Inclusion For the elite few?

 

AVT. The fight goes on...

Despite BSL-using deaf  attacking AVT as oralism and an attack on deaf people. (Isn't attacking Makaton enough for them?).

LINK:  Sade and Topaz Oram from Warminster are supporting a call for auditory verbal therapy to be made available on the NHS. 

Two deaf sisters from Warminster are backing a call for auditory verbal therapy to be made available on the NHS. (An appeal  for AVT support was made in Wales also, but rejected in favour of BSL.

Sade Oram, 24, and her youngster sister Topaz Oram, 22, were both diagnosed as deaf soon after birth and wear cochlear implants. They attended an auditory verbal therapy programme supporting them to learn to speak as young children. They are backing a call by the Auditory Verbal UK [AVUK] charity during Deaf Awareness Week, held from Monday, May 6 to Sunday, May 12, for the government to make the therapy available on the NHS.

New research by AVUK, has revealed that more than a quarter (27 per cent) of adults in the South West of England believe it is not possible for a child born deaf to learn to speak as well as a child without hearing loss. Sade and Topaz say that with early and effective support from auditory verbal therapy, deaf children can learn to speak like their hearing peers.

Sade said: “I am proud to be deaf and proud of what both myself and my sister have achieved because of the support we had as young children with auditory verbal therapy and of course our family. “But it is disappointing that so many people still aren’t aware of what deaf young people can achieve. I am never held back by being deaf. “I love travelling to new places - going skiing in the winter and going to different music festivals in the summer. I'm always looking for a new adventure.”

Topaz added: “Challenging perceptions about the abilities and opportunities for deaf children and young people is so important to me, my sister and our whole family. It really is time to raise expectation and change attitudes of what deaf children and young people can achieve.” The charity's chief executive, Anita Grover, added: “We know that when deaf children and young people, like Sade and Topaz, have access to early and effective support, their opportunities in life can be transformed. Early and effective support is vital whether a child uses sign language, spoken language or both.

“This Deaf Awareness Week, we want everyone to increase their expectations of what deaf children and people can do and take action, big or small, to challenge the current knowledge gap so all deaf children can have the same opportunities in life as their hearing peers.”

Deafness communication is NOT just about hands (Take note BDA).

Awareness isn't working....

ATR has long advocated that since disabled and deaf people were given major inclusion and access laws, we have less now than before they were enacted. It is as if once laws were on the statute, we stopped making sure they worked properly. 

At core, was the disability organisations over-focus on the individual, as averse to the collective approach. Once we pushed the individual right, we abandoned the collective rights of others. Removal of legal aid ensured only a very few disabled could take areas to court and force them to obey the laws we all fought for. 

The Deaf area ignored this, and campaigned solely for themselves, with recent successes via a BSL Act, which wasn't needed in Wales, because the local government there had accepted the inclusion law day one, they also blurred the definitions between the individual and the collective, by using a master-stroke that was so simple, the systems never saw it coming, they just capitalised a single letter (d, to D), then, all, became one.  A minority became the majority by default, a sensory loss became a way of life and a right, and a cure or alleviation, cultural genocide. Unfortunately it also created divisions, by Db, language, and way of social life, defeating own inclusion policies.  

It labelled most with deafness and hearing loss, with a culture they never had, and a communication format they never used, which caused many to actually LOSE support, because systems had bought into the hype of the minority, and re-applied it wrongly, all emphasis was on support they didn't use or want.

Support and funding went to the minority instead.  The rest of the UK government/business has clearly not accepted or endorsed, access and inclusion laws. Even when going to court, no precedent is being set so other disabled unable to speak for themselves,  could benefit, the individual being paramount, meant all have to go to court one at a time to get needs met. The disabled/deaf communities just lobby for another Act or law.  Grassroots find legal action is impossible. HM Government had removed free legal aid.

The biggest issue we face today is a total lack of real awareness, and the state dismantling the welfare state, and attacking the most vulnerable.  Despite various charities and others going it alone, they all appear to have failed, and by own admissions, as campaigns complain society (Whoever they are), are not aware of what they need to do, but still taken £M's in funding with them, with nil, to show for it, least of all awareness. 

