Saturday, 11 April 2020

Do what it says.

What is a Lip-speaker?

For most, mythical beings reputed to support deaf and Hard of Hearing people who have attained a reasonable standard of lip-reading despite 94% failure rates in tuition classes, and available only to those who live in areas able to meet the fees the lip-speaker can charge and has the ability to hire on a regular basis, so near all exist in the cities and nowhere else, and most concentrated in southern English counties. 

The ASL listed none in Wales albeit the sign language interpreter area did list 2 with a minimum 6-8 week wait which doesn't appear to hold out much hope for its 300,000 with hearing loss.  One wonders if BSL users would tolerate such poor access provision?

What has been abundantly clear (before and since the outbreak of the coronavirus), there has been NO lip-spoken information given out.  Like the BSL area, it is assumed the lip-reader can read so do not require it, and the deaf handicapped with BSL with poor recognition of reading or writing English or its grammar, have made zilch demand for it.  On the basis of that what is the point? This has killed any impetus for many with hearing loss, to actually take up lip-reading at all.  

For years concerns have been raised at the amateur/random approaches to learning to lip-read and it apparently not taken all that seriously, certainly not by deaf people, but very concerning for those with severe hearing loss or ongoing deafness who while they have no desire at all to sign, are getting no alternatives offered but a few months, a couple of hours a week competing with a dozen others in the same boat.   

The system of learning to lip-read is to set you up to fail.  It was naive and questionable such classes suggest they have any ability to teach the wide variations of ages and hearing loss areas they claim to be able to help, the sting in that tail, is they cannot, as a prerequisite of any learning demands you have sufficient HEARING to do it, which makes little sense.  It's like insisting someone blind can see first.

As regards to sign use, the idea is to NOT use that and learn the alternative (Or the HoH/deafened, could just go to a sign class instead), i.e. assuming they could get in a class because most are geared for hearing people and families to 'work in the field' but at least a qualification is at the end of it and even a job if you are lucky.  It has a structured class and coursework of sorts but the point is HoH don't want it.

ATR suggest Lip-reading be taken more seriously and recognised as the vital and much wanted 'tool' for the majority with hearing loss.  We accept this demands a whole new approach to how it is taught so that it actually includes those who most need it.

As tuition stands it is if you can learn it, OK, if you cannot, that is ok too.  Don't all rush to join!  After all, there is no standard to attain, no testing to see if you are improving or level of proficiency either.  It is usually passed off as 'The point of lip-reading classes is more 'social' than anything else', and they believe that social aspect, will lead to better lip-reading via SELF-learning.  So who needs a class? perhaps all they need are viable HoH clubs.  

Lots of mini 'clubs' that last 5 minutes, assuming the majority who start the classes stay the actual course and the 30% drop off after the initial few weeks (which is the norm at present), can be addressed.  We should be asking WHY this drop off shortly after classes open occurs?  ATR could suggest those with severe hearing loss cannot be accommodated by such classes and thus leave in sheer frustration.

Lip-reading IS an incredible difficult a skill to master, so in-depth and lengthy one-on-one coursework for some age-related and severe loss areas is essential, but it just doesn't happen.  It suggested the ASL and teachers are not being completely honest about how effective these classes actually are, or who it is actually designed for?  

ATR requested statistics of success/failure rates and was told there are none.  If there were they wouldn't give them out, as it could have a detrimental effect on what exists now. If lip-reading is to continue as a viable alternative to sign language their act needs getting together and to admit current classes do not work for those who need it to.

Given more and more people are being deafened the lack of urgency is not good is it?  We need class testing to see how effective they actually are if only so they can be improved.

Friday, 10 April 2020

GP Access (Ireland)

GP Access Scheme during the Covid19 pandemic from Irish Deaf Society on Vimeo.

While ATR had to refuse outright the Welsh BDA video through lack of any viable access for anyone to follow, we are tentatively allowing this one from Ireland, which although has not been captioned or subtitled for this vital information for the deaf, has at least provided a short text narrative.   But ATR won't be doing it again, unless more access is evident.  We expect better from deaf charities and groups, and not be expected to guess what goes on, we do enough of that with hearing output.

Welsh Government: BSL unproven as essential skill.

Why the welsh assembly refused to endorse the BSL Bill.  So why did the Scottish and Irish Governments go with it? Because they wanted to piss off the UK Government?  Here is what the Wesh Assembly said.

