The Third Degree.

Third space theory

E. Soja (1996) proposed a different way of thinking about space and spatiality. First and second spaces are two different, and possibly conflicting, spatial groupings where people interact physically and socially: such as home (everyday knowledge) and school (academic knowledge). 

Third spaces are the in-between, or hybrid, spaces, where the first and second spaces work together to generate a new third space. ‘Soja is anxious to avoid the common dualities of the social and the individual, culture/nature, production/reproduction, the real versus the imagined, (which pervade geographical analysis, arguing “there is always another way”

In short, deaf child campaigners want access to the deaf club, culture, language, community, in addition to Home (Space 1), education (Space 2), however with often no peers or mentors to interact with in mainstream, not really going to happen is it.  Isn't it just making a point mainstream isn't inclusive as activism sees it.  Deaf schools have gone we have to move on, and INCLUDE deaf people (Whether they want it or not!).

Who needs to Campaign, we don't!

The NADP National Association of Deafened People replied to our questions:

ATR:  'Why is there little campaigning being done at all by acquired deaf and others with hearing loss?  BSL campaigns are running at 31 this month already, even about world hearing (?!), whilst hearing loss campaigns are in single  figures over the last 12 months, despite the overwhelming majority of sufferers by over 1,000s to 1?'

NADP:  Hello. There is no specific research, but quite a lot 'discussions' related to low level of acquired deafness and hearing loss  campaigning. Many feel, the low level comes from huge diversity of how we communicate.  Born deaf people have 1 single goal - BSL.

ATR:   And the hearing loss sector has none? Maybe the fact there are paid jobs, courses, and funding involved with BSL that makes this rarely used format BY deaf people so attractive to others?  There is not even a valid qualification to lip-read via classes, so that format has something to aspire to.   Is it true, the RNID felt it was becoming impossible to promote hearing loss because the hearing loss campaign terminology was too positive?  That funders are more willing to offer funds if 'support, and Help' was involved, but not for real empowerment, and more medical intervention to address hearing loss and deafness?  The hearing loss area has  adapted technology instead? That is is diversity? Born deaf can't adapt to technology?  It doesn't answer the query as to where £6B a year is allegedly going our way, nobody but charity ever sees. 

I'd rather hoped the NADP would challenge the shambles and bias, that is UK deaf awareness, which is not about us at all, and with the RNID and BDA being the leaders of disinformation, sadly. E.G. 11m DEAF and hard of hearing, is a total lie is it not, even the Pinocchio's at the BDA do not claim those figures. No distinctions are being made between this 'political wing' of deafness, (the 'Deaf'), and the majority, i.e. US, despite distinct cultural, rights campaigning, and language differences.  Hard of hearing and acquired deaf complain the sole support they are being offered is sign language, a format they don't use, and don't need or want, and this is down to misleading support claims by UK leading charities, influencing health and 999 systems via bias.

The fact such charities are their OWN source of statistics, isn't queried, either by the state, or by rank and file, why?  Can the NADP demand that awareness correctly  identifies people accurately?  As this otherwise suggests we are  getting more support than we actually are, and, the wrong sort, as it is for a different sector entirely.   There is NO established NHS hearing loss area in Wales except for a f ew 100 BSL users, and none for 3/400K (RNID own estimates), of those with hearing loss, not even a deaf school exists there..  On the face of it, we are all labelled BSL users.  The ASLI  also clarified that there is no support for lip-readers in Wales, we can't ALL be using apps.

NADP: Thank you for contacting us....................

BSL Myths.

A recent 'SEE HEAR' news item, stated BSL existed in the 17thc, however AI says not so, signs  existed, but there was no organised language set up, it was completely random.

What they said:

Sign Language first started to develop in the early 18th century when a man named Thomas Braidwood opened the first school for the deaf in Britain in 1760. However, the origins of signing can be traced back even further to the 16th century when deaf people in Britain were known to use various forms of sign language to communicate. 

Did BSL have a recognised language status or dictionary?

British Sign Language (BSL) did not have a recognized language status or dictionary until much later. In 1976, the British Deaf Association published the first BSL dictionary, which helped to standardize and document the language. 

It was not until 2003 that BSL was officially recognized as a language in its own right by the UK government. That was introduced via the UK's membership of the European Union, (Which the UK has left), regarding 'minority languages' but had no legal enforcement, and it was left to individual european governments to legislate.  It is still not recognised as a language for teaching deaf children in the UK.

