Why do BSL online sites block feedback?

 Argument for preventing feedback

Privacy Concerns: By preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites, users can maintain their privacy and avoid potentially harmful or unwanted comments.

FACT: 80% of BSL sites DON'T use sign language to write own  posts.  The claim all deaf are bilingual is unproven, even opposed.

Accuracy of Information: Allowing unfiltered feedback could lead to inaccuracies in sign language translations or information shared on the site, which could be misleading to users.

This means any challenges, or statement of real facts, can be blocked and the poster banned, if this undermines their 'message'. Only 1% of the deaf community has a qualification in BSL.

Respect for Diversity: Preventing feedback can help create a safe space for all users, especially those who may be more vulnerable or sensitive to negative comments.

Deaf BSL diversity is to discriminate, if you don't sign, you don't get in, and has nothing to do with inclusion or listening to others.

The argument against preventing feedback:

Accessibility and Engagement: Feedback can enhance the user experience by allowing for interaction, collaboration, and learning opportunities among users of sign language on the site.

Improvement and Growth: Constructive feedback can help site administrators and users make necessary improvements, updates, and corrections to the content and services offered.

Community Building: Feedback can foster a sense of community and connection among users of the site, promoting inclusivity and mutual support.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites may have some benefits such as privacy protection and maintaining accuracy, allowing feedback can also promote accessibility, engagement, improvement, growth, and community building. 

It is important to strike a balance between ensuring a safe and respectful environment while also encouraging participation and fostering a sense of community among users. Ultimately, the decision to allow or prevent feedback should be carefully considered based on the specific goals and needs of the site and its users. [BSL-Only?]

The Power of Oral Communication

Why Verbal Exchange is Essential in Today's Digital Age

In a world dominated by emails, texts, and social media, the art of oral communication is often overlooked. The power of spoken words cannot be underestimated. In fact, verbal exchange is essential for effective communication in both personal and professional settings.

One of the key benefits of verbal communication is the ability to convey emotion and tone. When we talk face-to-face, we can use tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language to enhance our message and ensure it is understood correctly. This is especially important in sensitive or complex situations where written words can be easily misinterpreted.  

Oral communication allows for immediate feedback and clarification. In a conversation, we can ask questions, seek explanations, and address misunderstandings in real-time. This helps to avoid confusion and ensure that both parties are on the same page.

Verbal communication fosters stronger connections and relationships. When we talk to someone in person, we can build rapport, establish trust, and show empathy through our words and actions. This human connection is vital for building successful collaborations and partnerships.  Oral communication is essential for public speaking and presentations. The ability to communicate confidently and effectively in front of an audience is a valuable skill that can set individuals apart in their personal and professional lives.  

The power of oral communication cannot be understated. In a world that is becoming increasingly digital, it is important to remember the importance of face-to-face conversations and verbal exchanges. By honing our skills in verbal communication, we can improve our relationships, boost our careers, and effectively convey our ideas and messages to others.

CODA's picking up the support tab?

The whole truth, and nothing but?   The degree of ignorance around BSL usage and support just enables more campaigns, but doesn't explain anything in any real depth. Anecdotal evidence say shortages are NOT the main issue, but, deaf parents preferring their family support them, its 'on tap' and immediate. (One statistic suggests 68% of deaf have rarely if ever uses BSL interpreter support.)  Other issues are that only 1% of deaf sign users are proficient in BSL themselves, not having taken any exams to attain BSL level competences, neither have their children.

ATR draws attention to a 12yr old campaign it ran via the BDA, insisting that NHS GP's and medical staff stop immediately, asking deaf people to bring their children with them to translate, and to respect the law that demands they provide BSL help and professional/neutral support.  The BDA refused to support that request, insisting deaf people had a right to use whatever support they wanted, despite this killing demand, and, putting Deaf patients at risk via family support that lacked training, and were in essence speaking FOR their parents.