The review identified a plausible, but as yet, unproven case for designating BSL as an Essential Communication skill for parents and carers of d/Deaf children.  

However, there is considerable uncertainty about the impact of designating BSL as an Essential Communication skill on demand, providers’ capacity and post 19 learning funding. 

It is not clear if this (BSL) would be the most effective and/or efficient way to ensure that parents and carers can communicate with d/Deaf children.

Thursday, 9 April 2020

A lost Cause? (The BSL Act).

During the lockdown, 'Deaf' activism is still struggling to get signatures on a petition to enable a BSL Act in law.  Is time to accept there is no proven demand for that to happen?

What they say: We are  talking about HOW we may be able to reach 100,000 People sign the petition for British Sign Language Bill to be debating in Parliament. I strongly believe it’s all down to Deaf Organisation need to take the lead to make this happen such as setting up sub-committee/volunteer to get the petition out! There’s 343 local council across UK, imagine having at least one deaf person represent in their local area to bring deaf community together to sign the SAME petition? Is this possible? 

ATR:  The prime concern is a BSL Act/Bill is a pre-cursor to deaf educational changes, we don't trust deaf activism either.  While Scotland has gone for it and Ireland the majority of deaf in England and Wales haven't.   We suspect this mirrors the Brexit vote.  The majority aren't buying it.

It is doubtful HoH/deaf (who are the majority) would support it, there was never anything in it for them. Deaf would be relying on public sympathy, so far joe public has been blamed for all Deaf woes.  Most will object on the grounds it is a legal and parental, not a 'Deaf' choice.   The NDCS doesn't support it in any educational sense and would not endorse the petition put into parliament 2 years ago (which still 'lies on the table'). Definition: Meaning of let it lie in English. let it lie on the table. (also let things lie) to take no action about something:

Deaf schools failed the deaf and the expertise to run immersive BSL classes doesn't exist, nobody has said where the teachers would come from there is no training for that, or even a curriculum put forward to follow.   If every 'Deaf' person supported it, it still would not count, as petitions to be debated, require 100,000 signatures there aren't that many deaf in the UK let alone any real proof they are BSL using or reliant, and the last petition had over a 1,100+ signatures removed because they came from abroad not the UK, petitioners should be deaf and UK residents or their signature doesn't count.   

It is rather sad and futile, they are pushing for this act IN isolation and on own closed sites mainstream don't bother with.

If there is a deaf demand people want proof deaf are supporting it.  The last census printed stats saying only 15,000 deaf are BSL reliant after deaf lobbies demanded the inclusion of that question, it bit them in the rear, and they cried foul after.  The BDA in 2018 said 95,000 existed but were unable to show any proof.  in 2019 they declared 87,000 did, 8000 BSL users suddenly vanished somewhere. In 2005 they had declared the EU gave BSL legal recognition and it hadn't.  Since then we voted to leave it and the UK parliament never ratified it.

The reality is the DPA law prevents anyone really knowing who is deaf, to what degree, or what formats they use or rely on, it may be a lot more or it may be a lot less than 15K, charities have used the data law to prevent anyone really knowing so they can publish whatever statistic they want.   True stats are suggested to come from the system via how many deaf are seeking BSL support, with just 300 BSL terps in the UK and nowhere near 15,000 deaf asking for it, the demand does not look viable.   Assessing deaf people to determine who uses what and to what degree is blocked in law and objected to via deaf charities and activists as a violation of human rights. 

What would make education, inclusion and access more viable for those deaf and with hearing loss is IF, an agreed format is there that includes everyone, BSL is Ex-clusive and a minority, so again it is doubtful it could meet the requirements of the equality, inclusion, or human rights laws to effect national changes.  It also suggests deaf children would be 'have', and 'have nots', with some areas getting more or less support than others, an apartheid of equality in an attempt to create an 'elite' of deaf BSL children destined to a lifetime of reliance on others.  Nobody wants that. 

For the record, the most successful deaf school in the United Kingdom is one that uses the oral method, NOT the signing one.  Would the UK government consider disadvantaging a deaf child because Deaf activism prefers sign?  

Deaf campaigners continue to lobby against inclusion, if push comes to shove in an open debate we would lobby against a BSL education because these campaigners have ignored parents, and keep trying to by-pass them, and other deaf people.  Their 'all deaf sign' mantra is relentless.

I'm all for a healthy debate on this campaign but they don't want one, they would lose, they don't publish proof and stats to back up their demands, they rely on a human rights law that is NOT designed for what they want. 

