How many countries offer free Hearing aids.

Examples of countries that offer free or low-cost hearing aids:

United States:

The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) provides funding for research and development of hearing aids, but it does not offer free hearing aids directly.  Some non-profit organizations, like the Starkey Hearing Foundation, offer free or low-cost hearing aids to individuals who cannot afford them.

Canada:

The Canadian Hearing Society offers free hearing aids to eligible individuals through its "Hearing Aid Program" in certain provinces.  Some provincial governments, like Ontario, offer subsidized hearing aids to eligible individuals through the "Assistive Devices Program".

Australia:

The Australian government's "Assistance for Eldest Residents (AER)" program provides financial assistance for hearing aids, including some free or low-cost options.  Non-profit organizations, like the Australian Hearing Society, also offer free or low-cost hearing aids to eligible individuals.

United Kingdom:

The National Health Service (NHS) provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.  Some charities, like the British Academy of Audiology, offer free or low-cost hearing aids to individuals who cannot afford them.

Sweden:

The Swedish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.

Finland:

The Finnish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.

Denmark:

The Danish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.

New Zealand:

The New Zealand government's "Subsidies for Hearing Aids" program provides financial assistance for hearing aids, including some free or low-cost options.

Ireland:

The Irish government's "Hearing Aid Program" provides free hearing aids to eligible individuals who have a diagnosed hearing loss.  These programs may have specific eligibility criteria, such as age, income level, or disability status. Additionally, some countries may have other programs or initiatives that offer free or low-cost hearing aids.

Inclusion For the elite few?

 

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.

Get a CI, you know it makes sense.

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

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

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

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

AVT funding for deaf children refused in Wales

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

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

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

AVT (Audio Verbal Therapy).

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.

LEST WE FORGET?

Alzheimer's researchers are working to understand the links between dementia and hearing loss in a project run by the University of Manchester and supported by Alzheimer's Research UK and the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. It has been estimated that if mid-life hearing loss can be eliminated then it would lead to a 9% reduction in dementia cases.  Alzheimer's Research UK said: "The team will determine if dementia is directly caused by hearing loss, if dementia is an indirect consequence of social isolation caused by hearing problems, or if there are other biological factors that increase the risk of both hearing loss and dementia.

"This information about the mechanisms behind the link between hearing loss and dementia will help us to understand what the most effective strategies are for reducing dementia risk. It will also assess the potential benefits of hearing aids in reducing the risk of developing dementia, using the same datasets Hearing loss affects over two thirds of people over the age of 65 and the fact that hearing loss is so common means that it could have a large impact on the overall number of people developing dementia, according to Alzheimer's Research UK.

This global project, headed by Dr Piers Dawes at the University of Manchester, will use information from thousands of volunteers from the US, UK and a number of European countries. Each volunteer has provided data for up to 17 years. These data sets are packed with details about participants' hearing, their use of hearing aids, scores from memory and thinking tests, brain scan images, levels of physical and mental activity, and health information. This valuable resource allows the team to explore the connection between hearing loss and the risk of dementia.

The aim is to develop a much deeper understanding of how hearing loss and dementia are linked. Dr Dawes' team want to determine if dementia is directly caused by hearing loss, if dementia is an indirect consequence of social isolation caused by hearing problems, or if there are other biological factors that increase the risk of both hearing loss and dementia.

ATR COMMENT:

Why isn't the research covering the born deaf? The last attempt in 2022, seems a bit random of that area, a video and some photos, and an inability to utilise carers experiences of BSL Alzheimer patients for real-time data.  Researching only 17 years appears to ignore how Alzheimer's affects those born with little hearing.  Are they already suggesting acquired loss is the trigger and not the genetic or inherent loss?  Poor hearing aid responses? Most of those ATR knows suffering Alzheimer were from the deaf school areas and born with little hearting at all, wore no viable hearing aids as such..