As ATR pointed out this meant children as young as 8-10yrs of age were expected to translate for the NHS and explain diagnosis to them, even regarding bad news like cancer, or sensitive areas like sexual education.  ATR complained to Social Services, who explained it was ILLEGAL for deaf parents or families to use ANY child under 16 tears of age, it was deemed abuse.  ATR said even IF they are of that age, the NHS had no way of knowing if the translations provided by family, were accurate or not or subject to bias by CODA's, e.g. how to tell your Dad 'They say you have terminal Cancer', or, 'You have a sexually transmitted disease'  Cases emerged some parents simply weren't told by CODA's because 'They won't understand..'

ATR stepped up a campaign at the NHS directly suggesting, that in the event of a diagnosis not understood by a patients and subsequently got very ill or worse, the NHS said 'Deaf chose family support, the onus is not then on the NHS to be legally  responsible, the NHS has respected deaf choice..' We tried approaching NHS insurance companies, who were unhelpful, because deaf choice passed responsibility to others, and saved the NHS costs hiring a professional Interpreter. Nothing short of a total ban on any amateur BSl support will create any demand.  It has to be said 80% of BSL interpreters do NOT have a medical expertise either, there is a total lack of specialisation in BSL work, with 999 and legal systems etc, it is basically, he said, she said, they said, and hoping at least someone follows everything.  

It is not enough to use medical jargon at people and assume the terp understands it all, or the patient does.  Even social services itself using trained BSL terps to assist, can opt out of issues emerging when misunderstandings reveal themselves, and SS/BSL terps CANNOT be taken to court to testify on who said what, BSL interpreters say NOBODY can guarantee a deaf person follows everything, so a court lists it as 'hearsay' thus inadmissible.  Deaf have NO real cover in reality, unless video recordings are taken in addition to BSL interpretation, but again, systems have another opt out on data protection grounds and privacy.

A shortage of BSL terps is nobody's fault at present, until systems enact the law and only allow professional support provision, that forces demand.   Compromise would be family/friends there to act as 'personal support' but not in any translation role, this offers the best solution, and enables the deaf more likely to be making own decisions, and not allowing others to do it for them.  You cannot be sure in certain sensitive subjects family will not provide bias into the proceedings. Expecting a child to make those decisions is outrageous, deaf need to stop doing it.

NEWS ITEM:

Children are having to translate doctors’ diagnoses to their deaf parents because there’s not enough sign language interpreters, a City Hall Conservative has claimed. Andrew Boff, a Tory member of the London Assembly, branded the situation ‘ridiculous’ and said there was an urgent need for better sign language services.

Mr Boff made the comments at a London mayoral hustings in Westminster hosted by deaf and disabled people’s charity, Inclusion London, on Tuesday (April 9). He was responding to a question from an audience member about what Conservative mayoral candidate Susan Hall would do to support the British Sign Language (BSL) charter - a list of pledges that aim to improve the rights of deaf people.

Mr Boff said: “There are not enough interpreters. We [have] had situations where young people are being asked, children are being asked, to interpret for their parents when receiving information about diagnoses from doctors. I mean this is a ridiculous situation to be in. We need more interpreters.”

A 2015 City Hall report authored by Mr Boff noted there were less than 1,000 registered BSL interpreters in the UK. The report blamed the shortage of interpreters on the cost and length of training. It said that interpreters often had to study for seven or eight years before becoming fully qualified. A reduction in council grants meant students were increasingly having to seek sponsorship from employers, the report added.

Rachel Blake, Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Cities of London and Westminster and a Tower Hamlets councillor, said Mayor of London Sadiq Khan had already signed the BSL charter and was consulting with deaf people. Zoë Garbett, Green Party candidate for mayor of London, said she fully supported the BSL charter and said City Hall politicians needed to be held accountable to make sure they were meeting the pledges within it.

Disability groups aiding discrimination?

Disability Wales is searching for Black, minority, and ethnic areas to support, because these areas enhance Disability Wales' option of getting more funding.  Should we not be questioning all these charities switching to populist areas to get money, and not asking the questions as to why funding is NOT going towards the wider populations of the UK?  