They will find 'right' won't allow them to do what they want maybe not even IF they have a deaf child, which most BSL campaigners don't, as 9 out of 10 parents are hearing and less than point 2% are hereditary deaf.   It is ironic in cultural terms hardly ANY deaf today have any deaf history at all. A hard of hearing granny isn't it.

What parent would be willing to have their role overturned even removed by Deaf campaigners?   None of whom who can take any responsibility? Every time their demand has been challenged they retreat to claims of discrimination and cruelty to deaf children, oppression, even genocide! they know they cannot win any other way, it is below the belt activism and a deliberate attempt to avoid justifications for their campaign.

By all means, lobby for more support for the deaf, but not demand the state create 1,000s and 1,000s more of the same.  Take deafness seriously and hearing loss, it is about communication, not politics,  It's about creating independence, not reliance, It's about real empowerment not just an image of it, a BSL Act/Bill just means more of the same.

Let's have a proper debate, let us see proof, justification, reason, and not hysterics, lies, and fear campaigns.  That takes advantage of deaf already struggling by playing on their fears.

In praise of charity.

Alibaba launches blockchain for charities - Ledger Insights ...Or not if we read some blog comments! and as the deaf charities scramble to grab lottery cash to carry on we will no doubt see widespread abuse of declared remits to.

As a lifelong profoundly Deaf person, I see a few really good charities here. Sign Health and NDCS are excellent and their already important work will be even more relevant at this difficult time. Many Deaf people, including young Deaf people, will have some mental distress during the novel virus outbreak.

The BDA are also pretty good – a properly Deaf representative and staffed Deaf organisation is crucial at all times, but even more so at the moment. I’ve not had much experience with the others, so can’t comment, but I’m rather surprised to see AOHL on this list. They have few deaf staff, they often speak over us and ignore us. Worse, they cut important services, like their legal casework team. Worst of all, they’ve just sold off their care homes, which are places that are especially vulnerable at a time like this. Apart from this blip, a mostly solid collection.

ATR:  Deaf serving deaf?  The BDA don't actually provide deaf care on any level of significance, they are a cultural deaf & sign organisation and with hardly any deaf membership of note.  Sign Health had a pretty poor start as initially, they were lobbied against for failing to provide captioning or subtitling via their health advice videos, they were forced to include.  Via deaf relay, they still are not doing that properly.  They are toeing the 'all deaf sign' credo still.

The NDCS isn't a 'Deaf' organisation as such but is primarily supportive of deaf children and other children with hearing loss and their parents.  It also refused to commit to supporting a law for any sort of immersive BSL education and still does.  People need to stop calling all these charities 'Deaf' ones, they aren't.

The AOHL (as the poster wrote), has/have mixed involvement with deaf (who left that charity some years ago), and has since withdrawn all feedback from them. It pays lip-service to the 'Deaf' campaigns so they can still claim funding via their 'inclusive' remit obligations.

Yes, AOHL declared a sell-off of all their deaf care areas and were failing to meet their own financial commitments in January 2020 their CEO went public to admit it, they are supporting the deaf 'cure' and research areas now.  Supporting deaf is no longer a viable area to be in apart from supplying BSL terps at a price, AOHL are mere 'agents' to the deaf.  

Other charities (e.g. like the East Lancashire one), were too incompetent to run care for the deaf and folded leaving a 100 deaf without the support and their staff with no wages.  They couldn't count.  I am unsurprised deaf are struggling with this bunch of randoms running it like an old deaf club and old pals set up, I suspect most young deaf have little or nothing to do with them.

Today, ATR was sent a BDA video link in Wales about GP coronavirus advice to put on the blog,  and we turned it down flat for inclusion because it contained no captioning, no subtitles, no lip-speaking, and no narrative of what it contained.  If this is helping the deaf I'm a banana, a rather pathetic attempt to suggest it supports deaf people, who ARE  these deaf that require next to no access support? 

The BDA cannot hold on to their own trustees for 5 minutes, there were mass resignations before Xmas in 2019 and they ALL went, then quickly replaced by people who know their place and kept tilting at windmills.  We can only hope the BDA are NOT able to claim government funding to carry on with their ridiculous remit and they fold. I.E. when we actually know what their remit actually was or is.

Lip-reading for the pros...

Not a real test nobody lip-speaks like that or we are all in trouble lol.

Wednesday, 8 April 2020

He said, she said...