Another issue is how testing for potential Alzheimer's is done, currently, it is based on a hearing experience.  An experience that cannot be applied to those without it.  I just wonder how many HEARING can recite the 93 times table?  Or Name the minister for education in the UK? Awareness is a huge issue too, given the deaf and their awareness relates only to the deaf experiences, not the hearing ones. if they consult dedicated charity data sets, they won't get unbiased information that way.  Academic attainment can vary hugely between those who are born deaf, and those who acquire it, which is also relative as to WHEN hearing loss starts to manifest itself.

To be accurate, researchers need the 'before and after' data, is 17 years relative to that?  When researchers are only asking NOW?  Data needs to cover social and societal backgrounds too, and today bears little relation to 17 years ago either.  Also huge advances in hearing aid, and cochlear implants has improved hugely in that time too. Research must be mindful it doesn't 'arm' areas of the 'Deaf' community activisms, with an excuse to express even more 'concern' about deafness itself being addressed properly, given activism has attacked Hearing aid, cochlear implantations, and the use of speech, among other means medical and educational areas have supported or   gone with, even genetic manipulation.

Ditching the politics of deafness and language is obviously why, the research is NOT researching in more depth the born deaf cultural membership? To show balance it must surely?  Or it plays into the Deaf versus deaf thing.

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..

Deaf Teacher shortages in Wales

Liam O Dell A self-proclaimed and free-lance, 'expert' on deaf issues writing about ToD shortages in Wales, (But cut and pasting data and using English statistics?) shows how poor his awareness of his chosen subject he is. He could have pointed out only a few deaf children in Wales are assessed as needing specialist support, not enough to open a class or even a deaf school for them.

Wales has no deaf schools or BSL Act either. On the whole, mainstreaming is working in Wales, The issue is not so much ToD shortages, which were inevitable, given the total closure of deaf schools in Wales and ToD simply failed to find work, as deaf children were scattered to mainstream environments, ToD retired, or gravitated to areas were deaf schools still existed. The training of ToD hasn't included how best specialist teachers can adapt their job, to manage in mainstream settings. Many of them worked in specialists school areas, where the class make up and modus of tuition was quite different,.

Deaf schools in Wales (And we suspect elsewhere in the UK), failed to equip deaf children to manage mainstream, and abuse was par for the course, parents wanted that to end, wanted their deaf child to be included and accepted etc, attend same schools as siblings, not lodge in some large house in a field, miles away from family and everyone else. From supported education to supported adulthood, there was no real drive or acceptance deaf could do much else. The last 20 years endless discourse about HOW deaf should be taught (Sign? Oral? using technologies, CI's, hearing aids etc), but getting opposition from aggressive BDA and other areas demanding a cultural/BSL curriculum and attacking ToD themselves for not supporting it, and ignoring parental preference as well.

In retrospect the switch to mainstreaming in Wales, did not ensure sufficient back up was in place when it it was decided upon, and as stated, fully ensured when the switch occurred, the teaching staff had the tools to do the job. This left deaf activism with a cause celeb to create uncertainty, and increase demands for a 'back to the future' approach based on deaf schools and sign language. It was inevitable a minor percentage of deaf children were not able to reach potential due to the random support offered or available.

The government works on percentages, the majority are doing OK, which of course is little comfort for parents who feel their child is losing out. However we should not fall into the trap of suggesting this minority is an actual MAJORITY, headlines, aren't proof. From what we read (In Wales), it is deaf children in single figures whom parents feel are losing out via a ToD shortage. Apart from wage issues and training changes not being made, ToD need regular WORK, and it may simply not be viable for them to stay in one school for one child and still make a living. Local and cash-strapped Authorities reluctant, or unable to find the money to pay the wages ToD need, or even find them. It is an expensive training to be a Teacher to the deaf, potential recruits are not being seen. Perhaps a re-assessment of need is one way forward? Less than 8 deaf children in Wales, were assessed as being unable to be educated in mainstream.