Clearly the BSL promoters need to publish facts as AI does.  Sign usage and its recognition as a language with a recognised language format didn't exist.

Anything for the Deaf

 

Has the chicken lost its WITS?

ATR covered Welsh WITS issues earlier this month, in order to clarify in depth the issues of BSL Interpretation in Wales, and related issues n England also, sadly Deaf BSL areas chose to ignore it and have instead offered another platform to Cedric Moon in Wales to post the same barely accurate details yet again. It is clear, the blog owners of 'Limping Chicken' deliberately (And after reading the ATR Blog), then refused to allow ATR input to provide Welsh deaf people with a balanced view option..  

ATR, challenged Cedric's version of the issue.  Rows between WITS and freelance BSL terps are common knowledge in Wales.   WITS wants to standardise BSL support (especially in 999 areas), because freelance BSL interpretation was unreliable being primarily part-time in operation, and a significant number of freelance interpreters being unwilling due to various family commitments to be on call 24/7.   This is despite deaf clients being no different to anyone else regarding medical or police/fire help, our needs don't start at 9am of a morning then end at 3pm of an afternoon and support not needed after these hours. 999 is a 24hr system.

It is unfair of Cedric Moon or any other 'Deaf' area to then lay blame on the systems trying to sort out what they obviously cannot, or, for them to kill explanations as to why such issues exist, it is all hype and blame-oriented to promote deaf culture.

Some deaf were actually left without communication support in cells or police/NHS staff, were left having difficulties communicating.  This is the case I understand in England too with terps predominantly pleasing themselves when they are available.  Obviously, ASLI supports freelancers, but has no way to control or organise its own memberships..  There is via post-code issues, issues getting BSL interpretation, it could be rural e.g.  Or just plain and simple lack of interpreters to cover support.  This however is NOT the case in Wales.

Deaf BSL dependents are a 'captive clientele' so the random nature of BSL freelancers, can create havoc. It's about money, availability, family commitments etc.  Some can only work maybe 6-8hrs per week.  Wales, especially S Wales, is over-supported via BSL help. The Senedd moved to support deaf people long before England did, or has yet, in fact 10 YEARS before England got around to it, despite England having the most need, Wales has a very small BSL population, and no deaf schools etc, and a huge percentage of those prefer to use family, not professional BSL help, its free and easily available to deaf, and crucially available 24/7 too.

ATR suggested the BDA recognise that this drives down DEMAND for BSL interpreters, and should recommend the systems refuse to allow unqualified family/friend support.  They refused outright on rights grounds, meaning demand will just get less and less, despite deaf BSL users being at risk in unsupported legal and health systems via decision-making, or getting neutral advice etc.  In courts these deaf are unable to defend themselves, because what BSL terps that do exist, may have no legal training, in reality no Health training either in GP's or Hospitals etc.  It's a dangerous myth BSL terps doing 'he said, you said' etc is enough, and as we know, 'Deaf Awareness' OF systems is poor anyway, it needs sorting, systems suggest WITS are the way to do it.

The issue is about BSL terps in Wales losing work and a decent wage, because WITS wants to normalise that too, erm ... DOWNWARDS. Sign Health is a private endeavour too, vying for work albeit their approach is to centralise BSL access via video relay approaches, which removes the need for an actual person. In reality, the most vulnerable deaf sectors, the elderly in health areas, predominantly use own family.

To be fair WITS is at least trying to get BSL support normalised because it causes issues for the systems and for the deaf themselves, but they should have examined first, HOW BSL interpretation systems work as we do nation-wide, it is disappointing Cedric Moon who is well aware of these issues is not clarifying them.  Sadly there is a 'mind set' of Deaf BSL areas who have own agendas on everything, and don't want facts to interfere with them.  In reality 86% of Welsh deaf issues and campaigns are run from England, as was exposed to the Senedd 4 years ago where ATR identified English BDA areas posting on Welsh sites, but failing to clarify they weren't Welsh or even lived in Wales, they were attempting to suggest issues Wales didn't have..

A lot is passed off via the refusal of charities to accept devolvement retaining a 'national' approach to everything that is creating issues regionally, where decision-making is now taking place. It is also true BSL hardliners are taking advantage of the confusion.  The ASLI cannot control its own membership as regards to bad or poor support, etc, but they cannot afford to upset their membership either, the whole thing is not very sustainable.  Apart from WITS and freelance ASLI terps members, there are a many BSL terps members of neither, and unlisted, with some working for WITS and registered at the ASLI(!),

It is clear free-lance interpretation is not the way ahead for those deaf reliant on BSL, and, is is anyway killing demand for its own services because deaf users go to families who are there 24/7.  The WITS arguments are about a system of BSL fewer deaf are using, interpreter fees, and the need for a reliable 24/7 set up..