Others quickly realised there was a profit to be made from us, non-disabled people set up courses online, many with zero awareness or qualifications themselves, via training, and 'lessons' in awareness, etc, and they now run most of not it all. Just sub-standard and biased/poor awareness tips. Disabled/deaf became a commodity to be exploited, and others got the work and got paid for it and still do.  Charity became corporate, a business, and the bottom and their relentless line was to keep us all reliant, if not on the state, on charity itself.  The state helped them along, by offering less and less support themselves, so many had to rely on charity.

Funding has not produced awareness or any advances.  Given so many random areas joined the awareness bandwagons, setting up 'hubs' as a catch-all, centre for awareness, they endorsed 'political' campaigns and approaches to awareness, campaigning as if access and inclusion laws didn't exist at all, when the reality, was they just didn't work. This was obvious in the 1990s when Disability Act demands were well advanced.  However, Charities reneged on grassroots fearing lack of own support, and persuaded the government to adopt the Act, but agree to water down any effect it might have.

The real aim of charity, was kudos and funding for set ups run by a few, on a computer somewhere.£1000s vanished overnight as no checks were made on them. The systems then proceeded to endorse nothing with us, or to include us, and disabled memberships of leading campaigns became selective and isolated in approach. Deaf do this, Blind do that, mental health do another etc. Nobody seems to understand we cannot succeed this way, united we stand, divided we fall etc... Our biggest enemy y is our own refusal to support each other. cest la vie has made us all reluctant to say 'Look, this isn't working, you going that way, and us going the other, we need to go together.'

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?]

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.

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.

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."

Does anyone care for the UN, or the ECHR?

In numerous disability and deaf areas, ATR has discussed/debated the UN's involvement with disability issues, including the British Sign Language (BSL) Act. Although Scotland has made some progress, it is mainly through recognition and job opportunities rather than access or inclusion, which doesn't appear to be any different from before. Wales has no specific act, as it recognised BSL years ago.   Northern Ireland faces the question of prioritizing BSL or Irish Sign Language (ISL), and overcoming sectarianism. England seems to now focus on the UN/European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) approach, since endless campaigns at the UK central government in London, end up getting nowhere, as London pays no attention to their efforts, it didn't pre-millennium, when the EU 'recognised' BSL (And 27 other European 'minority languages'). 

Today the UK government  still hasn't endorsed BSL as a deaf teaching aid in schools, and all of them since closed entirely in Wales. (ATR has published many points, as to why this is the case, highlighting that none of it relates to discrimination).

Deaf campaigners appeared more interested in individual fundraising and specific campaigns, using disability status for funding and cultural purposes rather than applying the 'disabled' description to themselves, ignoring sensory loss and deafness descriptives, holding mainstream to account for issues they face. Disability and Deaf areas view social/medical modelling quite differently. 

The majority of disabled/deaf people appear to have scant interest in it all, and there is little recorded statistical/numerical support among the 10m disabled, or 151,000 alleged deaf.  Many will argue that trips to the UN and EU are pointless and fruitless and only serve as talk shops, or in the deaf case, social-interaction events. Pre-Brexit, BDA members attended many various EU events, funded by charities or local systems, to a lesser degree this still is the case.  E.G. The creation of a Deaf-EU website reflected their opposition to Brexit and support for the Labour Party, hoping for a return to the previous situation. E.G. At the launch of the 1995 Disability Act, disabled groups had to pay the BDA to support deaf people attending, who actually failed to turn up.  ATR did, and paid for himself.

The UK Government was criticized by the UN Committee for the Rights of Disabled People for their poor track record of upholding disabled people's human rights. Deaf and Disabled People's Monitoring Coalition and deaf activists were present to witness the Government being held to account. The Government's defence was deemed inadequate, with accusations of tokenism and lack of real progress in implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People. The Committee highlighted violations of certain articles of the convention and criticized the Government's social welfare policies as demonizing disabled people. 