BSL usage is falling, despite claims to the contrary. The NDCS fails to identify devolvement of care and support too, as Wales, N Ireland, and Scotland, have different approaches and needs to England, and, far less ability to hire or train professional support either, also regions make OWN decisions, just as England does for its deaf. The NDCS has NOT been made aware of devolved governments, and devolved decision-making either.

The NDCS like all major 'UK' charities refused to devolve themselves, or offer devolved areas their own charitable autonomy, still campaigning on a national basis that is no longer 'national'. NO decision England makes, can force any other region to comply. It is like insisting the circumstances in the Lake District are the same as inner London. The way we read it, the parents are struggling. At the end of a very long day parents decide where their children are educated or the systems do. Obviously availability of support and the cost are the main drivers. On the whole Wales has the best system of deaf support in the entire UK, including BSL support.

USA Deaf comedian a success

 The key apparently is not to use sign language at your hearing audience.... Deaf success in the UK is also based on this premise..  They only sign AFTER they become a success.

The Deaf Comedian.

For ATR's money the best is still Brad.....

SS 'Hearing Loss'

 "10,000 Welsh patients waiting for hearing aids"

It's essential hearing aids are issued quickly.  Going deaf costs the UK in excess of £6 Billon a year and that is just deaf support, that doesn't take into account 10m have hearing loss, or, helping 3 million with severe loss, who are refusing to wear one, because they experience ridicule from peers.  

Most of those with hearing loss suffer traumas, and many difficulties getting a job, or holding one down,  managing a social life, even accessing the 999 services, is a lottery for all except a few deaf who use sign language, estimated at 6-700, which pale into insignificance given Wales has near 3/400,000 with  hearing loss issues, who are the majority area of hearing loss NOT being supported in Wales at all, as hearing loss, is a 'loss loser' to charities who raise funds to support them, indeed many in Wales have pulled out of doing it concentrating on sign users instead.  

It is overkill, given Wales hasn't a deaf school, and very few who need specialist schooling either. It is a total and false economy to ignore hearing loss, be it in Adults, or children, as if it cannot be managed or addressed then the NHS/999 and the Senedd will have to foot the bills for their care and support as the hearing gets worse. Which they aren't even doing for the minority who have been deemed eligible for an Hearing aid.  There is an increasing pandemic of hearing loss, being hidden or obscured by technology, to make up for no hearing aid, which increase their isolation, and inability to hold down any conversation for more than a few minutes.  Those who struggle to hear properly are 10% of the Welsh population and the numbers are rising, we live in a world of noise.

The Welsh government throws much support being sign-using deaf, who now have the best deaf support in the UK, but it has been at the expense of 300,000 others, in Wales, and millions of others UK-wide, displaying, that appalling indifference, bias, and profile hunting is behind that area of Senedd support, as they ignore the majority in actual need.  Easier to address one small area of hearing loss, and hoping nobody realises there are many many more. So they blow own trumpet to deaf ears. It is no secret mainstream are fed up of charities asking them for money, and in these difficult times who has money to spare anyway.

They, and the governments need to understand ignoring it is going to cost them a lot more than a few coins in a tin, or an ad to crowd fund half a dozen people.  It is going to cost the economy and the NHS more £billions.  Basic digital hearing aids are not expensive, they can be bought for as little as £30/40, the government could afford that, given it is £100s of £1,000s a year, they are going to have to find when unaddressed loss leads to deafness.

X Marks the spot.

Oops Mr Musk.   The Tesla CEO, 52, has come under fire for a recent post where he posed a question to his 171million followers. He had started a debate about Disney online and a user replied to him with a leaked video of Karey Burke, the president of Disney's General Entertainment Content, from a company-wide meeting. 