Health massage for signers.

At their WITS end?

With respect, the issue is about freelance Welsh BSL interpreters fighting with WITS approaches, in a nutshell, WITS wanting to set a wage standard, and uniformity of availability, freelance doesn't want that.  Systems and deaf users are stuck in the middle of it.  The issue is UK-wide and no organised system of BSL interpreting is effectively run, or governed, because a high proportion of BSL Interpreters are part-timers and turn up dependent on other responsibilities, you may have to shop around!  Obviously 999 support is essential and a must.  WITS is a stab at it. 

Various options do exist in Wales via mobile phone access e.g. except awareness is an issue and some deaf are refusing to register their number on 999 systems because hearing people don't have to.  Obviously deaf relay systems exist, but again some deaf prefer the real thing not a relayed image.  There is a pretty random approach to supporting BSL using and reliant deaf, and a random choice being exhibited BY these deaf.  They do need a norm and a standard, but are reliant on part-time Interpreting, so if they disagree that's it, and there is nowhere much else to go, given a reluctance to opt for relay systems etc.  These deaf are a captive clientele with few if any other options. Curiously, no issues exist as regards to Welsh LA access or, the NHS/GP's either, despite the same questions should have been applied to Health.. It should be noted many deaf, prefer family not Interpreters too, and that right is established also.

Monitoring of Interpreters and setting rules to follow as well as wages etc, has also been met with opposition. ASLI does not have control over terps much, and at loggerheads with the BDA who appear to attack them at every opportunity, apparently wanting to manage BSL Interpreting themselves.  At the root of issues is nobody wants to rock the Interpreter boat given the alternatives.  Cedric is a well respected deaf campaigner, but as always BSL lobby areas tend to omit essential background details readers need, to follow what is being said. You cannot assume everyone will know it.  I think it counter-productive to go at the 999 systems when the real issues are within the support system itself and the choices deaf people are exhibiting themselves.  

Deaf have too much choice, a lot of it not really sustainable, they should be fully entitled to Interpreters, but NOT have family options to use (especially if they have no sign qualifications which would disadvantage the BSL user's ability to follow, take decisions away from the deaf, or damage their well-being, especially if the law is involved), nor use relay systems they may not be trained to use, or are familiar with. SIGN ZONE  e.g.  found many older deaf who primarily use these systems, had never used online for BSL access or knew about it.   A moot point is Interpreters, is that many are unqualified in legal situations such as the law or Health, they have to specialise to follow Jargon etc, but still they are not required to specialise. I'd be asking the question is that Interpreter qualified to translate effectively to that deaf person, if they struggle to follow legal  aspects?  Do not deaf also question the neutrality of police provided support?

CEDRIC MOON:

How the Welsh Government failed the Deaf community.

The WITS system for Sign Language interpreting has some parallels with the Post Office Horizon system issue for the Deaf community in Wales.  The Deaf community relies heavily on qualified British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters to communicate with statutory bureaucracies, especially for NHS-related appointments. Interpreters were commissioned by charities for Deaf people, including the South West Wales Interpretation Agency at Swansea (which was taken over by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID)), the Wales Council for the Deaf, and the British Deaf Association.

The system operated by the charities was easily understood by their Deaf clients. One would contact the charity for an interpreter to attend an NHS appointment. The charity would discuss this with the health board concerned, agree payment, and inform the client that a named BSL interpreter would be present for the appointment. Although the system was not foolproof, it was Deaf-friendly, fairly bureaucracy-free, and easily understood by Deaf users. But then everything changed.

Welsh Interpreter and Translation Service

In 2009 a bureaucratic triarchy comprising Gwent Police, Cardiff Council, and the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board instigated an initiative to provide an interpreter service for foreign-born nationals who needed access to statutory services like the NHS and the courts. This well-intentioned initiative was designed to save public money and reduce bureaucracy.

It was titled the Welsh Interpreter and Translation Service (WITS) and was based in a Gwent Police station, managed by senior police officers. Until 2014 it was managed by a chief inspector of police and then, until 2016, by a police superintendent. Obviously, a low crime rate in Gwent meant that its police force had the spare time to effectively run a business.

