Aftermath.

ATR's recent brief coverage of the BSLBT 'survey' of Deaf/BSL needs on TV looked like an act of desperation and confusion more than a real survey.  Opening with 'We don't know how many deaf there are in the UK', 'Nobody has a clue about Northern Ireland', they proceeded to declare the census was a 'fix' (like the BDA did), and multiplied the amount of BSL-using deaf by the power of 10.  (From 15,000 in England and Wales Census), to the BDA's 150,000 declaration, then added another 30,000 to 188,000 users for good measure. what was obvious the survey was an attempt to suggest a demand where there wasn't, and  selective need, using whatever statistics looked like fitting their BSL agenda, and even ones that didn't, hoping readers have no real idea who, or what a deaf person actually is, or how they are identified. Simply because no survey is ever able to.. Deaf people have a culture and language and have clubs and own schools, but just 1.8% of deaf use them.

Clearly the need to justify BSL access on television is essential to the BSLBT and the Deaf activist. Despite areas like the BBC stating they struggled to justify 3-5% overall BSL access and only then, on 'dedicated' signed TV like SEE HEAR and the Sign Zone,, one dumped in the graveyard shift of viewing, or to times and areas out of sight, the other online, so NOT on TV as such.  Had it been simply a numbers game as stated by the BDA/BSLBT, then neither TV program would be on air, they exist because of cultural right, not cultural viewing demand, as the numbers of viewers are too low to be recorded or would justify either program. Sign Zone toured areas in Wales and found 85% of deaf had never heard of it.  No demand in Wales then.

Staggering facts emerged from the survey, including, that most deaf were not only literate but had useful speech as well, then in the next paragraph, the BSLBT claimed they weren't, and this was because BSL is denied in the classrooms, so ditched their own survey and put their own opinion as fact instead.   If it is true, it hasn't affected many deaf has it?  Probably when they released this proved the point captioning and subtilling was equally, if not a better option for them to follow, than BSL was, the survey back-pedalled and rambled off to a staggering list of people who were clinically deaf and those who weren't, along with unproven inferences of deaf illiteracy.

This made more rods for their own back when they also declared 68% were hearing adults who had acquired deafness in later life, and didn't sign and had no participation in Deaf BSL or Culture, and were equally able to follow Televised output with subtitling with no interest in signed output.  Far from desperate to use BSL online, many Deaf preferred e-mails and text, which enabled them to interact equally with hearing that way.  Attempts by the BSLBT to suggest Deaf were disadvantaged by these options came back to haunt them. 

ATR had a view, the BSL Deaf drive to  protect their space from 'hearing' meant they will use any and every asset that works for them, but maintain their distance, this had the effect of undermining integrations and access of deaf people, they create their own barrier as some sort of 'protection'.  While it is correct the dependant BSL user will always feel this way because of the need for  a 'middle-man' to interact, it is not accurate for the overwhelming majority of deaf people.  We end up in the activists position aka 'There is a bridge I can easily walk across to get to the other side, but I insist on being carried across instead, the fact I can choose means I choose to be carried.'  

In Wales BDA Cymru declared 3,000 deaf signers, the BSLBT said it was just 700 only, but there was no statistic to prove competence in BSL, that question cannot legally be asked if it means identifying anyone.  Nor, or if the deaf could equally use alternatives, because this challenges their 'choice' again. If we debate the points, they fall back to the 'choice/right' options, ATR was concerned with NEED and adaptions where possible, so deaf can move forward,  essential in Wales, given, no deaf schools even exist, or even a BSL Act, and areas like the BDA Cymru get their directives from London and Manchester, and interfere in Welsh deaf affairs, which is the sole domain of the devolved Government.

For too long BSL activism has taken advantage of two things, (1) the hard core of BSL is in London, and (2)  BSL users nationwide get on with their lives and don't take any interest in what the BDA's and RNID's of this world say, or do.  ATR suggests they don't care for BSL TV either.  To paraphrase a 007 term "The deaf world is not enough..'  Charities run it all, mostly nothing for deaf or with them basically, the funding is the thing.  Raising awareness of a few who make a living raising more awareness nobody cares about because it is too elite in nature and discriminates or divides. You have to ask when are deaf people of all descriptions going to wake up and address what is going on via huge distortions and plain lies emerging from deaf activism to self justify own existences?

STOP PRESS:  Sign Zone has blocked ATR - Media, erm... Why? for stating their own survey?