Disability activists are calling for the UK Government to incorporate the Convention into UK laws to ensure the protection of Deaf and Disabled people's rights. The final report from the Committee with recommendations to the UK Government is awaited.  ATR does not believe the UK government will comply, but draw attention to areas such as the BSL Act which is already empowering deaf people.  Obviously disability campaigners are targeting UK welfare systems, primarily the DWP, who they claim as agents of the UK government , the system is now designed to attack disabled rights, and disempower their inclusion and access need.

Coming to a Hub near you?

What does your 'Hub' contribute to the deaf way of life?

What they say it is:

Deaf 'hubs' usually refer to deaf communities or centres where deaf individuals come together to socialize, communicate, and support each other. (Actually they don't, they replace deaf clubs).  These hubs are often physical locations, such as community centres or schools for the deaf, where deaf individuals can connect with others who share their experiences and language (such as sign language). They may offer various services and resources specific to the deaf community, such as sign language classes, social events, educational programs, and advocacy support. Deaf hubs serve as important spaces for deaf individuals to feel a sense of belonging and belongingness within their community.

The reality:

Deaf hubs have emerged as replacements for social clubs that have been closing down due to a lack of funding. Deaf individuals have shifted their focus towards seeking funding for cultural activities, after Local Authorities and Social Service areas, pulled funding from the deaf clubs, due to cost-cutting policies.  A Deaf 'Hub' isn't, a social deaf CLUB.  It's make up, varies via post code and validity of deaf involvement.  Such Hubs have been more successful in attracting support. They receive funds from sources like e.g. the Lottery, local government, to promote deaf culture and language, particularly British Sign Language (BSL). 

However, areas like the British Deaf Association are concerned about the lack of academic resources supporting the effectiveness of these hubs in promoting deaf culture or BSL, and with far lesser involvement by deaf people.  The increasing usage, and success of assistive devices to hear, e.g. Hearing Aids, and cochlear implantation is seriously affecting a deaf desire to use sign language, as more integration and mainstreaming takes place of deaf youth.  

As a result, hubs are primarily focusing on promoting BSL as an academic endeavour, and struggle to involve the wider deaf community, creating cultural awareness via remote. 

More able deaf, are targeting younger people and collaborating with educational institutions to serve as 'advisors'.  As are professional interpreters of deaf people, hoping to get work in educational establishments.   Neither area is able currently, to comply with teaching requirements in mainstream settings.   The reality is the BSL-using  deaf, are divorced via the promotion of their own culture and language, by non-deaf,  and the 'business' approach of areas with little links to their community.  BSL has become a saleable commodity, that doesn't need the deaf involvement.

The X VOTE

'Great news from Germany. Deaf MPs in the past: Belgium, Spain, Austria, Hungary. Never in UK political history, will it happen in my lifetime? Deaf BSL I mean!'

(Another Mr Buxton) desperate post to suggest the European Union is more willing to encourage deaf as politicians. Just showing his ignorance, as to how the EU actually works, i.e. as a collective, a totally different set up to the UK and governed by minorities and the UN-elected.

Nobody disputes a disabled or deaf person (Whatever ilk they claim to be), should be allowed/empowered to stand for office, but the case for the deaf who promote BSL as a language and it's perceived culture as some norm, tends to make their election as Members of Parliament completely academic, unless Mr Buxton is suggesting 'positive discrimination' ( A system that is discriminatory and patronising in itself), should be adopted as a means to by pass the electorate?  Too much goes on already.

I can e.g. point Mr Buxton to such a system tried in South Wales to  shoe-in women automatically to create balance, by asking parties to not put forward male candidates, that was completely opposed by women themselves, who quite rightly, preferred to be accepted on merit.  The electoral result, meant NO women got elected.  Be careful Mr Buxton, what you wish for, even if deaf would try justifying themselves via 'preferential treatment'.  It is unlikely the majority with hearing loss OR deafness would support any sort of campaign just based on sign language.