However, those involved with WITS decided to include BSL interpreting for Deaf people within its provision. There was no consultation with the Deaf community about this seizure of Sign Language services. Gwent Police and WITS unilaterally and undemocratically took control.....

Lies damned lies and Pipe dreams.

How the  sign user interprets own surveys.  I can but refer you to your own survey results.   As a 'social' tool sign has obvious uses and of course the choice is the users. where it fails to register is as an educational tool to access mainstream and advance deaf options. 'BSL' has next to no signs for terms compared with English, so that renders the grammar hit and miss too.  500,000 words  in the English dictionary, 2,500 in the BSL one.   A  1,000 added since 1970.    I can point you to more able deaf who have professional jobs, who have no signs for the work they do, and trying to invent their own, again based on English.  The BSL ABC by default is using English letters/words and terms.  Sign is the visual interpretation of it.

Based on colloquialisms, and formats people use together 'BSL' can become a language, it can be an advanced form or a very basic one, the only rule is a grouping uses it. If you have few signs, you have no real grammar and an impoverished language.  There is next to no signed academic resources, so it cannot be used to teach deaf on its own, so it is used to access a real language. BSL is more a 'pigeon' form of the host language, S.E. and SSE more appropriate as it is more a match, also no issue to deaf as it is a visual medium too. Given  only  point 2% of deaf have ANY historical, or genetic deaf background, you cannot apply this maxim to everyone or, 'infer' it.  It is dishonest.

I  concede it is a novelty but we are in different times to the 1950s and 1960s of the last millennium, huge advances in assisting the deaf to hear etc, fewer deaf schools and clubs, and as your survey identified fewer deaf too.  if we refer back to the 'British Association for the Deaf & Dumb' videos of the times, (The old BDA title), of the pre 1950s, then finger-spelling was the primary signing used, not 'conceptual signing' they claim  it is now, that suggests deaf are so aware, they  can fill in details of things they aren't aware of. 'Edited highlights' cover a multitude of awareness sins.

I am grateful you have admitted as I have stated for many years, the utter lies and distortions emanating from the BDA/RNID regarding who is deaf how many etc. I was somewhat puzzled you used 1970 statistics to bolster your 2024 survey point, and even European Statistics, it looked a little like desperation frankly.    I have used AI as well as own research, and little of it backs the BSL/Deaf or cultural argument. NOBODY has any idea who is what, or how they communicate, 32 times the responses I got were that the Data Protection Act will block any attempt to do that. UK charities refused to even validate or respond, claiming exemption, from what? admitting the truth?

I've spoken to my minister and told him this allows vested interests like charities/BSL classes and course operators to declare whatever statistic they want, because they KNOW you cannot check on them for that reason, you can get responses like 'YOU prove differently..' if you challenge..  This kills any sort of logical debate on the issue. The idea of a survey is to determine need basically, you don't use your survey for that, we can refer to official systems like the NHS/LA or even the DWP who clarify and support this need, some sort of bottom line has to be established, we can't all be whatever we think we are, it would be support/provision chaos.  Assessment is the way its done, we don't always know what is best for us, or, what best suits our abilities, regardless of current ridiculous claims. No magic communication bullets exist.  Other hearing loss areas believe alleviations are the way forward, e.g. Hearing aids, CI's, genetic intervention, even apps on your phone etc.

Obviously the db thing is already dumped as any guide to being deaf, because many who allude to being culturally so, aren't in clinical/profound terms.  Their figures suggest barely enough needy deaf to fill a classroom. What is 'deaf? or even Deaf?' apparently whatever you think it is, is really no basis to assessing how it is to be addressed, or managed.  Actually the DWP is the ONLY area that officially defines deaf need, or indeed how much of an issue it is. Whether we agree or not on their assumptions is for another time, as people will read into things what they want.  The census as you saw, (and quoted), reduced the 150K UK/BSL using deaf to 1/10th of that by own deaf admission, the BDA mounted a very hostile and personal  attack, when I quoted the same figures, even operated a total online ban, and I am still reading these outrageous claims are not only 'fact' but getting worse, but no validations again.  Think of  a number,  double it, who can deny it?   The D/d thing hearing haven't a clue about, so use  150K or even 10m, politicians swallow it because they have to, forgetting the sole source of the Stats are the same people lobbying them, the bigger the number etc.....   