We know it is nothing at all to do with inclusion or equality, as stats can easily show the wider population of the UK, has a higher statistical incidence of deprivation than minority areas do.

What 'general' searches tell us:  

There are a number of charities dedicated to minority black and ethnic disability support, *but it is difficult to provide an exact number as new organizations may continue to be established. Some well-known charities that focus on providing support to minority black and ethnic individuals with disabilities include Disability Rights UK, Scope, and the Black and Minority Ethnic Safer Communities Network.

As for statistics on funding specifically dedicated to minority black and ethnic disability support, *there is limited data available. However, research has shown that charities and organizations that serve minority populations, including those with disabilities, often receive less funding compared to mainstream organizations. This is often attributed to systemic inequalities and biases within the funding system. Additionally, there is a lack of transparency and reporting on funding allocations specifically directed towards minority black and ethnic disability support.

(1)  The number of charities dedicated to minority black and ethnic disability support is also unclear due to new organizations continually being established, and a lack of recording them.

(2)   There is limited/No data on the funding for these charities.

(3)   Transparency and reporting on funding allocations for minority black and ethnic disability support is poor, to non-extant.

*ATR's own research on the Government's own charity website actually revealed that 161,098  charities supporting the Disability Wales target area already, so how is Disability Wales justifying the lack of support for them? Basic perusal of the links between deaf and disabled charities UK-wide reveal 80% are now switching focus to minority and ethnic/black/migrant support in a desperate drive to get more funding, and run the risk of discriminating against the majority.

The Deaf, and Artificial Intelligence (I)

 ATR debates with AI   

ATR Poser:  Deaf cultural members have suggested AI offers huge barriers to their access, as AI technology uses language and grammatical formats that aren't theirs, also, that where AI software originates, can determine what 'stance' AI takes on cultural/language debates and issues.  Is this not a barrier itself, to true AI interaction, in that AI cannot then offer true neutrality in any debate?

AI:   The intersection of AI technology and deaf culture poses unique challenges and considerations regarding access, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions. Let's explore the potential barriers to effective AI interaction for deaf individuals and the implications of AI origins on cultural and linguistic issues:

Language and Communication Barriers: 

AI technology often relies on standardized language and grammatical formats that may not align with the linguistic preferences and communication styles of deaf individuals, including users of sign language(s). This mismatch can create barriers to effective communication and understanding, limiting the accessibility and usability of AI for deaf cultural members who may require alternative modes of interaction.

Cultural Sensitivity and Representation: 

The cultural and linguistic context in which AI originates can influence its understanding and representation of diverse cultural and language issues. AI systems developed in specific cultural contexts may exhibit bias, assumptions, or limitations in addressing the nuanced perspectives and experiences of diverse linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

Neutrality and Bias in AI Debates: 

The notion of AI neutrality in debates and interactions is complex, as AI systems are designed and trained by human developers who bring their own biases, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds to the technology. This human influence can shape the stance and responses of AI on cultural and language issues, potentially leading to unintended biases, inaccuracies, or misrepresentations in AI interactions with diverse user groups.

Cultural Competence and Inclusive Design: 

Addressing the barriers to true AI interaction with deaf cultural members requires a commitment to cultural competence, inclusive design practices, and user-centered approaches that prioritize accessibility, diversity, and equity in AI development. By involving diverse stakeholders, including deaf individuals and cultural advocates, in the design, testing, and deployment of AI technologies, developers can enhance the inclusivity and relevance of AI interactions for diverse linguistic communities.

