Wassup Yorick?

 

Teaching resources designed to make Shakespeare accessible for deaf students are being sent to every deaf school and significant deaf unit in the UK. (They will find the terminology and grammar an issue.)

Inclusion For the elite few?

 

AI, is it a threat to deaf & disability access?

Online UK BSL campaigners said yes, because of widespread issues with English and its grammar. Europe says no it doesn't.   Find below examples of huge advantages AI offers.   Accessibility tech hasn't traditionally been popular among developers. In 2022, disability tech companies attracted around £3.2 billion in early-stage investments, which was a fraction of the investment to other areas.

One reason is that disability tech start-ups are often considered too niche to attain business viability -- at least on the scale that venture capital demands. By definition, they are assumed to be building for a minority. However, some start-ups in the space have also begun serving the wider population — and throwing in some AI always helps.  Both cases are a balancing act: The wider business case needs to make sense without losing sight of the start-up's mission statement. AI, meanwhile, needs to be leveraged in a non-gimmicky way to pass the due diligence sniff test.

Some accessibility-focused start-ups understand these necessities, and their strategies are worth a look. Here are four European start-ups doing just that. 

Visualfy

Visualfy leverages AI to improve the lives of people with hearing loss. The Spanish start-up is focused on safety and autonomy -- this includes a sound recognition AI that recognizes fire alarms and the sound of a baby crying at home. "AI is crucial for our business," CEO Manel Alcaide told TechCrunch last month.  The firm offers consumers an app that also serves as a companion to Visualfy Home, its hardware suite consisting of three detectors and a main device. It also entered the public sector with Visualfy Places -- it’s no coincidence the start-up recently raised funding from Spain's national state-owned railway company, Renfe.  One reason Visualfy is gaining traction on the B2B side is that public venues are required to provide accessibility, especially when health and safety are on the line.

In an interview, Alcaide explained that the devices and PA systems Visualfy will install in places like stadiums could also monitor air quality and other metrics. In the EU, meeting these other goals could help companies get subsidies while doing the right thing for deaf people.  The latter is still very much top of mind for Visualfy, which is set up as a B Corp and employs both hearing and non-hearing people. Incorporating deaf individuals at all steps is a moral stance — "nothing for us without us." But it is also common sense for better design, Alcaide said.

Knisper

People with full hearing disability are a smaller segment of a large and growing group. By 2050, 2.5 billion people are projected to have some degree of hearing loss. Due to a mix of reasons, including stigma and cost, many won't wear hearing aids. That's the audience Dutch B2B start-up Audus Technologies is targeting with its product, Knisper.  Knisper uses AI to make speech more intelligible in environments such as cinemas, museums, public transportation and work calls. In practice, this means splitting the audio and mixing it back into a clearer track. It does so without increasing background volume noise (something not every hearing aid company can say), which makes it comfortable for anyone to listen to, even without hearing loss.

A former ENT doctor, Audus founder Marciano Ferrier explained that this wasn't possible to achieve with similar results before AI. Knisper was trained on thousands of videos in multiple languages, with variations such as background noise and distorted speech. This took work, but Audus is now leaving the development stage and focusing on adoption, managing director Joost Taverne told TechCrunch in February. "We are already working with a number of museums, including the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston," said Taverne, a former MP and diplomat who spent time in the U.S. "We also do audiobooks with a Dutch publishing house, where we make the audio book of Anne Frank's diary accessible for people with hearing loss. And we now have the solution for the workspace."

B2B go-to-market is not an easy route, so it makes sense for Audus to focus on clients like museums. They are often noisy, which can make audio guides hard for anyone to hear. Using Knisper's technology to make them more intelligible brings benefits to the general public, not just those with hearing loss, which makes adoption easier.

Whispp

Dutch startup Whispp also focuses on speech, but from a different angle. As TechCrunch reported from CES earlier this year, its technology converts whispered speech into a natural voice in real time. Whispp brings electronic larynx voice boxes into this millennium Whispp's core target audience is "a currently underserved group of worldwide 300 million people with voice disabilities who lost their voice but still have good articulation," its site explains. For instance, individuals with voice disorders that only leave them able to whisper or use their esophageal voice; or who stutter, like CEO Joris Castermans. He knows all too well how his speech is less affected when whispering.