At the root of it, is misinformation to promote BSL this way, and, to mostly to hearing people, again nobody has any idea if the Deaf themselves are fluent signers, you cannot ask or test them.  As an ex deaf club  treasurer I can tell you the level of sign capability was barely Lev 3 amidst the best of them.  The best sign users are obviously hearing people who HAVE to attain high levels to 5/6 etc.  Terps in  turn complain they spend many £1,000s to qualify, and subject to adjudgment based on regional sign use which they aren't taught, and deaf  resist a norm of the signing, regional sign versus the pressures to normalise BSL as a language.

Do I sign, yes, am I deaf? yes again, have I been involved in the community, erm obviously as a treasurer in a deaf club, they asked me, presumably because I had alternatives to BSL to communicate, it was a hindrance to them as they only used interpreters and terps, who only work the systems, not the social areas with hearing which would help deaf to manage the mainstream.  The state support for BSL goes no further than their own system access, there is no desire to support BSL to integrate on any social level, indeed it is stated Deaf signers would not go that route, the drive is to establish some sort or 'parallel' way of life.

The suggestion mainstream is going to adapt to them is never going to happen, deaf are stuck with terps until they expand their options, I acknowledge not every deaf person can do that, but most can.  It is not an 'attack' on BSL it is a statement of the reality.  The current approaches are designed to prevent the deaf integrating or being accepted as some sort of cultural protectionism, really?    It can only function in isolation and if deaf never attempt to be outgoing.  Language pursuit should be based on its access advantages, the sole advantage is to the deaf themselves, which is fine assuming they never work with or integrate with anyone hearing.  

Hence why we see clusters of these people in towns and cities, because that is the only way it can work, just be thankful you are NOT a sign user who doesn't have any access to this 'deaf world'.  Which is actually 56% of the whole. I.E. deaf sign users, this doesn't include deaf who don't rely on sign language, who outnumber signing deaf by many 100s to one, perhaps you could research how THEY succeed without sign or a culture? as indeed they had to by way of adapting to no signed access, or, they chose not to sign anyway to retain some form of independence.  It is why  Hard of Hearing resist sign use.  

One statistic you could look at is  that primarily text is the main form of communications deaf are using on phones/TV etc, NOT BSL, obviously, English and its grammar is not the issue you are making it out to be. You actually discounted any link that BSL and Inclusion are relative.   Of course it isn't if the deaf world is the only one you are part of.   There is such hostility from hard-core BSL users, completely unnecessary as the majority of deaf are the people who can show them a way of moving forward, because they HAD to.  I don't think deaf people want family or interpreter reliance all their lives, and personally I challenge the statement most do anyway, one stat from ASLI suggested 78% of all deaf didn't use them but family, family with no qualifications in BSL.

Campaigns to encourage deaf to utilise terps because of their neutrality, (especially in medical areas, because deaf were complaining hearing relatives were making decisions for them e.g.) were opposed by the BDA. I personally campaigned for a ban on family interpreting in the NHS and 999 for that reason.  I was attacked for denying deaf rights.  I think any 'awareness' you should start with your own area first....  The duality of BSL/Cultural campaigning makes your arguments weak and unsustainable, your responses aggressive and attacking.  I don't have to prove anything to you, what authority grants you this right? The law says you cannot ask if I am deaf, if I sign or if I am a member of this excusive BSL set up. I feel I have proved BSL isn't helpful to the deaf as it is currently mooted, but more a jobs for the boys gig for those that profit from them, of course they are determined the golden goose keeps laying for them, £6B a year isn't to be sniffed at......

You don't even have to lip-read

 

And Today's survey is?

Answer the BSL questions and win £100, easy isn't it!  Once again the RNID has loaded survey questions to trawl the BSL community for complaints so they can launch another campaign.  5 major questions were almost entirely about the BSL user, not other deaf or hard of hearing. It is hugely disappointing that the RNID again has used BSL as leading part of hearing loss awareness, and again, blurring the differences between deaf and others with hearing loss with this minority BSL community, which is a major contention of disputes regarding what awareness is about or even for.  

As regards to BSL questions, the RNID appears to display poor awareness of how this 'community' actually functions, campaigns or operates.  Most don't integrate or include themselves with mainstream things or people, and wouldn't if they could, they will obviously insist this is because society is ignorant of their needs, makes no  effort with them and cannot sign.  Does the RNID really need a survey that will state the obvious?   Why has the focus of the RNID gone back to sign users only again?  This is the BDA's issue, and they, DON'T include other deaf or hard of hearing, why do their work for them?

Despite no RNID/BSL members of note and a never-ending historical gripe from BSL using deaf the RNID dumped the only sign using CEO the charity ever had, because he had no idea what inclusion meant and treated the RNID charity as his own private deaf club to the detriment it was alleged, of the majority of the RNID Hard of Hearing membership.

