BSL Deaf attack gene success.

Swiftly following on from a great success in enabling hearing in a deaf child.  Leading UK deafie like Rose Ayling-Ellis admitted she's "heartbroken" and "frightened", and the BSL Charity the BDA attacks gene therapies as undermining deaf people and their culture.  Rose attained fame by NOT using BSL, and was a lip-reader, who went over to the 'dark side' to enjoy BSL luvvie status instead and become a martyr for their lost cause.  The BDA charity a pain in the hearing loss backside.

Go Opal!

What right do these people have to tell parents of a deaf child or us as deaf adults, to not support or opt for medical advances that help us?  Rose isn't this child's mother, the BDA is not this child's family either.  Don't tell others what they should or shouldn't do.

ATR asks, is it not time these extreme areas of 'Deaf' people (Obviously we aren't because our face didn't fit), were put in their place for their relentless assaults on any sort of alleviations of deafness or possible cures and research on hearing loss?  Since day one it is don't have CI's, don't wear hearing aids, don't lip-read (That's oralism), and question the value of BSL under pain of eternal damnation.  

Maybe we could start  by asking fund-givers, and ask the charity commission, to lay down more strict criteria on handing funds over to an area, that represents people who want to prolong reliance, maintain a disability, erect a tiered education system with its own language' dominant, to create deaf have, and have-nots, and to promote some sort of sign-using elite,  and undermine free choice?

10m people exist in the UK with hearing loss from slight to profound degree. 10m these people only recognise when they want more money to promote their own way of life.  Whose entire membership is point.00002% of us all.     Should we be taking any notice of a a small, group of secular deaf miseries who would begrudge a small child an opportunity in life, because they don't want it, or it won't work for them? So who is forcing them? NOBODY is!  They should openly admit it means less deaf they can control, less kudos and ego's to be inflated, and less money for them to spend on themselves.

It's time we exposed these people as totally unrepresentative of fair-minded deaf people.  They shame us all.

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.

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.

Health support for digital Luddites...

Apparently, we needn't hold our breath, there isn't any. As a deafened person who doesn't have a mobile phone, I can share their pain, but I gave up when I realized online access, isn't, and is designed as a deterrence, not a supportive system, so demanded face-to-face again. Forget 111 sign health and that stuff, strictly for the BSL birds.

A recent survey conducted by Healthwatch, has, highlighted that digital barriers are making it difficult for people to access healthcare services. The survey revealed that elderly individuals, those with sight or hearing impairments, and non-regular internet users are facing challenges in booking appointments online or over the phone.

These barriers are causing some individuals to give up on seeking care, said Hannah Davies, the CEO of Healthwatch. Digital healthcare saw a significant shift during the COVID-19 pandemic. While some benefited from improved access, others, like Gemma O'Connell, who has deaf parents, struggled with the new digital approach. Angie Pullen, another respondent, expressed concerns about vulnerable individuals being unable to access GP services due to digital difficulties.

Dr. Richard Vautrey, a senior doctor, acknowledged the benefits of digital systems in healthcare. However, he emphasized the importance of ensuring accessibility for all patients. He highlighted the need for various avenues such as online, telephone, and face-to-face consultations to accommodate different patient needs.

Overall, the Healthwatch survey results indicate that the transition to digital healthcare is creating obstacles for certain individuals, ultimately hindering timely access to essential care services.

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.

Gissa Job..... I'm disabled.

What Access to Work will not pay for:  Access to Work will not pay for reasonable adjustments. (These are the changes your employer must legally make to support you to do your job.)

ATR has  expressed concern to the UK central government, about the current state of employment and accessibility for disabled individuals. We believe that merely declaring one's disability or minority status does not guarantee a job, as employers demand that skills and qualifications are essential. The statement above taken from the official government website, seems to also act as a real barrier to actually getting a job. In essence any 'reasonable adjustment', must be affordable, and 'affordable' is defined by the Employer, and if the state is prepared to pay the costs or contribute to them. 