At the end of a very long day not enough deaf exist (ATR has produced numerous factual proof on its blogs/media), for deaf to put any sort of majority vote in to get elected, not even in London where 44% pretend they speak for 100%, (Or just ignore the rest)

There is considerable doubt, enough deaf care about standing for office, or, they posses enough localised or 'Hearing' nous, to appeal to any significant area of the electorate, given their nomadic and solitary lifestyles in clubs etc, they just do not have the necessary to appeal to any other area. Whilst utilising Interpreters to campaign and lobby, that image loses them most votes before they start, voters see the terp they don't see the client, and what they do see appears 'negative' despite all the awareness and inclusion campaigns that have failed to dispel that image.

Whilst Mr Buxton has some success himself, he comes from an area of privilege, most deaf don't, and, London is hardly the place to view democracy given the rabid minorities living there and the bias of 'inclusion', that operates via blocking free speech and censorship, as indeed, did Mr Buxton's old workplace of charities, and indeed  himself online where he bans all discussion and concerns raised regarding BSL promotion.

A stance of  'Adopting the position', and blaming everyone else for the fact they don't sign or are not deaf, seems de rigour with his adopted area. AS a minority they cannot stand or win elections, unless they use at least 25% of the inclusion and access they have and demand, we are not seeing that happening.  To expect voters will vote deaf just because they are a minority or some culture, shows why deaf get no electoral traction.  To call it discrimination  and suggest we ignore our own parliament and electorate, and allow an unelected European one to decide, is ridiculous.

That the UK isn't a member of the EU any more seems to have been missed as well, as has the reality, the UK doesn't recognise the ECHR or, despite recent posts during 'Deaf week', the UN either. Do you wonder WHY you aren't elected Mr Buxton? Nobody else does!

MAKATON V BSL (All bets are off!)

As ongoing concerns are being raised by worried parents of deaf, and other children with special and sensory needs in education, ATR expressed such concern to the three involved parties concerned.

(1)  Contacted the Pride Of Britain Organisers.

(2) The Makaton Website.

(3)  The BDA/RNID and allied BSL areas.

The response it has to be said was pretty dire.  RNID and BDA responded with personal attacks on ATR, and blocked online, any further engagement.

Pride Of Britain failed to respond at all, unaware their support and coverage of sign use was used on X, Facebook, and on BSL sites, to suggest media supported its attack on Makaton, which they defined  as a 'stolen' format deaf people 'owned'. Nobody owns languages.

The Daily Mirror has yet to respond.

Enclosed below was the only response to the attack, from Makaton web team, we can but hope the BDA gets its house in order, and tells its members and BSL supporters it is bad news,  BSL users and supporters are seen attacking vital educational support to assist disabled children. One can only surmise the point being made very badly, is the reluctance to endorse BSL in education, which has nothing to do with the use of Makaton.  This is BSL bullying, from a very online savvy area prepared to attack anyone and everything to get what they want, even our children's education.

ATR. 

We're aware of some negative comments circulating on social media regarding the use of Makaton and the suggestion that it constitutes cultural appropriation of the Deaf community's language. This isn't a new concern raised by just a small number of the Deaf community; however, it's something we've been eager to address and educate people about. We've been actively engaging in dialogue on this matter, working closely with the British Deaf Association over the past six months to foster a mutual understanding of the importance of both British Sign Language (BSL) and Makaton. We've been striving to clearly delineate which audiences and communities each form of communication serves and the terms we use to describe each communication method. Additionally, we've been collaborating on joint statements to provide clarity to our communities on this issue.

It's our policy not to engage directly with negative comments on social media, as doing so often exacerbates the situation and draws more attention to it. It's worth noting that the recent resurgence of interest in this issue may have been sparked by a question on BBC's Pointless on Monday, which referred to Makaton as a "language" – a term we're actively moving away from in favour of the more appropriate and up to date terminology.

We hope this explanation clarifies our stance on the matter. Rest assured, we're actively monitoring the situation across social media channels.

Best wishes,

The Makaton Help Desk

We can but hope the 'negative comments of BSL users' is taken to task, and, that the BDA takes any notice, so far they have endorsed these attacks on another charity..

NOT BSL WEEK