 'cultural' issues in that some BSL deaf still refuse to adapt or use alternatives even when they are able to, as some 'sop' to culture or the perceived language.   I was surprised but found it welcome, suggestions there needs to be more Signed ENGLISH, (now all we need is SE teachers and Interpreters!), as BSL is a major issue of access, and HoH and others are reluctant to go with it because of cultural and grammatical differences.  

It should be, but isn't, 'horse for courses', having said that most of us opted for captions and ignored BSL anyway so had access all the time.   We can only assume the sign language user cannot read or doesn't want to and prefers to make their own access difficult.  You adapt or go without they chose to go without in many cases.

The health and social care issue is split between the sign user demands and the needs of the rest of us.  Far too many health areas are not offering HoH any access but BSL, a format they don't use.  We saw much demand for clear masks and access for lip-readers, but no demand for clear speakers, so how does that work?

A number of NHS staff are almost impossible to lip-read with or without a mask especially some from BAME areas with beards or poor English, HoH and deaf patients have expressed these issues, then called racists, Why is that?  A clear mask would still be no use and Interpreters can have difficulty following too.  In reality, if you are a lip-reading patient or have issues with hearing loss and aids that don't really give you the access you need in full, there is none in reality to the NHS, this is a particular concern in Wales e.g.  

Of course, this video is predominantly covering  English-oriented output, and that in itself has created issues of misinformation, not only to the deaf, but, to the hard of hearing who live elsewhere also, who have been assuming updates on COVID on the BBC applied to the UK, I was unsurprised to hear some welsh TV sets were turned to BBC West which didn't cover BSL signed welsh COVID updates. I also noticed interpreters used BSL and not welsh signs.  If there are regional variations the welsh aren't aware of them.

Not enough clarifications came from AOHL or anyone else that what the BBC was putting out in England was not applicable elsewhere.  As we know Wales, Scotland and N Ireland all have different approaches and agendas as regards to updates and approaching the COVID issue.  This is still the case.  

I must express disappointment with the continuing over-emphasis on BSL, this is not a major format 12m of us ever use (And there aren't 12m in Wales, only 3/500K, and we don't KNOW how many rely upon BSL because there is no way to find out),  but it is still getting 76% of all posts and campaigns, we can be forgiven for feeling 12m or 500K whatever, don't really exist.

In reality, there is NO 'national' access set up for anyone but the BSL user.  AOHL we see as a predominant Hard of Hearing support area not a deaf or BSL one, which is the 'domain' of minority and mostly unsupported groups like the BDA or RAD and don't include HoH anyway.

What I have found during this epidemic is a lot of campaigns having little or no basis, simply because they chose not to really seek out information that was already there.   The Initial TV updates were charts and statistics mostly followed by stay home, that was it basically, a turn off for hearing let alone the deaf. 

ATR posted updates and links to BSL to all online sites It could manage to, including the mooted BBC ones and they ignored the links.  By far it is NOT the BSL user who is deprived or lacking in either support or access, but the rest of us having to totally rely on text, who are now a 'community' of text users,  and because lip-reading is a failure for most and lacks the wherewithal to teach via its classes, and countered, by BSL classes that encourage no speech to be used even amidst NHS care and support staff.    What price lip-reading then?

AOHL tries to sit between two such stools and is obviously not going to succeed.  It has been losing out to a few dedicated BSL activists despite its corporate approaches, and can apparently speak for everyone.    Wales has near half a million with hearing loss, which on the face of it suggests next to none have any access at all.

'Seeing is believing' and not reality, in that hearing loss, cannot be seen and being deaf can, via sign usage.  Again if AOHL needs a campaign or two it is to balance that out by concentrating on its core membership the Hard of Hearing and leave the BSL users to their own dedicated and specialist areas.  Albeit it is agreed they are making a real mess of it so far, its their choice. 