What the survey didn't ask, were the real questions as to why insufficient efforts are being made to compromise with mainstream regarding a willingness to really engage.  All we read are demands for mainstream to change to suit them, and relentless 'blame' aimed at them. The every first thing anyone with hearing loss would do is to tell people what works for them, a high percentage of mainstream people WILL attempt to include, but, a high proportion of those with deafness and loss won't SAY what works for them, or, opt for a system that doesn't really work effectively for them to offset how serious their communication issues really are. 

Insert the question do you REALLY know what format works for you? or maybe 'When  using the NHS have YOU been offered signed support you never use?' or even 'Has the NHS every offered you communication alternatives e.g. text, etc?'  Ask the right questions RNID.

Latest deaf survey rubbishes the BDA and RNID claims..

The latest 'survey' carried out in Bristol on the state of the 'Deaf' situation in the UK

Note: The survey contains many random capitalisations of the term deaf regardless if applicable or even accurate.  Other areas of coverage we didn't feel relevant for inclusion because the stats are even wider guesswork, educated? YOU adjudge.

Survey Highlights... LINK

So how many Deaf people are there? Although there are few direct studies of incidence coupled to social studies, which would determine the size of the Deaf population, good estimates can be made on the basis of published work. At its simplest level, we can predict that between one in 2,000 people will have a severe-to-profound hearing loss. A crude projection would give the UK a Deaf population of *25,000 - 30,000 people - a more detailed analysis is given below. The age characteristics of this population should broadly match those of the hearing population - i.e. it is a population whose average age is becoming older.

*These figures suggest the BDA,  RNID, and NDCS claims are gross over-exaggerations.

There are several ways in which we can achieve an estimate of the number of *Deaf people in the UK. The first is by using the predicted incidence of deafness at birth and attaching this to all the population statistics for births throughout the years which would apply to the community. This is problematic as it gives only a medical-audiological estimate of hearing loss and does not imply directly, participation in the community by those with a specified hearing loss. That is, measured hearing loss does not equate directly with community membership.

*Deliberate capitalisation to suggest all deaf people they are sign using,  The 'D' refers solely to sign using cultural deaf by own claims.  Here, the survey applied it across the entire hearing loss spectrum.

The second is to use educational statistics. This is justifiable since *the majority of Deaf Community members will have gone through a school for the deaf. In both cases there are limitations on the extent of the data available and in the accuracy of the information. We have examined statistics more widely but these do not provide a sufficient base for a good estimate. A more effective estimate based on the population change and the year of birth is provided below.

*Not true of Wales, it has no deaf schools.

As a first step official statistics of the EU were consulted. These tend to produce estimates which are way above what we commonly believe to be true: 33% of the adult working population have an impairment and 19% have a disability. Eleven per cent are expected to have a disability related to language, speech, vision or hearing. This reduces finally to a *prediction of hearing problems for 2.65 million people in the UK. This will include those who acquire a hearing loss. Throughout these sets of official statistics the numbers seem to be inflated and unreliable. Source: Eurostat, p137.

*Here, the UK deaf survey ran out of stats and starts using EU ones, then extrapolating them back to the UK, and we aren't even IN Europe.

The Department of Health and Social Security published *the numbers of people registered handicapped in Britain in 1970. Deaf people are covered in this survey.

*Ooops nobody uses the handicap terminology any more, and these quoted stats are over 50 yrs out of date.

Handicap Register (1970). Deaf (Including hard of hearing)

The MRC Institute of Hearing Research based at Nottingham University reports that the incidence of congenital deafness is 1.1 per 1000 live births for hearing losses of >40dB and 1.1 per 4000 for profoundly Deaf (>95dB). This *implies that 880 children will be born in England, Scotland and Wales each year with a moderate hearing impairment (40dB or greater), of whom 220 (25%) will have a profound impairment (>95dB). In addition there is acquired deafness. By the age of 5 years a further 100 children in each birth cohort year will acquire an impairment, about 60 to 80 of whom will have a profound loss. So the total number of children in each year goes up to 980 with about 280-300 of them having a profound loss. This gives a figure on the high side for the Deaf Community - 70,000 mild to profound losses in the UK and 19,000 profoundly deaf.

*Now we resort to guesswork again, and inferring Hard of hearing are the 'Deaf' too.