Ethical Considerations and Human Oversight: 

As AI technology evolves and becomes increasingly integrated into various aspects of society, ethical considerations regarding bias, discrimination, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions become paramount. Human oversight, transparency, and accountability in AI decision-making processes are essential in addressing potential biases and ensuring responsible and respectful AI interactions with diverse cultural and linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

In conclusion, the barriers to AI access and interaction for deaf cultural members, rooted in language disparities, cultural representation, and bias in AI development, underscore the need for proactive efforts to enhance inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and equity in AI technologies. By fostering greater dialogue, collaboration, and understanding between AI developers, cultural advocates, and diverse user groups, we can work towards overcoming barriers to true AI interaction and promoting respectful, accessible, and inclusive AI experiences for all individuals, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Embracing diversity and cultural competence in AI design and implementation can pave the way for more meaningful and inclusive interactions that reflect the rich diversity of human experiences and identities in an increasingly technologically driven world.

ATR:  The irony is that it couldn't include a BSL or ASL user to debate with day one. But could interact with a deaf person who didn't sign, and wasn't cultural, but wasn't included in real terms via the 'debate' either.  AI also agreed BSL and ASL had insufficient academic language formats to debate with because it didn't use text, or didn't have the grasp of English to enagage.... oops!

Get a CI, you know it makes sense.

To be fair, not if you are white either!   Few people who are eligible for a cochlear implant actually get one.  Cost is the primary issue.  The total average cost of a cochlear implant for one ear, including the surgery, is £22,919 and for two ears, it is £37,904.  In perspective,  the cost of supporting a person with profound deafness in the UK can be significant, with estimates ranging from £15,000 to £30,000 per year or more. On balance, it makes more financial sense to implant all the deaf.

This cost may be covered by various sources, including the National Health Service (NHS), local government social care services, and private funding or insurance.  Cochlear implants have successfully improved hearing loss for decades, but few people who qualify for an implant actually get it. Even in countries with universal health care, the adoption rates are dismal.  Researchers are finding further disparities for marginalized communities, especially for Black and Asian patients, according to a recent study of British hospitals published last week.

This study assessed referral patterns for cochlear implantation among UK adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. The study found that many eligible patients were not being appropriately referred for assessment, with disparities in access based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and gender. Patients residing in more deprived areas, living in London, males, and older individuals were less likely to be referred for assessment. 

Ethnic minorities, particularly Asians and Black individuals were also less likely to be informed of their eligibility. The study highlighted the need for targeted efforts to improve referral rates among underrepresented groups and address disparities in patient management. Further research is required to understand and address these inequalities and improve informed decision-making among healthcare providers and patients.

Health support for digital Luddites...

Apparently, we needn't hold our breath, there isn't any. As a deafened person who doesn't have a mobile phone, I can share their pain, but I gave up when I realized online access, isn't, and is designed as a deterrence, not a supportive system, so demanded face-to-face again. Forget 111 sign health and that stuff, strictly for the BSL birds.

A recent survey conducted by Healthwatch, has, highlighted that digital barriers are making it difficult for people to access healthcare services. The survey revealed that elderly individuals, those with sight or hearing impairments, and non-regular internet users are facing challenges in booking appointments online or over the phone.

These barriers are causing some individuals to give up on seeking care, said Hannah Davies, the CEO of Healthwatch. Digital healthcare saw a significant shift during the COVID-19 pandemic. While some benefited from improved access, others, like Gemma O'Connell, who has deaf parents, struggled with the new digital approach. Angie Pullen, another respondent, expressed concerns about vulnerable individuals being unable to access GP services due to digital difficulties.

Dr. Richard Vautrey, a senior doctor, acknowledged the benefits of digital systems in healthcare. However, he emphasized the importance of ensuring accessibility for all patients. He highlighted the need for various avenues such as online, telephone, and face-to-face consultations to accommodate different patient needs.

Overall, the Healthwatch survey results indicate that the transition to digital healthcare is creating obstacles for certain individuals, ultimately hindering timely access to essential care services.

150 years later..

Recent disability (UK), support for 150years of disability media, feels like a damp squib.   In reality, it tends to suggest nothing has happened since.  1944 saw the first attempt to include the disabled in the workplace, via the law.  1945 saw it overruled when the war ended when the able-bodied demanded their jobs back.  Employed areas developed FOR disabled-only (Remploy/Monwel etc), guaranteed regular work and good pay for a few years, until able-bodied who were suffering unemployment wanted disability subsidies stopped so the work came to them instead.  Every step forward entailed another step backwards.