Apart from re-branding for RNID to 'hearing loss' but still retaining the D and confusing everyone, it now needs to take the next step and concentrate solely on the Hard of hearing instead.  We would also like to see a lot more support for the deafened and acquired deaf who are stuck between some sort of ideological war going on between the deaf charities and the Hard of Hearing ones, which has seriously undermined access for them all.

The 'all deaf sign' is applied to all hard of hearing sign too, which suggests the HoH ae getting branded with some other sort of identification by default.   The AOHL is contributing to the myth and needs to stop doing it.

To be frank, AOHL on this video does not come across as any sort of a BSL/HoH set up anyway, it comes across as very 'hearing' oriented and appealing only to those with useful hearing anyway. It should not be an issue to 'specialise' solely on the HoH area, which AOHL keeps stating is 12m people, but 12m the AOHL has no way of addressing at present. 

As AOHL rightly stated its main 'strength' is in that the system tends to take note of what they say, but in regards to access or inclusion it is not a simple matter of stating we need this and that to happen when there is no real direction on what the need is for 12m with hearing loss or what support they actually need, loops? lip-speakers? etc, these aren't identifying any sector really.  First, find your base then find out what they want. Then TRAIN them.

Most of us find nothing at all if we turn up at a clinic GP or hospital if we don't use sign.  There were no actual statistics of ANY HoH demand with 7 health areas in Wales NONE at all for HoH they only held some statistics for the BSL users.  

At one point 48+ BSL interpreters existed for the Deaf, and just 2 of them who also qualified as lip-speakers, text operators were invisible, allegedly only 2 of them with 6-8 weeks waiting lists which is actually zero access because you cannot wait that long in health terms, that transpired in zero demand then.  We don't get access, because the support supply does not exist, then a demand cannot be seen either.  Then 12m/500K become invisible again.

There are no viable records the Welsh NHS had any demand for the HoH.  I just think the AOHL is grabbing at straws with the most obvious contenders,  the sign users, rather than identifying its own membership, which means you are doing the BDA's job for them.

Address abysmal and non-functioning lip-reading classes and opt for a new set up that includes total communication and more individual tuition, since many attending such classes drop out a few weeks in because they cannot follow the tuition, this has a knock-on effect of deterring such potential learners of bothering to learn to lip-read at all, many approach such classes very much as a desperate and last resort, for them to drop out soon after means those in most need are the first being sidelined in favour of those still able to use a hearing aid effectively, but then still fail to cope when that no longer works for them.

Even that isn't helping the most to learn to lip-read as no qualifications are required and no skill level has to be met. IT suggests communication classes for those with hearing loss are treated as some sort of hobby course (Like flower arranging).  There is no point in teaching lip-reading this way as it stands. 

A dozen 'Zoom' videos are not going to address the chaos that is (Or rather not), hearing loss support, which is completely different to DEAF support, make the break, move on.  AOHL is allied to areas like NDCS etc but even they are at odds with the cultural demands of the few who are disrupting the very thing they say they want, equality and access by default, not only for themselves but for us too.

We need a clean break so AOHL can concentrate ON the majority.

Deaf Mental Health a cause for concern?

Health State Values of Deaf British Sign Language (BSL) Users in the UK: An Application of the BSL Version of the EQ-5D-5L.

At The Rim: The Deaf and Mental Health (II).ATR: A pretty amateurish attempt with far less involvement with enough deaf to gain any realistic data.  It fails to differentiate across the deaf board or to offer comparisons, and localised to England.  

In as much as conclusions, they have come to, it suggests sign users suffer more than hearing with poor mental health (The hearing mental Health Stat is about 25% of the population).  Hardly news, but it would appear the unequal bias and involvement of the BDA caused a lot of it, probably underpinned to provide ''ammunition' for more inclusion.   You need outsiders looking in who can compare.   You also need co-operation from these 'Deaf', and that is extremely difficult to obtain.  They also cloud issues by suggesting poor mental health is simply down to poor access or lack of BSL and this interferes with treatments.