Excuses, Excuses | Family Matters"Please could someone explain why the signers on the tv mouth words but they don’t appear to be related to what is being said? Hope I haven’t offended anyone I only have moderate hearing loss and waiting to collect my HA’s which has been postponed due to Covid -19"

"British sign language is an independent language made up of hand gestures, facial expressions and body language. Sentence structure is different to English too."

The classic cop-out! What has that to do with pretending to lip-speak?  Less than 3% of ALL BSL translators are qualified lip-speakers. In reality, there are insufficient signs to cover a lot of daily declarations on UKTV regarding the virus, they simply do not exist.   

I was watching 20 minutes ago a BSL terp and the text was including 'plenary meetings' and 'scientific statistical differences' and explaining flow charts, death rates, why some areas fare better than others etc, and the BSL terp signed none of it in any detail.  'More dead, more meetings' that's it.

Lol, I'd defy a BSL terp to translate this so far... stick to words shorter than 8 in length :)

They could fingerspell but I am not sure that helps either.

Mouthing the words is a sop to the cultural stance, OK if you are trying to impress goldfish or those deaf who insist speech is an insult to the signer etc...  of course, mime adds nothing much in access terms for the lip-reader.  But for the captions, I wouldn't follow it myself, but at least with, I feel I am far more aware than the sign user is who are still asking very basic questions online about the lockdown after 3 weeks in.  

There are more Hindus, Polish and Urdu speakers than UK deaf, there is less access for them and none for the lip speaker.  Deaf need to be more grateful for that they have and TWO dedicated TV BSL programs quit with the whining.

There are claims no signed media access there?  I have never seen so much sign used as recently and of course, their charities and deaf TV media and NHS advice areas are pouring it out for them too.  If they still cannot follow that suggests issues with the sign itself or they aren't seeking it out.  

As a social tool with plenty of leeway between the deaf themselves, BSL looks good enough but take them out of that area real issues, so why is that? and with approved translators doing it?  Either the blame lies with hearing doing their thing or the terps being unable to effectively translate that or as we suspect, BSL isn't explanatory enough?  

Not fair comment, After all, most terps think in hearing terms first because they are hearing,  THEN try to adapt BSL to it (Apparently a classic error). Such errors are inevitable and response depends on WHO is using the terp? if it is an individual the terp has to adapt to what they believe the client will most easily follow, on TV you have to translate to everyone regardless of academic or signing ability.  As a result, the lesser academic/literate deaf will lose a LOT of detail they need unless they can read captions/subtitles also.  

Few BSL interpreters can switch from individual to mass explanations its a different skill set.

Once a technical term kicks in, terps start taking short cuts and break things down more simply, and to my mind that negates their point, to be fair instantaneous BSL translation has only a 40% success rate at best, and lip-reading 30-40% or near nil depending on the speaker or your own LR skills, or IF a lip-SPEAKER is there to follow, I haven't seen ANY yet.  

Because terps have to keep up with the spoken word, they get pushed for time so they cut corners.  

Most UK terps have NO specialist area of support, i.e. specialise in advanced English Translation, technical educational areas, legal or intensive health areas etc nor do lip-speakers.  There is an overall assumption they don't need it or, maybe the client would struggle with it.  Of course, the more simplistic you make it the less detail you get.

The devil really IS in the detail especially now as we all struggle to understand this pandemic and its effects as well as government responses. 

Online with these deaf signers they are asking each other to explain/clarify what they think they saw.  This mirrors the deaf clubs where the least able rely on the most able to explain, it's 'Chinese whispers' to some extent and not always reliable, in the end they settle for yes or no in regards to the query can I do this? rather than sit there get a full and lengthy explanation they maybe cannot follow anyway even IN BSL so are more able to exhibit real choice.   They follow the herd.

I do not believe the language argument, because their translators are not sticking to the script, if you ask why they don't the answer is pretty simple, just because deaf use BSL does not make them fluent or expert in it, that false assumption allows corners to get cut.  Familiarity then breeds communication contempt.

It depends on deaf ability (and their background educationally). 

Lol ATR blog suggested they go back to school, it wasn't welcomed and caused a shit storm on twitter.  They used the 'language and grammar' excuse there too and offered to string him up.


Deaf have since the BSL dictionary emerged made excuses for its shortcomings and say they use a different format, grammar etc, but we are talking here about their own translators NOT sticking to it, and for very good reason, no two deaf follow sign the same way, BSL hasn't a real norm and it's riddled with wannabe signing purists who say this way or that way or the highway stuff. I am surprised they are asking for signed help they are clearly struggling to FOLLOW it in their 'preferred' way, which isn't on the face of it, helping them to do that.