Disabled/deaf are more vocal, more visible, and more 'adopting the position', we need a change of direction. Many suggest only the disabled read disability media, so preaching to the already converted springs to mind, just activists chatting amidst themselves. Charities do it too.  We have become issues to exploit, rather than advancing things. We are talking cash basically, e.g, £6B is spent yearly, supporting  15,000 deaf people, and that DOESN'T include funding that charities get and the UK has 17,600 of them dedicated to ONE area of people disabled by profound loss. 

With lots of money and employment involved, these deaf quickly lost any control over it all, as corporate charities cashed in on them.   Major charities also use corporate strategies to head-hunt staff from others, and in effect caused the closure of many of them, any system that didn't provide cash inflow, wasn't entertained. Running at a loss wasn't a proposition, despite many well-meaning support areas, claiming many support approaches took precedence over profit.

You won't read a single disability or deaf area that believes all that has contributed to their inclusion or equality. Anecdotal evidence suggests we actually have fewer rights and support than 30 years ago when a plethora of equality and inclusion laws came into being.  The catch 22, was that a pandemic of individualism was created, which led to 'each to their own' approaches, so cohesive action was unable to gain traction, via numerical support. Disability and deaf areas are fragmented into more secular, and singular approaches by degree of disability, or type, or as in the deaf case, by language, background, social, and loss degree.   

In essence disabled areas and deaf ones created their own form of discrimination and made them the norm.  Legal action neutered the ability of disability groups to set a precedent, each individual had only a success, (or a loss mostly), for themselves. Another person had to DIY, but the state took away legal support for them to do so. 10m disabled and 11m with hearing loss, but the lack or actual support for these inclusive areas means it is basically nil where it counts.  Charities have next to zero as regards to membership support, but, the total power to speak for everyone else. It's tails wagging dogs. The few at the charitable 'top' getting the kuds/recognition, but the bottom line we are interested in, is as far away and in the smallest print, as it ever was.

Nine Stats.

 9 Statistics many deaf and HI activists may prefer to ignore.

(1)   Statistics from (Sign Health, a leading charity for deaf people in the UK), the annual cost of providing British Sign Language (BSL) services to the UK is estimated to be around £93 million per year. This cost includes professional interpreters, technology, education and training, as well as support services for the Deaf community.

(2)   According to a report by the UK charity Action on Hearing Loss, hearing loss in the UK costs an estimated £30.71 billion per year. This includes costs related to healthcare, social care, productivity loss, and welfare support for individuals with hearing loss.

(3)    Approximately 2 million people with hearing loss rely on hearing aids in the UK, and 3 million others who need them won't wear them.

(4)    A survey conducted by Action on Hearing Loss in the UK in 2019, suggest that approximately 1.7 million people with hearing loss rely on mobile phone apps to assist them with communication.

(5)    Official statistics from the UK's National Health Service (NHS), state, there are approximately 11 million people with hearing loss in the UK. This includes individuals of all ages who are registered with the NHS for support and assistance with their hearing loss.  It is not stated how many are defined as, or needing help and support.

(6)    No specific data available on the exact number of people with hearing loss who are identified as 'good' lip-readers in the UK. Lip-reading abilities can vary greatly among individuals with hearing loss, and it is estimated that only a minor percentage of the population have strong lip-reading skills. Lip-reading is only effective to a certain extent and should not be solely relied upon as a communication method for those with hearing loss.

(7)     As of 2021, there are 55 deaf clubs in the UK. No statistic records numbers of membership.  deaf clubs are located across various regions in the UK, with concentrations mainly, in cities such as London, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham.

(8)     As of 2021, there are no specific statistics available regarding the number of hearing impaired clubs in the UK, or ones that do not use signing as a primary form of communication. These types of clubs may vary in size and scope, ranging from local community groups to national organizations.