Incidence Figures

Scottish Office Statistics show the population of Scotland in 1994 as 5.1 million (UK 58.2 m). Of these 2.5 million are males. The relative age distribution is shown in Table 2.5. An estimate provided by the Institute of Hearing Research in Glasgow indicates that 1.1 per thousand live births will have a hearing loss of 40dB and that of these, one quarter will have losses of over 95dB. *We can insert these predictions into the population statistics.

*We can suggest they are BSL using too, (despite the opening statement we just do not know, people would have stopped reading by now).

This gives an overall figure of 1,402 profoundly Deaf people and 5,608 people with a mild to profound hearing loss. *These figures can be multiplied by 11.2 to give the estimate for the UK of 15,702 for profoundly deaf people an 62,809 with a mild to profound hearing loss.

*Ok we rubbished all the RNID/BDA and Scottish stats and claims but....

The figures also imply very small populations in the outlying areas.(So numbers are smaller in rural areas. now they insult our intelligence.)

In these figures, the estimate of the changes in the Deaf population is linked to the general population trends, showing that there has been a *slow increase in the size of the Deaf population. These figures are based on the same proportionate estimates of the general population. A better estimate can be obtained when we can examine the Deaf school figures in terms of the age of the children. Here we can see that there is a general decline in the Deaf school population over the period from 1930. There are several gaps - the war years and also since 1982, when the DfEE stopped collecting statistics by type of problem. As a result we have no up-to-date figures for Deaf children in school. Part of the decline is due to the change in policy, so that more Deaf children are integrated and partly there is better provision of hearing aids and so the partially-hearing children tend not to appear in the statistics any longer. It seems likely that the Deaf Community has become more Deaf over the years although it would be very hard to obtain reliable measures of this.

*Oops better back-pedal too many own goals. Mainstreaming is too successful.

We are therefore left with a figure between the populations shown in Figure 4.1 (to be handed out in lecture). This has projections across the points where we have no data and it has components estimated by taking Scotland as a proportion of the UK.

*Back to the drawing board Scotties.

The figures  are for people between the ages of 16 years and 76 years. If we extend this proportionally downwards to include children from birth, the total figure we obtain for the UK is 26,096 former Deaf school pupils and 47,028 Deaf and partially Deaf. We can also see that this population is declining. That is although the percentage of people with a hearing loss remains much the same, there is a reduction in the number of Deaf school students and probably as a result, a reduction in the size of the Deaf Community. It is our expectation that this is not solving the problem of Deafness but that it is *creating a sub-group of Deaf people who do not have the benefits of Deaf Community resources. We would expect this problem to be seen later in life in higher levels of mental ill-health.

*Lack of BSL leads to poor mental health? Where is that proof?

Is Makaton 'Cultural Appropriation of BSL'?

According to BSL4All, yes it is...   

@NovicSara

·

21h

Replying to

@ebaggaley

and

@BSL4all

"Just so others understand, Makaton folks stole BSL signs and stripped away some of the more complex grammatical features of the language, then copywrote that. This would be like if someone took a bunch of common English nouns and said, "I invented a new language! Copyright!"  

Such arrogance! signed languages are 'owned' by a select area of deaf people, there is NO legal right/copyright to ownership or usage of sign language, and endless debates does BSL have own grammar? too. Do hearing learners 'appropriate' deaf culture and language too? get a grip!  Already BSL purists are pulling their hair out and attacking a communication format designed to help and enable deaf , autistic, and disabled children, to what end? If BSL is said to be essential for deaf children does that make any other aid to communication illegal to use? A downright lie only hearing children use Makaton is expressed too.

More evidence of creeping sectarianism in areas of the 'Deaf' community, obviously being paranoid isn't enough of an issue to them.   Same old, those who profit via BSL tuition and support don't tolerate 'competition', is nobody caring about the basic issues Makaton,  lip-reading, literacy and hearing aids etc are all designed to HELP children, time enough when they are adults to enter the vacuum that the 'Deaf Community' is becoming then.  Appalling, that established child support charities are supporting this distortion of sign language view too.

When a culture becomes a cult isn't it.  Sara love, please get out more..... Kids come first not you.

'Unstable' Deaf woman must have communication help.

 Deaf mum in family court fight with Northamptonshire council must be given help

Is a BSL interpreter an 'intermediary'?  A deaf woman must have specialist communication help at a trial, says a judge A deaf woman embroiled in a family court fight with social services over the care of her two-year-old daughter must have help from a communication specialist at a trial, a judge has ruled.