More BSL more sign but still struggling to follow? surely literacy is far more useful for them?

ATR tried that ooops...

Check it out...

Deaf avoid face touching when signing?

Quite obviously when alone using video relay no problem, but deaf are going outdoors for essentials like the rest of us and then it tends to break down as deaf signers touch their faces again.  This is neither time nor place to complain sign is being criticised, its no use if you are ending up in hospital as a result.  There are also myths about how effective using gloves are e.g.

You follow the 2 metre rules go into shops, are met by a check out operator or shopkeeper at the end to pay, HE or SHE is wearing gloves that have already touched cash/goods etc from dozens of other customers who probably did not wear them, hence the demand to stop using cash and use cards only.  Unless the shop owners/staff are cleaning the gloves after EVERY customer you have to treat any handling or goods by others with great care.

Deaf are very touchy-feely, that has to stop too, maintain distance.  Touching your face is ONLY relatively safe IF, you have ensured as well as you are able your hands are scrupulously clean.  While we were all told to use reusable shopping bags, THAT is no longer viable either, as you can transmit the virus to supermarket operatives that way.  We get new every time and when you handle those new ones wash and clean hands again, dispose of them, and don't touch your face either.

Nobody is saying don't sign, they are saying don't infect yourself or others, be sensible.

Being a Deaf nurse with a CI.

Tuesday, 7 April 2020

US census 2020

What I am NOT seeing is how the questions are being put in regards to registering deaf people, or, Hard of Hearing people?  

Our experience in the UK was after a campaign was launched to include definitive coverage of those with deafness, it was poorly entered into the census and in part 'loaded' to suggest most deaf were sign using, however, it backfired on the deaf area who promoted the question and responses practically killed off deaf statistics in the UK  from their alleged 50,000 plus to a mere 15,000  because the question wasn't done properly and allowed hearing interpreters and learners to add to the stats which tended to suggest a lot of deaf failed to take actual part, or, the charities were lying about numbers from day one, so, what  ARE the questions the USA census are asking to define 'deaf' people?

Monday, 6 April 2020

Cry Foul

Quotes about Reading literacy (37 quotes)Interesting responses on twitter recently with able deaf (Those who have little or no issue with literacy, grammar or following oral speech), insisting it is a right or a 'preference' for other deaf to NOT do the same and demand access for sign-language only, should be respected.

They also said ATR suggesting they could acquire more 'tools' to help them was cruel and hurtful.  It is these deaf advocates who need educating.    At the same time Limping Chicken is reporting ATR to Twitter for suggesting deaf can use this enforced isolation to update such communication skills.

There are lots online free and they can use sign as access too, that are more viable for them than apathetic reliance fuelled by a distorted and misleading rights point on signed language and translator support, especially that so few translators exist to support them (Deaf support stats published yesterday on ATR), and with the current virus issues has meant that support has chosen to protect themselves, leaving even more support shortages.

Suggestions medical staff remove their masks was put forward that would put our dedicated health workers at more risk, like that is going to happen! daft or what?  Along with the demand, that we should not encourage deaf to lip-read a lot better than they claim to.  Even one very able 'deaf' journalist who can lip-read stating it is too difficult to learn anyway (Which didn't prevent him so why would it prevent other deaf? because he is more 'able'?), suggesting continuity or coherence in the deaf access world seems impossible.

ATR also covered criticism recently, of deaf people angry BSL terps would not offer signed BSL for free, displaying appalling unawareness of how their own support works.  Having demanded high sign skills and expensive exam courses, learners had to pay for in BSL, users want it free?   I doubt the BDA's of this world or the AOHL others would provide deaf with such a service on those grounds it is how charity stays with its head above water and gets funding.

The recent handbag-waving [British slang for a fight where the protagonists are unable or unwilling to seriously hurt each other is commonly refered to as a handbag fight, in reference to the way girls fight by hitting each other with their handbags], on twitter apparently came from people who also contribute to the Limping Chicken, who actually advocate all the alternatives ATR suggested on their blog, but their 'staff' of 'professional' deaf Journo's, attack it on social media.  This is passed off as 'freedom of speech' but obviously such freedoms are not applied to all deaf or indeed are allowed such free speech options on the very blog they promote.  These deaf are quite adept media manipulators to those reliant on them for information but they cannot promote outside own areas so well because their 'messages' are ambiguous and contradictory.