The footage featured both subtitles and a male sign language interpreter, which seems to have really puzzled Musk. The business mogul wrote in a tweet on Tuesday: "What’s the point of sign language in a video if you have subtitles? Am I missing something?"  Indeed not much point at all if they can read.  But don't ask questions they can't answer or won't, ASL is a multi-billion dollar industry.  Don't give 'em another cause to moan about.

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.....

I'm in survey overload....

Another 'Survey' aimed at hearing parents of deaf children regarding how they 'choose' to have their child educated. We could save the Uni a lot of pointless effort, as even the NDCS has never gained a significant response to such a survey (Or indeed published any stats if they had).  The issue for areas like the NDCS is to support deaf children and their parents, they don't have a definitive policy for communication/language inclusions in deaf educational areas. Choosing such is outside their domain too.

The promoters of this survey are obviously wanting to know why parents are NOT opting for a BSL tuition.  We can only put this naivete into prospective by saying they haven't done research on how deaf educational approaches currently function.

Apart from a diminishing deaf school system and fewer deaf to fill them, there is a gross shortage of Teachers to the Deaf. Also as per the BSL GCSE teachers of BSL are NOT  qualified to teach the school curriculum, it is a separate qualification.   This would pose significant issues to those who insist such teachers should be deaf as well.   So it's 'Academic' (Sorry!), to question why parents choice A or B options.  In reality choice isn't a real option, A system whereby deaf children can be taught in BSL only doesn't exist, this issue was covered via the BSL GCSE thing, where all BSL areas involved know the tuition isn't there or the training of that tuition exists to make it viable. Least of all to include aspects of deaf 'culture' which hasn't an academic refence system to use, or teachers specifically trained to teach it.. 

ATR and others, have pointed this out day one, and only this week did the BDA (Who drive all this BSL output), admitted we were right, on their BSL SEE HEAR TV show, i.e. after 10 YEARS or bans, blocks and personal attacks.  For 10yrs they talked about it but never did their homework, or discussed practicalities of making it happen.  It's important to understand it is 90% emotive and 10% chat and not research, because the research didn't back what they proposed. ATR covered 5 research surveys the last 4 weeks, what you will find is 5% engagement at best, because nobody knows where the hearing parents are, not even the NDCS, or, how a BSL approach could work, it hasn't been tried, and parents are reluctant to have their children used as 'guinea pigs' for the advantage of BSL promotion. Online surveys are suspect as you never really can quantify who is responding.  You have to restrict response to your target area, it is easy to get around that online.

Consider, if a proportion of parents DID want their children taught via BSL.  You would propose a 'Tiered' system?  Whereby some children will be educated in BSL, (You cannot  force all parents to comply),  and others educated via what works best for them, (which is the current approach).  Do you suggest parents get overruled?  You cannot offer them choices where options to choose do not exist.  No doubt why current BSL campaigners  (The majority aren't grass roots, they are charities with  few if  any grass root membership),  are all lobbying politicians and NOT consulting parents, because they know they have no rights or authority to do that in law, so 'back door ' campaigning is way of circumventing parental choice and state mainstreaming too.  The BSL GCSE an example, but only aimed at teens and Hearing mostly.

What we see is an area who are desperate to ensure a BSL community continues, commendable in part, but we are talking about parents and their children's futures which are not any domain of deaf groups of any persuasion. We know fewer deaf are using BSL now.  The BDA stated it also. We would prefer is surveys (We get 30 a year online doing the same thing), published real data too, as currently      those who run surveys do not validate their numbers.  Asking 50 people and getting 15 responses e.g. is not sadly, going to produce the results you hope for.  I think the public are far more aware how these things operate by now.

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......

2024, or not?

The state of the UK  Deaf and Hearing Loss Community today.

During 2024, ATR Media plans to expose many many myths portrayed by the disinformation sources centred around Deaf culture and Language, for too long  distortions and plain lies have been order of the day, each time accompanied by bullying,  attacks, and threats.