The 43% stat seems to mirror the same statistic we get from the assessment of deaf children.  Basically, it suggests more physical health issues are presenting. This could be the reluctance of  'Deaf' to get health issues seen to, and accepting symptoms as a norm others would not.  There are a lot of long words and stats involved but we don't get the nitty-gritty of what they are trying to say, there is mention of CI's as 'mean', that actually infers CI users suffer less because they have them.  So is the key mass implantation day one? Why use CI's, when the survey focus is on BSL using deaf?

I am unsure how they compare like with like aka hearing with the 'Deaf' (Not to be confused with the rest of the people with hearing loss).  They only assessed in England too so no comparisons there either.  We know the 'Deaf' have many issues mainly down in many cases to a total reliance on sign language, a lack of inclusion in mainstream, inability or reluctance to adapt, or even to further own communication skills as adults, and it doesn't cover the historical background of this area, many who actively avoid inclusion and/or are unable to make it work for them even with support. Their 'contentment' to be with other deaf in the same position is hardly helping is it?  It is feeding the indifference.

The key here suggests addressing deaf education approaches day one, not discovering that as adults, it has all just fed the isolation and depression by default, and that via various rights and access campaigns and their complete inability to address root causes of failure to include or fend off poor mental health, are major contributors too.

It just means more specialisations, more isolations etc, a never-ending rubber stamp, poor mental health is the price of hearing loss.  It isn't, we would disagree it feeds into inevitable dementia too.  Blame hearing, blame lack of inclusion, blame.... but making a virtue of isolation and calling it something else isn't working is it?  There is an issue poor mental health is some sort of norm to accept because so many are suffering with it.

When ATR looked at specialist deaf mental health 2 years ago  it was a chaotic mess with mostly psychologists and psychiatrists being unable to assess the deaf as the communication wasn't effective enough, and the deaf not really able to express what the issue was.  To offset that some areas employed a few level 4 BSL care workers to act as the go-between.  As ATR covered at the time abuse of deaf people was exposed as a result.  But there just wasn't enough level 4 aware BSL deaf with the issues to make it clear what the issue was.  Ergo 'dumbing down' took place and assessments became suspect and over-medication became the norm.

Differing areas of the UK offer no specialist centres or clinics at all, so most will be 'exported' out of the area, and away from family and peer support too, which adds to their health issues, them being even more socially isolated.   What IS a specialist centre for the 'Deaf'? just an area where everyone signs to them?  There are many who are still in own homes being cared for by people with no sign knowledge at all,  simply because it is cheaper to do that than a local authority paying a lot of money to export the 'problem' somewhere else.  Wales is one example where those needing intensive help have to go to England for it.

Currently, some of these specialists areas erstwhile run by deaf or HoH charities are being sold off privately, we cannot know if that is going to improve things or make them a whole lot worse, specialisation costs, and those who fund it are reluctant to cover the true costs, and this means less specialist help.   It is no way to run an effective MH system or to offer treatment for it.  

By far most Deaf MH areas simply do not have the BSL professionals to enable effective treatment, there are grave doubts if using the basic BSL interpreters assisted (Or hindered!), by a social worker is the way to do things.  Usually, by that time of referral,  poor mental health has advanced too far to be treated locally, there seems no system within that community to ensure these deaf are being helped or monitored.

Logic suggests as it starts day one being identified in school there is the place to start.  Not as an adult when habits are fully established and more difficult to address.  Their 'base' (Usually deaf clubs or similar), are closing as we write, fragmenting further any cohesive attempt to approach the problem.  Few BSL interpreters are qualified to assist in mental health matters even fewer being trained to assist in what appears to be an epidemic of poor mental and physical health with 'Deaf' people.   There is a need to train Terps to specialise given 43% of their clients have this issue. 

All we are seeing are BSL groups rambling on about culture, and blaming mainstream for everything,  whilst apparently, 43% of their community needs urgent mental health support, and not getting it, it is by far a more pressing issue than guess what happened in 1880s Milan surely?

Thursday, 9 July 2020

BLM backlash?

