AVT. The fight goes on...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awareness isn't working....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CODA's picking up the support tab?

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWS ITEM:

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

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

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

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

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

Disability groups aiding discrimination?

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

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

What 'general' searches tell us:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

150 years later..

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone care for the UN, or the ECHR?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coming to a Hub near you?

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

What they say it is:

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

The reality:

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

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

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

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

AI. Is it a threat to diversity?

ATR says:  Disabled business's is concerned AI is ruining them and they cannot 'compete' with other non-disabled areas utilising AI to keep 6 steps in front of them. Frankly and being a bit brutal,  keep up or get left behind regarding AI, that genie is well out of the bottle. It would help if disabled people were more savvy about AI and embraced it. So far, the free versions of it are barely worth using, what it does is scrape existing data already online, that has a universal agreement, (e.g. statistics), even if they contain little validation, AI won't do your investigating. The paid AI versions, if the disabled could afford them, would revolutionise campaigns and disabled businesses at lesser advertising levels. 

We can't be luddites, we will just be left behind. AI produces e.g. text and images, that some disabled areas will struggle with.  As regards to using its scraping modus to target specific areas, it WON'T help you, as the software via the yanks is NOT able to trawl personal sites, social media areas, or most other websites., AI also says you CANNOT criticise or challenge many established areas at ALL, a barrier to disability areas who would use it to aim at constantly moving targets, like politicians, minority extremes, the DWP even charities, who are already aspects of AI to target you. 

AI is the ultimate 'leveller' (Yes I know they said the intent was, look what happened), in that it doesn't recognise those who provide input to it via disabled profiles or racial identities online, only in as much as that may be the site declaration. 95% of disabled data AI scraped was from 'official' sources, not from small groups or individuals, especially those that challenged established 'norms'.  AI fought back (below).

AI technology has the potential to recognize and address diversity by allowing challenges to existing systems. By utilizing diverse data sets and incorporating feedback from a wide range of perspectives, AI can help identify and address biases that exist within current systems. Additionally, AI can be used to promote diversity by creating more inclusive and equitable solutions.  However, it is important to note that AI systems are only as unbiased as the data and algorithms used to train them. If bias is present in the training data, it can be perpetuated in the AI system. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider the sources of data and to actively work towards mitigating bias in AI systems. Overall, AI has the potential to recognize and promote diversity, but it also requires intentional efforts to ensure that it is done effectively and responsibly.

The key wording is 'potential' to recognise diversity, currently it doesn't really. Also AI admitted it isn't sentient... yet, and is governed by programmers and algorithms that themselves are restricted via various laws, the issues being, those laws are applied in the USA, where the AI apps etc are being created, so in effect we are told to obey American laws.

To be fair I have included the *AI version below, it IS more concise and to the point, but  it ignored the issue of American or other country influences in AI, who decides what AI can produce, but I feel it lacks the individual touch and a bit too business-like, probably an easy way to spot if who is using AI, to suggest they are more erudite than you are, which to be frank would cause issues of disability identifications and their accepted norms, and leave me barely literate.

*AI  A disabled business expresses concern about being left behind by competitors due to their limited ability to utilize AI technology effectively. They believe that embracing AI is crucial for success in the modern business landscape, as it has the potential to revolutionize campaigns and enhance their businesses if they can afford the paid versions. The company highlights the limitations of free AI versions that only scrape existing data. They stress the importance of disabled individuals becoming more proficient in AI technology to stay competitive.

The company acknowledges the challenges faced by disabled communities in utilizing AI effectively, particularly in targeting specific areas and dealing with established norms. They note that AI may not recognize the input from individuals or groups that challenge existing systems. While AI technology has the potential to address diversity issues by incorporating feedback from various perspectives, it is essential to address biases in training data to ensure fairness and equity.

The company emphasizes that AI's ability to recognize and promote diversity is currently limited and contingent on the programmers and the legal framework in which AI operates. They underscore the importance of actively working towards mitigating biases within AI systems and ensuring responsible AI implementation. Ultimately, while acknowledging AI's potential to promote diversity, the company highlights the need for intentional efforts to achieve this effectively.

The X VOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOT BSL WEEK