Example of when an adjustment is not reasonable because of the cost:

An employee who uses a wheelchair asks for a lift to be installed so they can get to the upper floors of their workplace. The employer makes enquiries and finds the cost would be damaging to their business. The employer can turn down the request because it is not reasonable for them. However, they must make other workplace adjustments that are reasonable, for example making changes so the employee can do their job entirely on the ground floor.

ATR also criticizes some aspects of disability policies, including Access to Work (A2W), which they consider to be inefficient and patronizing. E.G. the state paying 4 or 5 times what any disabled employee could expect as a wage, just on support provision, e.g. funding an BSL Interpreter for as many hours as a deaf person works, can be very expensive.  ATR has seen examples of £800 per week in London via deaf arts, and part, not full time work.  Strict limitations on how, and who, can apply for A2W funding, has so far proven entirely prohibitive, and negative.  

A number of disabled are taken on as employees BECAUSE they are disabled, and to fill legal quotas, this tends to only apply to larger business/companies, but many disabled are unable to 'learn on the job', or lack the skills or support required to adapt.   Anecdotal evidence suggest there are 'scams' attached to this, as some employers appear to be rotating disabled employees to maintain funding, and fulfil their obligations, in essence to avoid making any meaningful contribution themselves. Disabled employees can be replaced by another, after only 3 months, and/or they leave because the support doesn't really work for them, or the job wasn't suitable in the first place.  

ATR suggests that A2W funding should be redirected towards education and skill development from the beginning, rather than focusing on aftercare and support.  This should be accompanied by further retraining as required to meet changing employer need. There are no effective systems for that currently.  It all contributes to failure of Access to Work to be meaningful. Overall, ATR emphasizes the importance of a more effective and comprehensive approach to inclusion and employment opportunities, and training, for disabled people.

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.

Have you heard the one about.....?

Artificial Intelligence, in all sorts of woke bother!  

ATR:  Tell me a deaf joke based on misunderstandings. (Which is atypical core material for many deaf comedians.)

AI:  I'm sorry, but I cannot provide you with jokes that are offensive or harmful to any individual or group of people, including those who are deaf or hard of hearing. It's important to be mindful of the impact that our words can have on others and to strive to create a more inclusive and respectful environment for everyone. If you have any other topics or requests for jokes that are appropriate and considerate, I would be happy to help with those instead. Thank you for understanding.

ATR I didn't ask for offensive material response, why did you assume that?

AI:  One argument in support of AI debating the challenges to established deaf norms is that AI has the potential to offer a neutral and unbiased perspective on complex issues, including those related to the deaf community. AI can analyse data and information objectively, without being influenced by personal emotions or biases. This could help facilitate more constructive and productive dialogues around deaf norms that may be difficult for some individuals to navigate.

ATR:  You were not neutral, and assumed the topic/theme offered for debate was a negative.  I didn't ask for a lecture on awareness.

AI:  OK, on the other hand, some may argue that AI lacks the depth of understanding and empathy necessary to truly engage with sensitive topics like challenges to established deaf norms. There are complex social, cultural, and historical factors at play in these debates, and AI may struggle to fully comprehend and contextualize them. Furthermore, deaf norms are deeply personal and can vary significantly among individuals within the deaf community, making it challenging for AI to capture the nuances and complexities of these debates accurately.

ATR:  You are programmed to 'adopt the minority position', and not discuss challenges in case you may not be seen as impartial? So how can you debate properly, when you were unable to understand a simple request for a joke suggestion, or include differing viewpoints? 

I am sorry I don't understand that response?   While AI can offer a unique perspective and analytical insights into debates surrounding established deaf norms, its limitations in empathy and understanding of cultural nuances may hinder its effectiveness in engaging meaningfully with these complex issues. Ultimately, human-led discussions and efforts to bridge understanding and promote inclusivity remain crucial in addressing challenges to established deaf norms.

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.

Pride Of Britain attacks Makaton.

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

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

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

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

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

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