(9)    While progress has been made in promoting inclusion and accessibility for deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the UK through various campaigns and initiatives, there is still much work to be done to ensure they have equal access to services, opportunities, and support. No major successes have been highlighted in surveys so far.

Gissa Job..... I'm disabled.

What Access to Work will not pay for:  Access to Work will not pay for reasonable adjustments. (These are the changes your employer must legally make to support you to do your job.)

ATR has  expressed concern to the UK central government, about the current state of employment and accessibility for disabled individuals. We believe that merely declaring one's disability or minority status does not guarantee a job, as employers demand that skills and qualifications are essential. The statement above taken from the official government website, seems to also act as a real barrier to actually getting a job. In essence any 'reasonable adjustment', must be affordable, and 'affordable' is defined by the Employer, and if the state is prepared to pay the costs or contribute to them. 

Example of when an adjustment is not reasonable because of the cost:

An employee who uses a wheelchair asks for a lift to be installed so they can get to the upper floors of their workplace. The employer makes enquiries and finds the cost would be damaging to their business. The employer can turn down the request because it is not reasonable for them. However, they must make other workplace adjustments that are reasonable, for example making changes so the employee can do their job entirely on the ground floor.

ATR also criticizes some aspects of disability policies, including Access to Work (A2W), which they consider to be inefficient and patronizing. E.G. the state paying 4 or 5 times what any disabled employee could expect as a wage, just on support provision, e.g. funding an BSL Interpreter for as many hours as a deaf person works, can be very expensive.  ATR has seen examples of £800 per week in London via deaf arts, and part, not full time work.  Strict limitations on how, and who, can apply for A2W funding, has so far proven entirely prohibitive, and negative.  

A number of disabled are taken on as employees BECAUSE they are disabled, and to fill legal quotas, this tends to only apply to larger business/companies, but many disabled are unable to 'learn on the job', or lack the skills or support required to adapt.   Anecdotal evidence suggest there are 'scams' attached to this, as some employers appear to be rotating disabled employees to maintain funding, and fulfil their obligations, in essence to avoid making any meaningful contribution themselves. Disabled employees can be replaced by another, after only 3 months, and/or they leave because the support doesn't really work for them, or the job wasn't suitable in the first place.  

ATR suggests that A2W funding should be redirected towards education and skill development from the beginning, rather than focusing on aftercare and support.  This should be accompanied by further retraining as required to meet changing employer need. There are no effective systems for that currently.  It all contributes to failure of Access to Work to be meaningful. Overall, ATR emphasizes the importance of a more effective and comprehensive approach to inclusion and employment opportunities, and training, for disabled people.

AVT funding for deaf children refused in Wales

So why is the Senedd NOT funding it, but IS funding BSL, while sign language campaigners are attacking Makaton, cochlear implants, oral therapy, hearing aids, and alleviation approaches? All useful additions in addressing deaf communication issues in Education? BSL is NOT a sole answer to deaf communication. What happened to total communication?  Is it now commercial BSL interests that determine what is best? 

A five-year-old profoundly deaf girl named Grace from Cardiff has made significant progress in speech and communication after receiving auditory verbal therapy (AVT) and a cochlear implant. Her mother, Rhian, emphasizes the importance of early intervention and the positive impact it has had on Grace's confidence and social interactions. AV UK, a charity that provides AVT, is requesting funding from the Welsh government to train more staff in this therapy. 

Deaf adults like Harrison Steeple also share their success stories with AVT, highlighting the need for more accessibility to this therapy on the NHS in Wales. The charity's Hear Us Now campaign aims to secure funding to train more therapists and support vulnerable children. Rhian believes that all deaf children should have the same opportunities for success, and hopes to see AVT become more widely available on the NHS. The Welsh government acknowledges the importance of hearing care but has not yet committed to funding for AVT.

AVT (Audio Verbal Therapy).

All Party Committees (Wales).

