Blink and you will miss it!

 ATR successes and multi-blogging

Blogs you can read now...LOOK RIGHT ---->

ATR - MEDIA

 

Why do BSL online sites block feedback?

 Argument for preventing feedback

Privacy Concerns: By preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites, users can maintain their privacy and avoid potentially harmful or unwanted comments.

FACT: 80% of BSL sites DON'T use sign language to write own  posts.  The claim all deaf are bilingual is unproven, even opposed.

Accuracy of Information: Allowing unfiltered feedback could lead to inaccuracies in sign language translations or information shared on the site, which could be misleading to users.

This means any challenges, or statement of real facts, can be blocked and the poster banned, if this undermines their 'message'. Only 1% of the deaf community has a qualification in BSL.

Respect for Diversity: Preventing feedback can help create a safe space for all users, especially those who may be more vulnerable or sensitive to negative comments.

Deaf BSL diversity is to discriminate, if you don't sign, you don't get in, and has nothing to do with inclusion or listening to others.

The argument against preventing feedback:

Accessibility and Engagement: Feedback can enhance the user experience by allowing for interaction, collaboration, and learning opportunities among users of sign language on the site.

Improvement and Growth: Constructive feedback can help site administrators and users make necessary improvements, updates, and corrections to the content and services offered.

Community Building: Feedback can foster a sense of community and connection among users of the site, promoting inclusivity and mutual support.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, while preventing feedback on sign language using deaf online sites may have some benefits such as privacy protection and maintaining accuracy, allowing feedback can also promote accessibility, engagement, improvement, growth, and community building. 

It is important to strike a balance between ensuring a safe and respectful environment while also encouraging participation and fostering a sense of community among users. Ultimately, the decision to allow or prevent feedback should be carefully considered based on the specific goals and needs of the site and its users. [BSL-Only?]

The Power of Oral Communication

Why Verbal Exchange is Essential in Today's Digital Age

In a world dominated by emails, texts, and social media, the art of oral communication is often overlooked. The power of spoken words cannot be underestimated. In fact, verbal exchange is essential for effective communication in both personal and professional settings.

One of the key benefits of verbal communication is the ability to convey emotion and tone. When we talk face-to-face, we can use tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language to enhance our message and ensure it is understood correctly. This is especially important in sensitive or complex situations where written words can be easily misinterpreted.  

Oral communication allows for immediate feedback and clarification. In a conversation, we can ask questions, seek explanations, and address misunderstandings in real-time. This helps to avoid confusion and ensure that both parties are on the same page.

Verbal communication fosters stronger connections and relationships. When we talk to someone in person, we can build rapport, establish trust, and show empathy through our words and actions. This human connection is vital for building successful collaborations and partnerships.  Oral communication is essential for public speaking and presentations. The ability to communicate confidently and effectively in front of an audience is a valuable skill that can set individuals apart in their personal and professional lives.  

The power of oral communication cannot be understated. In a world that is becoming increasingly digital, it is important to remember the importance of face-to-face conversations and verbal exchanges. By honing our skills in verbal communication, we can improve our relationships, boost our careers, and effectively convey our ideas and messages to others.

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!

Get a CI, you know it makes sense.

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

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

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

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

AVT funding for deaf children refused in Wales

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

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

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

AVT (Audio Verbal Therapy).

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.

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.

The Third Degree.

Third space theory

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

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

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

Who needs BSL?

A deaf Eastbourne boy  [LINK] has called on the Chancellor to invest in life transforming therapy

11-year-old Sam Callaghan is urging the Chancellor to make a commitment to invest in the specialist therapy which supported him to listen and speak and allowed him to have the same opportunities as his hearing peers. Sam, from Eastbourne, was diagnosed as profoundly deaf as a baby and his parents were both devastated and scared for what the future would bring.

Now Sam is flourishing at secondary school, loves science and making films, and is always talking thanks to the specialist Auditory Verbal therapy programme he attended as a young child. To mark World Hearing Day (March 3) and ahead of the UK Government’s Spring Budget (March 6) Sam is urging the Chancellor to make a commitment to invest the necessary funding, of just over £2million a year for 10 years, to ensure all deaf children under five have the opportunity to access Auditory Verbal therapy which enabled him to thrive at school and beyond. 

ATR: Which is cheap enough given the many millions the state has thrown at BSL and culture to no avail. 

Mum Joanna explained: “When we received Sam’s diagnosis we were so worried about his future. Would he make friends? How would he get on at school and develop interests in everything life has to offer? “But thanks to Auditory Verbal therapy he is absolutely flying. He is a real chatterbox and never stops talking especially about the things he loves like science and he is doing brilliantly at secondary school. We will always be so grateful for the support we had and how Auditory Verbal therapy transformed his life.”

More than 90% of deaf children who could benefit from an Auditory Verbal therapy programme are currently unable to access it and there are only 31 specialist Auditory Verbal Therapists in the whole of the UK.  This is despite research by YouGov showing that 80% of adults in the South East of England believe Auditory Verbal therapy should be available to all deaf children via publicly funded services (ie, the NHS), while only 2% think it should be paid for privately.

Auditory Verbal therapy is a robust, evidence-based approach that supports deaf children to learn how to make sense of the sound they receive through their hearing technology (such as hearing aids or cochlear implants) so they can learn to talk like their hearing friends. Research shows that more than 80% of deaf children who attended an Auditory Verbal therapy programme for at least two years graduated with spoken language on a par with their hearing peers – this figure rose to 97% for children without additional needs.

LINK (2) 

Deaf Teacher shortages in Wales

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

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

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

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

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

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

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