West Northamptonshire Council has applied for a care order. Social services staff have raised concerns about the woman's ability to look after the child. Mrs Justice Lieven has decided that the woman will need a "deaf intermediary". The judge has outlined her decision and detail of the case in a written ruling published online, following a preliminary private hearing in London.

She said the child could not be identified in media reports of proceedings. Mrs Justice Lieven, a High Court judge who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, heard evidence about the woman's communication difficulties from a specialist. "I accept that the appointment of a deaf intermediary... in this case is necessary," said the judge, in her preliminary ruling.

"The mother's communication issues here are profound." Lawyers representing the council told the judge that staff were concerned the child could be "at risk of significant harm". Social workers said their main argument related to the woman's "potential" to "gravitate towards risky relationships". They were concerned that her mental health was "unstable" and worried about her "inability" to recognise "dangerous and risky situations".

BSL GCSE (Cymru) What survey?

 Years ago a BSL GCSE mooted in Wales, it never got off the ground, why?

The BSL survey nobody knew about until it was closed.

GCSE British Sign Language

The work on British Sign Language has taken a different timeline to other subjects as there is no history of teaching BSL as a subject and there is no current GCSE to review and reform. In order to better understand the context in which we’re working, we have undertaken considerable engagement and conducted detailed scoping work.

NOT aimed AT deaf people or BSL users?

As reported in our decisions report published in October 2021, there was strong support for developing a made-for-Wales qualification. It is worth noting that from those responses we were unable to determine whether respondents were in favour of developing a qualification for first language users or for learners, or both.

As a result of the research undertaken and conversations with stakeholders, we propose to develop a made-for-Wales GCSE aimed at learners who are learning BSL for the first time. We are proposing this because:

It will help raise the profile of BSL in Wales and enable a more inclusive society.

It will give more young people the opportunity to learn BSL. BSL has been visible on prime-time television programmes which has raised its profile generally and the visibility of positive role models potentially could lead to more people wishing to learn BSL.

It will give schools time to build capacity to deliver BSL at the higher levels of the progression steps.

It will help build a critical mass of BSL users and those who can understand BSL in the workforce of the future.

It will ensure viable numbers for awarding bodies in the medium term although initial numbers completing the GCSE may be modest.

We acknowledge that this may not be a suitable GCSE for fluent and confident users of BSL and are aware that the decision may need to be revisited in the future to offer options for learners developing their communication skills to higher levels.

We will consult on the design proposal for a new GCSE BSL following collaboration with subject experts, practitioners and other stakeholders.

Are BSL Teachers actually qualified?

A follow on to the British Deaf Association publishing a BSL teacher directory, suggesting no shortage of teachers to develop a BSL GCSE. Factually, teaching BSL in informal settings a few hours a week  doesn't actually qualify them to teach in schools via the curriculum without additional qualifications, the only 'exemption' is if the pupils are deaf etc, even then conformity to the curriculum is essential, they cannot ignore English or its grammar e.g. and NOT if the students are hearing.

The official declaration:

To teach in a mainstream school, BSL teachers generally need to meet the same qualifications and requirements as other subject teachers. This may include having a teaching degree or certification, as well as any additional qualifications specific to teaching BSL or working with students who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Additionally, BSL teachers may need to adapt their teaching methods and materials to effectively teach hearing students. They may focus on teaching BSL as a foreign language, enabling hearing students to develop communication skills and cultural understanding of the deaf community. The curriculum may include sign language vocabulary and grammar, deaf culture, and communication strategies.

Alternatives to BSL.

 

Sign Supported English (SSE)

SSE is a way of speaking and signing at the same time, using BSL signs for key words while speaking English. When signing SSE, you don't need to sign every word. SSE can be useful to support lip-reading for deaf people whose first language is English, or to teach English to people whose first language is BSL. It can also be useful when communicating informally with a group of people who use both BSL and English. However, many BSL users find SSE hard to follow. 

Signed English (SE)

Signed English is an exact representation of English where a sign is used alongside every spoken word, including fingerspelling words which don't have an equivalent in BSL, such as 'to' or 'the'. SE is sometimes used in education to develop written and spoken English skills and English grammar. 

Makaton

Makaton is a communication programme which uses signs, symbols and speech to support communication. 

In Makaton, parents and professionals speak and sign or point to symbols at the same time. The signs and symbols provide visual support for the key words being said. The signs and symbols are used until the child has learned to speak and understand English.

Makaton symbols have been designed to support the written word in the same way that the signs support speech. Makaton aims to support the development of spoken and written language and literacy.