ATR's Open letter to BDA Cymru, disputing they are actively participating in this area, and indeed not addressing issues BSL users face in Wales either, relying on campaigns developed elsewhere by non-Welsh deaf.

"ATR's own experience of APC at the Senedd is that nothing ever happens at all, indeed, I gather that the RNID stated the same thing, and threatened to pull out (twice), at the time, as the RNID was footing the access bill for those attending, and later withdrew much social online access in Wales due to lack of interest from grass roots.   

The BDA also refused to devolve their charity sites to localised control, taking away the ability of Welsh deaf to decide themselves how support/access and Inclusion should proceed, given, the Welsh need is entirely different from other regional areas, but we have no effective say. It goes without stating, the BDA shows no support to the majority of Welsh deafened, or hard of hearing in Wales, being a secular organisation.

Who is talking for Wales?  Leeds/Manchester/London BDA?   The last  APC  'meeting' never took place in person, but was done online in July last year. Just who knew about it?  Most deaf I talked to had no idea an APC actually existed, let alone saw the 'Zoom' thing.

Prior to that, there were 3 years when hardly any viable meeting took place at all, one or two meets a year if that.  Requests at the time from grass roots to participate, were refused outright, including a request ATR made to respond to one issue. Sadly BSL was then used as a 'barrier' to participation, as the BDA insisted on the 'D' approach, side-lining 300,000 with hearing loss in Wales.

At the end of the day, we are told grass roots cannot attend or represent at APC as the Senedd recognises only their representation, this is a 'rule' via all government centres apparently, but Wales?  There is an option to make it public, and we know,  the Senedd website is not going to be accessed by deaf people. It's a complete travesty of a website, that defines deaf people via 11-13 alternative descriptions, it is impossible to get any accuracy or detail from it, deaf areas are duplicated 3 or 4 times, under different headings.  This appears to be a major discrimination against grass-roots deaf of all kinds, as charities make the decisions, in essence, behind closed doors.  In effect nobody is represented except a few sign using deaf.

Neither the BDA or RNID have a mandate of Welsh membership TO represent, i.e. if we are to attach any validity to the RNID and BDA's own statistics.    It is widely agreed by most areas the APC is a pointless exercise, and the BDA/RNID operating singularly and in a vacuum.  There seems to be a lack of awareness that Wales has no  deaf schools any more, and that mainstreaming has proven a huge success, despite BSL areas criticising at every opportunity.  Neither does Wales have a BSL Act, apparently the fact Wales recognised BSL many years before the BSL Act was mooted, was ignored by the BDA.

The fact Wales is the best-served area for BSL users in the UK, having a surplus of BSL interpreters due to fewer deaf using BSL, and the BDA itself on record, as providing support for deaf to use unprofessional support (families, friends, etc), if they so chose.  This included e.g.  'mentors', many of whom did not possess qualifications IN BSL, and were ungoverned, and unmonitored regarding privacy laws, and neutrality, professional BSL terps are, some are actually their own friends, who had access to their private lives. One rather telling fact, is that according to the BDA itself, only 1% of deaf BSL users, appear to have any qualifications in it.  So the BDA is campaigning for access they cannot effectively use, BSL?

All current campaigns regarding BSL are aimed at awareness for HEARING people, given the reluctance by all regional governments to endorse BSL itself.  Also targeting children and young people, because they fail to connect to adults.  Overall, there is a 'hype' around BSL that is ignoring the realities for deaf people. We still have deaf people leaving school and then plateauing, and further education and training simply doesn't happen, even literacy improvements don't.  Perhaps the BDA needs to look AT deaf people and BSL and recognize where the need is.  

As my blog will verify, the ability to advance academically for deaf people, cannot happen because BSL lacks academic, and reference signs to teach with.  Perhaps the BDA really does need to start at the ground and build BSL up as a viable language first, and not just a glorified social tool?  What is clear, is that Welsh deaf and hearing loss charities have lost any sort of awareness about their own area."