For those with reduced articulation due to ALS, MS, Parkinson's or strokes, there are already solutions like text-to-speech apps -- but these have downsides such as high latency. For people who are still able to articulate, that can be too much of a tradeoff.  Thanks to audio-to-audio AI, Whispp is able to provide them with a voice that can be produced in real time, is language agnostic and sounds real and natural. If users are able to provide a sample, it can even sound like their own voice.

Since there's no text in the middle, Whispp is also more secure than alternatives, Castermans told TechCrunch. This could open up use cases for non-silent patients who need to have confidential conversations, he said. How much users without voice issues would be willing to pay for Whispp's technology is unclear, but it also has several monetization routes to explore with its core audience, such as the subscription it charges for its voice calling app.

Acapela

Acapela Group, which was bought by Swedish tech accessibility company Tobii Dynavox for €9.8 million in 2022, has been in the text-to-speech space for several decades, but it is only recently that AI changed the picture for voice cloning. The results are much better and the process is faster too. This will lower the bar for voice banking, and although not everyone will do it yet, there may be demand for individuals who know they are at risk of losing their voice after getting diagnosed with certain conditions.

Acapela doesn't charge for the initial phase of the service, which consists of recording 50 sentences. It is only when and if they need to install the voices on their devices that users have to buy it, either directly through Acapela or via a third party (partner, reseller, a national health insurance program or other). Besides the new potential unlocked by AI, the above examples show some routes that start-up's are exploring to expand beyond a core target of users with disabilities.  Part of the thinking is that a larger addressable market can increase their prospective revenue and spread out the costs. But for their customers and partners, it is also a way to stay true to the definition of accessibility as "the quality of being able to be entered or used by everyone, including people who have a disability." 

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.

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!

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.

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."

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.

Why barriers exist for a BSL curriculum.

This is before education  departments can find, or train enough teachers to make it happen. (The BSL GCSE is not about this issue, as it is aimed at making  hearing students aware of sign language, who can follow English anyway).  

Addressing the challenge of creating academic classes in sign language that can match the depth and breadth of spoken and written sources, particularly e.g. via specialized fields like science, or advanced theory, and other complex topics, presents a unique set of considerations. While sign languages, such as British Sign Language (BSL), are said to have their own grammar, syntax, and vocabulary, it is still viewed as a 'social tool' more than an academic one. There are many major obstacles to achieving parity in academic content across languages. 

Some factors to consider when seeking to bridge this gap:

(1)  Limited Academic Material in Sign Language: 

Despite the progress made in developing educational resources for sign language learners, there is a lack of specialized academic material in sign languages for advanced subjects. This scarcity can pose challenges for Deaf individuals who wish to pursue higher education or engage with complex academic content in their preferred language.

(2)  Challenges in Translating Specialized Vocabulary: 

Translating technical and specialized vocabulary from spoken or written sources into sign language poses unique challenges, as sign languages lack established signs for certain terms or concepts. The process of expanding the lexicon of sign languages to encompass these complex terms requires time, effort, and collaboration between linguists, educators, and 'Deaf' experts, who don't exist in sufficient qualifications or numbers currently.

(3)  Education and Literacy Levels: 

Another factor to consider is the variation in education and literacy levels among sign language users. While sign languages are primary modes of communication for many deaf individuals, there are disparities in literacy skills, especially in written languages like English. Addressing literacy challenges, promoting bilingual education, and providing additional support for academic literacy in both sign and written languages are crucial for enhancing educational outcomes.  This isn't happening currently, due to many factors.  E.G. training teachers, the availability of sufficient academic reference materials, and disagreements regarding conflict of BSL/English grammar, and issues of bilingual comparisons. 

(4)   Access to Higher Education: 

Providing equal access to higher education for Deaf individuals requires not only the availability of academic content in sign language but also inclusive teaching practices, curriculum design, and support services. Institutions must be proactive in addressing communication barriers, fostering a supportive learning environment, and promoting diversity in academia.