Walmart under fire for selling 'All Lives Matter,' 'Blue Lives ...Not from racists but those who would support more equality. 

"What we all want to know is why welsh people are not challenging BLM (Newport S Wales), demands to 're-educate' us all in black history, remove parts of our heritage, re-define them and the welsh assembly doing a 'hit list' of place names in Wales to placate what is, an explosion of Marxist focus groupings intent on attacking the Welsh way of life who already hijacked the BLM campaign and caused assaults on the police and criminal damage.   Gross under-reporting of black crime is taking place too as media play it down, when your media is running scared we ARE all in trouble.

I lived in Ynys-ddu am I supposed to no longer refer to that village because 'Ddu' means black or dark? this is our history it will NOT change, it's our language, get a grip people and let us do what everyone else isn't doing, challenging aspects of BLM and the Senedd right to refuse to consult welsh people on what THEY want, we are being held hostage to groups who are NOT representative of us all, even of BAME areas, inclusion doesn't mean priority for just one group. They are entitled to fair play they are entitled to be taught how bad white people were 200 years ago, but that isn't now, it isn't US,  and attempting to force some form of indoctrination on us all is doomed to failure and will just cause resentment.

People who express concern are being called racists, then shut down, or attacked and expected to go on bended knee, is this 1930s Berlin?  It wasn't the western world who started slavery, BLM needs to read up on it.  The local paper published the BLM item, then blocked all feedback, online too, because they knew what was going to come, they know how many are against all this, it is NOT the right way to recognise discrimination, it is fostering more of it. Silencing dissent has never worked, neither has name-calling.

It is a licence for areas to exploit and control others when media and governments run scared of saying no. All it will do is spawn dozens of more righteous right-wing focus groups all intent on telling us what we need to do or think.  Of course, pulling down statues, and changing place names or removing them is ridiculous, history has already happened.  I'm no fan of Trump or the USA approaches and the pace at which the USA southern history is being demolished is alarming, without those references there is no history of black discrimination. Are Americans just to read the black version?  The USA is a country based on migrancy, who then proceeded to eradicate the indigenous population.  To be scrupulously fair the American Indian should be pulling down statues too.

My local TV channels are suddenly full of BAME presenters, did they suddenly decide (TV Channels) they need to get with it or something? they weren't there before.  I wonder if BLM knows it is being tokenised and patronised by a bunch of media hypocrites?  They remove history at their peril, allowing them to put their version is an attempt to change history too, who decides what is accurate?  I don't doubt a load of 'experts' will line up with own agendas offering advice.

By default can we now air all the atrocities committed BY black people against their own people?   Currently, it would be an issue holding your breath.  BLM is a pandora's box that can backfire on it all.  We have a petition here already to block the Senedd changing Welsh place names to English ones. Another attempt to 'level the playing field' in the English favour.  It's an issue ongoing here for 500 years.  The day won't come when I go on bended knee to anyone.  It's archaic and the 'fist' aggression.

The Welsh assembly is compiling a 'hit list', which is against the rules and will be challenged and no attempt to call us all racists is going to stop it. Its 'equality sector' is already a national joke. The 'list' BLM produced here is both a threat and a demand, but they aren't in control of their own area. Why are cricket players and other sports stars following the BLM thing? sport is supposed to be free of politics. 2 years ago they banned the use of wearing a poppy, which is recognition of millions of lives lost in 2 world wars, (including BAME ones), now there is some hierarchy of deserving recognition? 

'Black power' promotions 24/7, do they really think this has any chance of success with other areas?  The more they demand of us the less we will want to comply with it... if we can defy COVID 19, I don't give BLM much chance of changing things,  Brits do NOT like being told what to think, we prefer being asked. We already objected to BAME influences in sex and gender in education, migrants who come here adjust to our way of life not carry on as they never left their home countries. Our kids will not get an education if this carries on, it won't be the 3r's, but a relentless lecture on minority rights. UK education, training the focus groups and tomorrow's thought police.  (And they criticised China doing that.)"