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.

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.

'Unstable' Deaf woman must have communication help.

 Deaf mum in family court fight with Northamptonshire council must be given help

Is a BSL interpreter an 'intermediary'?  A deaf woman must have specialist communication help at a trial, says a judge A deaf woman embroiled in a family court fight with social services over the care of her two-year-old daughter must have help from a communication specialist at a trial, a judge has ruled.

West Northamptonshire Council has applied for a care order. Social services staff have raised concerns about the woman's ability to look after the child. Mrs Justice Lieven has decided that the woman will need a "deaf intermediary". The judge has outlined her decision and detail of the case in a written ruling published online, following a preliminary private hearing in London.

She said the child could not be identified in media reports of proceedings. Mrs Justice Lieven, a High Court judge who is based in the Family Division of the High Court in London, heard evidence about the woman's communication difficulties from a specialist. "I accept that the appointment of a deaf intermediary... in this case is necessary," said the judge, in her preliminary ruling.

"The mother's communication issues here are profound." Lawyers representing the council told the judge that staff were concerned the child could be "at risk of significant harm". Social workers said their main argument related to the woman's "potential" to "gravitate towards risky relationships". They were concerned that her mental health was "unstable" and worried about her "inability" to recognise "dangerous and risky situations".