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.

BSL Versus Welsh GCSE?

A recent development in Wales regarding a proposed BSL GCSE program is facing delays due to a lack of teachers trained in BSL and regional sign language variations. The proposal includes two parts: basic sign language instruction and a supplementary class on deaf cultural awareness and history. However, it is unclear how such a curriculum can be implemented in Wales, given the limited recorded history of Welsh deaf culture and the prevalence of English-based sign language. Many deaf individuals in Wales are not familiar with the Welsh language or its finger-spelling alphabet, which poses challenges for aligning the BSL GCSE with Welsh cultural backgrounds. 

The preference for English over Welsh in the BSL program via bilingual approaches, has led to conflict, such as the exclusion of BSL at Welsh cultural festivals like the Eisteddfod. In essence Welsh deaf aren't taught their own native language and have not developed a stand-alone WSL.  One wonders how this sits with protecting the status of Welsh in Wales.  Additionally, concerns have been raised about the educational efficacy of the BSL program, as hearing teachers may need to conduct the classes due to a lack of trained deaf educators. There is uncertainty about whether the BSL GCSE program will come to fruition by 2027, as there are currently no teachers prepared to deliver the required content.

The news Item:   In British Sign Language, signs can vary depending on your location, similar to other languages. Variations in signs for colors, numbers, and phrases like "good morning" exist from place to place. The newly introduced BSL GCSE in Wales is delayed by a year to allow more time for understanding how regional dialects will be incorporated.

Originally planned for September 2026, the GCSE will now commence in 2027. An expert mentioned that the delay is beneficial to ensure the high quality of the qualification. Sarah Lawrence, a BSL teacher and advocate, emphasized the importance of executing the GCSE correctly. She highlighted the scarcity of qualified BSL teachers, noting the challenges related to those with teaching qualifications lacking BSL proficiency and vice versa.

Despite some in the deaf community believing that only deaf individuals should teach BSL, Sarah Lawrence disagrees, raising concerns about the feasibility of having sufficient deaf teachers. The new BSL qualification is part of broader GCSE reforms in Wales, spearheaded by Qualifications Wales. The objective is to have the qualification ready for initial teaching by September 2027, as part of the phased rollout of new Welsh-specific GCSEs.

Given that it is a novel qualification, Qualifications Wales mentioned the challenges of establishing a standardized lexicon for language and dialect differences. Wales lacks a centralized mechanism, unlike other UK nations, for developing and agreeing upon new BSL signs. Ms. Lawrence, who specializes in the Welsh regional dialect, advocates for its incorporation into the qualification, highlighting the historical association between different dialects and the locations of deaf schools, resulting in diverse signs for basic terms like colors, "people," or "cake."

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

Pride Of Britain attacks Makaton.

Pride of Britain organisers are supporting media discrimination, and publicly supporting BSL attacks, on Makaton use, a communication support system used in special education, to support children with sensory need.

To this end BSL supporters online, have attacked Makaton users on social media, parents of children in special need schools,  Teachers Of the Deaf who utilise it, and now with help by Pride of Britain./Daily Mirror, in rejecting MAKATON's existence.  BSL areas claiming Makaton was 'cultural theft and appropriation', i.e. 'stolen' from British Sign Language, (a perceived 'language' of minority deaf areas, which to date is not used as a teaching format for young children because it hasn't been validated in schools).

The whole thing stinks frankly, with jaded pop stars and z-celebs taking part, who participate to promote themselves, using disabled and other children/adults, as a front, the penultimate in patronisation.

As it is BSL 'week' accept no alternatives apparently!  Just another example of 'language sectarianism and apartheid' from a hard-core BSL area, who are already notorious for killing online free speech on their charity, and personal sites.

It is to the Daily Mirror's shame they have gone and supported these petty and negative attacks by BSL promoters on vulnerable deaf children's options, who need every available tool we can muster to enhance their communication, no one-size fits all, certainly not an oppressive and unbending promoted system like BSL.  For shame P O B.

Deaf children come first, not BSL campaigners making  money promoting a system most deaf DON'T use, BSL.