If they are going to lie, they need to tell the same one.  This is the 'We make money from BSL' areas playing both sides of the access and rights issues.  It's not only hearing making a living from it.   The UK is awash with BSL lessons, with no real norm or standard,  but no lessons to improve the deaf people who suffer literacy and other educational issues, or even to improve the poor signing they demand access is a right to.

This appears strange given the poor signing areas within the deaf community, that is in turn, combined with deaf demands for highly-skilled Interpreters, who then have to break down level 6 BSL information to very basic level 1 or 2 signers, that struggle to read or follow Level 6 and above BSL signing.  ATR raised this issue with a BSL training area who promptly blocked access to their video.  There is a fear of challenges to BSL that makes them determined to block, remove and isolate those who make them, a herd mentality ensues.  

The truth will make deaf free but hey, not too free or we lose money, work and kudos.  So you get one view (or a different and conflicting one) depending on what area of deaf or hearing loss, or hearing, you are from.

BSL interpreters/support can be social workers/friends and personal advisors too.   Interpreters will say we do never do that, we do not advise, we aren't their friends in that respect, that would break the code of privacy they are bound to, (the same as a Dr or such).  However, in practice, they and barely qualified mentors (Who can be friends or even neighbours and maybe never attain more than level 2 BSL), have no such qualms about discussing openly in deaf clubs or elsewhere, what transpires in your private life.  This is the 'deaf way' that has always been a norm.  

When social workers gave up the ghost deaf switched to whatever else was there but with far less supervision or monitoring. Foolishly they assumed that gave deaf a lot more 'control' over their lives, but control is in the provision and the providers who pay for it, not them.  Ask any deaf how on earth can they break into the mainstream and attain equality with none of THAT provision?  Empowerment became relative.

For deaf information, the hearing NEVER stop learning new skills, because they know if they do not, they will have difficulty getting the new jobs these skills require.  Industry and commerce never stay still, so the deaf cannot either.  Only they appear to dismiss this point and insist it is simply a matter of hearing not signing to them (Cue discrimination, cultural assault, yadda yadda), (D)eaf awareness is promoted by those with nil other experience, suggesting they do,  and by those with own axes to grind, mostly it is hypocritical or whatever others want to believe.  

Along with improved communication skills, the deaf need much more further education aimed at them.  It's a chicken and egg issue.  Culture would just struggle without its members having a decent education.   It would be promoted by only those with the ability to do it, and who monitors them?  We all know how difficult lip-reading can be, so get it organised so deaf have less difficulty. UK LR classes have NO deaf people in them, are they even ATTEMPTING it?

A number of deaf come to a full stop and sit on the communication plateau because of the assumption the community (or their support), will provide, alternatively, some perceived 'right' is given so they don't 'have' to do anything.  Young deaf do know this, but still a hard-core of activism is trying to turn the clock back, such activism is on our social media pouring out a relentless message of 'back to the future', and cultural excuse for doing not much at all, but using the 'future skills' they have learnt.

They have been rumbled.  Prior to the virus, there were many free options open to deaf to improve their reading and writing skills, they were poorly attended, and as we saw only yesterday on twitter, deaf insisting they have a right to sign-only and all that currently entails (which is reliance and ignorance of the spoken and written word and hearing help).  It's a false 'freedom' isolated in a deaf community with only other deaf to get along with, a sham.

You can't teach an old dog new tricks, but the excuse here is you shouldn't be trying anyway, it is far happier chewing a bone,  sleeping it off, or chasing balls you throw for them.   We are talking people trying to live their lives.

There are no textbooks in BSL they can refer to, are they just going to wait? keep lobbying until there is?  WHO is going to develop them?  ATR has covered highly educated deaf (mostly those who had an oral education), annoyed they have to invent own signs for what they are doing.  Presumably, because they know peers struggle still to read but without advanced signs, it still doesn't work.   Without any sort of valid language reference (Accurate and proper signs/academic dictionaries).

E.G. Paddy Ladd's tome still has no translation in sign, the signs do not exist.  If they did the explanation is still a free-for-all.  Ignorance is bliss if you are deaf, and they don't have to give reasons for it because they have rights.  Erm.. not sure that is how it works.

Tragically deaf...

Top 10 near deafies

At last, something to make us all laugh out aloud.  Not a signer with any of them either. Which tends to suggest?  I know there is a virus about but could they not find the real thing...