ATR Media is relatively a new outlet for MM a seasoned acquired deaf blogger, of many year standing, was amid the first to use YouTube and own captions, even sign on You Tube. Was the #1 UK blog in the USA with 6m+ accredited views, but, blocked in the UK.  ATR is an acknowledged challenger of disinformation being given to deaf people, and deliberate ignorance directed towards hearing loss and non signing deaf which is discriminatory and divisive, a threat to real inclusion, and for real access which the BSL campaigner DOES NOT REALLY WANT. Mostly comprised of scare stories and blaming everyone else.

Let us be clear, rank and file deaf do NOT support what these people are saying or doing, the state does, because deaf and HI won't elect their own representation for the same reason ATR opposes it, we get on with it and know martyrdom gets you nowhere.  Regardless, none of these profile campaigners have any mandate to speak for us, or about us.  One tail wagging a  dozen dogs.

The BDA e.g. claims 150,000 BSL using people, but the forthcoming ATR MEDIA video coverage of the GCSE will show only 700 responded to it and 76% were SUPPORT charities/hearing people, who make a living from BSL dependency,  along with a random assortment of vested interests, hoping to get work/wage being teachers for a class that has no viable curriculum.  

The consultation NEVER took place, there is no evidence rank and file responded at all, the input was amateur, cut and pasted from other promotions, and plain unsourced, essentially,  NO DEAF promoter of the GCSE class, wanted BSL to access the consultations. Why would they? as none were apparently sign using. Crucial evidence this isn't even a campaign by or for deaf people. Vaguely described as an awareness class that will empower deaf in the future, but, WITHOUT them.

Over 2023 ATR MEDIA also expressed concerns, two leading UK charities the British Deaf Association and  RNID (or whatever re-branded cover it uses today).  Both alleged to be manufacturing statistics to get more funds, using the 'nobody really knows anyway' fact to 'think of a number and double it' system,  year on year..  ALL Deaf and Hearing loss charities were rejecting devolved administration to retain overall control of support, funding, campaign directions, and HQ's,  in the Southern counties of England. Local autonomy refused.  The BSL Act was brought in and has since failed to get any foothold, in Wales a BSL Act wasn't brought in and felt unnecessary, the only UK area to make the real point.

Is Deaf culture valid? It's base had diminished by 80% (Deaf schools/Clubs), less than 20 deaf schools now exist, with Wales etc, having  none at all.  2024 is suggested as the final nail in many deaf clubs' coffins, as living and running costs mean mass closures, with deaf being reluctant to fund it themselves or simply cannot.  ATR will cover BSL too, given the 'Proof' of a language (A Dictionary),  is 20thc, not as absurdly posted by the BDA/UCLA and others, as the 7thc. 

Hearing teachers dictate the directions of BSL, NOT deaf people, so 'normalisation' and indeed the GCSE class, will mean regional signing, will go to the wall, and most translators do NOT use BSL grammar, but Sign Supported English, they don't want to make more issues for the deaf with its absurd DIY BSL grammar, a key component in holding back real deaf awareness and a barrier to accessing what deaf need to know to live and work as adults.  No BSL active campaigner uses it anyway, so why demand it of others?

ATR MEDIA will also expose deaf bullies who run BSL sites online, who ban, block, attack and threaten anyone who wants debate and facts to be rule of the day, again, most centre in English Cities where higher concentrations of deaf live but who're out of touch with everyone else, all go it alone areas feathering own particular nests, exhibiting blatant bias, and there is no real inclusive policy.

Over 2023 ATR MEDIA also expressed concern regarding BSL Deaf attacks on hearing aids, cochlear implantations, other alleviations, and genetic/health advances.  With parents called abusers and all sorts, this is NOT who deaf people or others with hearing loss are about, and we sincerely hope in 2024, the rot stops there.

ATR MEDIA. (2024)

ATR MEDIA is a TEXT-BASED medium, forget the myth of Deaf signers, we can all READ.