New Computer game for the Deaf

 

Can you destroy all the genes before the hands take over?

Inclusion For the elite few?

 

AVT. The fight goes on...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awareness isn't working....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CODA's picking up the support tab?

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWS ITEM:

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

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

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

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

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

The Deaf, and Artificial Intelligence (I)

 ATR debates with AI   

ATR Poser:  Deaf cultural members have suggested AI offers huge barriers to their access, as AI technology uses language and grammatical formats that aren't theirs, also, that where AI software originates, can determine what 'stance' AI takes on cultural/language debates and issues.  Is this not a barrier itself, to true AI interaction, in that AI cannot then offer true neutrality in any debate?

AI:   The intersection of AI technology and deaf culture poses unique challenges and considerations regarding access, inclusivity, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions. Let's explore the potential barriers to effective AI interaction for deaf individuals and the implications of AI origins on cultural and linguistic issues:

Language and Communication Barriers: 

AI technology often relies on standardized language and grammatical formats that may not align with the linguistic preferences and communication styles of deaf individuals, including users of sign language(s). This mismatch can create barriers to effective communication and understanding, limiting the accessibility and usability of AI for deaf cultural members who may require alternative modes of interaction.

Cultural Sensitivity and Representation: 

The cultural and linguistic context in which AI originates can influence its understanding and representation of diverse cultural and language issues. AI systems developed in specific cultural contexts may exhibit bias, assumptions, or limitations in addressing the nuanced perspectives and experiences of diverse linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

Neutrality and Bias in AI Debates: 

The notion of AI neutrality in debates and interactions is complex, as AI systems are designed and trained by human developers who bring their own biases, perspectives, and cultural backgrounds to the technology. This human influence can shape the stance and responses of AI on cultural and language issues, potentially leading to unintended biases, inaccuracies, or misrepresentations in AI interactions with diverse user groups.

Cultural Competence and Inclusive Design: 

Addressing the barriers to true AI interaction with deaf cultural members requires a commitment to cultural competence, inclusive design practices, and user-centered approaches that prioritize accessibility, diversity, and equity in AI development. By involving diverse stakeholders, including deaf individuals and cultural advocates, in the design, testing, and deployment of AI technologies, developers can enhance the inclusivity and relevance of AI interactions for diverse linguistic communities.

Ethical Considerations and Human Oversight: 

As AI technology evolves and becomes increasingly integrated into various aspects of society, ethical considerations regarding bias, discrimination, and cultural sensitivity in AI interactions become paramount. Human oversight, transparency, and accountability in AI decision-making processes are essential in addressing potential biases and ensuring responsible and respectful AI interactions with diverse cultural and linguistic communities, including deaf individuals.

In conclusion, the barriers to AI access and interaction for deaf cultural members, rooted in language disparities, cultural representation, and bias in AI development, underscore the need for proactive efforts to enhance inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and equity in AI technologies. By fostering greater dialogue, collaboration, and understanding between AI developers, cultural advocates, and diverse user groups, we can work towards overcoming barriers to true AI interaction and promoting respectful, accessible, and inclusive AI experiences for all individuals, regardless of their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Embracing diversity and cultural competence in AI design and implementation can pave the way for more meaningful and inclusive interactions that reflect the rich diversity of human experiences and identities in an increasingly technologically driven world.

ATR:  The irony is that it couldn't include a BSL or ASL user to debate with day one. But could interact with a deaf person who didn't sign, and wasn't cultural, but wasn't included in real terms via the 'debate' either.  AI also agreed BSL and ASL had insufficient academic language formats to debate with because it didn't use text, or didn't have the grasp of English to enagage.... oops!

Why barriers exist for a BSL curriculum.

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

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

Some factors to consider when seeking to bridge this gap:

(1)  Limited Academic Material in Sign Language: 

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

(2)  Challenges in Translating Specialized Vocabulary: 

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

(3)  Education and Literacy Levels: 

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

(4)   Access to Higher Education: 

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

Coming to a Hub near you?

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

What they say it is:

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

The reality:

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

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

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

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

BSL Versus Welsh GCSE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The X VOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything for the Deaf

 

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.

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......

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.