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......

You don't even have to lip-read

 

What stereotype are you?

[The deaf thing we will ignore for now they never listen anyway].  ATR recently contacted the Disability News Service in the UK with comment that suggest stereotypes are actually the mainstay of most disability and Deaf campaigns, they rely on it, despite publishing numerous attacks on the mainstream, for using the identity stereotypes they created for themselves.  Stereotypes that empower discriminations against those 'Not deaf enough', or 'Not really as disabled as..' or 'You went to the wrong special school...'etc. Read On:

Dear John,

Could DNS cover this issue of disability campaigners attacking mainstream for 'stereotyping' disabled people? As you are aware I find this subject contentious especially in the 'Deaf' sense, where promotion of 'support' etc is aligned directly with sign language usage, and indeed their perceived culture.

Numerous online posts by deaf individuals and  the charities that represent them, promote 'special need', special teaching etc, and an increasing demand for more 'support' to use their communication approaches, none of which is helped by mainstream being confused, despite ardent promotions and system support, for differentiating what type of deaf person you are, often identified by sign use or wearing a hearing aid, or lip-reading etc, you can't be impaired you can only be whatever current populist terminology is vogue.  Support = help = disability, the image hasn't really changed at all, but been enhanced.

Various attempts to put these questions online, to disability outlets/magazines or to systems/charities etc are met with hostility, personal attack, bans and blocks,  from hardline 'Deaf' areas, while disability areas run scared of empowering different viewpoints (Or pay lip-service to them, life is too short etc). The 'Deaf' community fast resembling a sect more than anything else.  The more culture they acquire the more sectarian they become and more introspective and undemocratic their practices and campaigning.  Disabled campaigners despite all their output are ring-fencing their own stereotypes to 'ensure' society DOESN'T see them the same or equal as anyone else, they need to stand out, not, fit in, they can only do this walking a fine line between labelling themselves or being ignored, (OK they are ignored already).

As soon as you say 'Disabled' or Deaf, or 'paraplegic' that is it, isn't it?  If you don't identify your area you cannot highlight its issues, but that plays into the stereotype too.  Is it then logical to attack as Disability Wales did, (but refused to respond to me). the poor sods in mainstream for it?

Devolution is ignored by DNS too, are you not over-focused on London to the detriment of the common cause?  If disabled are to be identified as Scots, Irish, Welsh or English lets clarify it.  The 'global' suggestion of disability isn't working is it? Disability and deaf media are increasingly out of touch with grassroots too, and their charitable representation  have no mandates or memberships, campaigners go it alone in defiance often, chaos really, when is DNS going to say it how it is?

MJ (ATR MEDIA)

2024, or not?

The state of the UK  Deaf and Hearing Loss Community today.

During 2024, ATR Media plans to expose many many myths portrayed by the disinformation sources centred around Deaf culture and Language, for too long  distortions and plain lies have been order of the day, each time accompanied by bullying,  attacks, and threats.

ATR Media is relatively a new outlet for MM a seasoned acquired deaf blogger, of many year standing, was amid the first to use YouTube and own captions, even sign on You Tube. Was the #1 UK blog in the USA with 6m+ accredited views, but, blocked in the UK.  ATR is an acknowledged challenger of disinformation being given to deaf people, and deliberate ignorance directed towards hearing loss and non signing deaf which is discriminatory and divisive, a threat to real inclusion, and for real access which the BSL campaigner DOES NOT REALLY WANT. Mostly comprised of scare stories and blaming everyone else.

Let us be clear, rank and file deaf do NOT support what these people are saying or doing, the state does, because deaf and HI won't elect their own representation for the same reason ATR opposes it, we get on with it and know martyrdom gets you nowhere.  Regardless, none of these profile campaigners have any mandate to speak for us, or about us.  One tail wagging a  dozen dogs.

The BDA e.g. claims 150,000 BSL using people, but the forthcoming ATR MEDIA video coverage of the GCSE will show only 700 responded to it and 76% were SUPPORT charities/hearing people, who make a living from BSL dependency,  along with a random assortment of vested interests, hoping to get work/wage being teachers for a class that has no viable curriculum.  

The consultation NEVER took place, there is no evidence rank and file responded at all, the input was amateur, cut and pasted from other promotions, and plain unsourced, essentially,  NO DEAF promoter of the GCSE class, wanted BSL to access the consultations. Why would they? as none were apparently sign using. Crucial evidence this isn't even a campaign by or for deaf people. Vaguely described as an awareness class that will empower deaf in the future, but, WITHOUT them.

Over 2023 ATR MEDIA also expressed concerns, two leading UK charities the British Deaf Association and  RNID (or whatever re-branded cover it uses today).  Both alleged to be manufacturing statistics to get more funds, using the 'nobody really knows anyway' fact to 'think of a number and double it' system,  year on year..  ALL Deaf and Hearing loss charities were rejecting devolved administration to retain overall control of support, funding, campaign directions, and HQ's,  in the Southern counties of England. Local autonomy refused.  The BSL Act was brought in and has since failed to get any foothold, in Wales a BSL Act wasn't brought in and felt unnecessary, the only UK area to make the real point.

Is Deaf culture valid? It's base had diminished by 80% (Deaf schools/Clubs), less than 20 deaf schools now exist, with Wales etc, having  none at all.  2024 is suggested as the final nail in many deaf clubs' coffins, as living and running costs mean mass closures, with deaf being reluctant to fund it themselves or simply cannot.  ATR will cover BSL too, given the 'Proof' of a language (A Dictionary),  is 20thc, not as absurdly posted by the BDA/UCLA and others, as the 7thc. 

Hearing teachers dictate the directions of BSL, NOT deaf people, so 'normalisation' and indeed the GCSE class, will mean regional signing, will go to the wall, and most translators do NOT use BSL grammar, but Sign Supported English, they don't want to make more issues for the deaf with its absurd DIY BSL grammar, a key component in holding back real deaf awareness and a barrier to accessing what deaf need to know to live and work as adults.  No BSL active campaigner uses it anyway, so why demand it of others?

ATR MEDIA will also expose deaf bullies who run BSL sites online, who ban, block, attack and threaten anyone who wants debate and facts to be rule of the day, again, most centre in English Cities where higher concentrations of deaf live but who're out of touch with everyone else, all go it alone areas feathering own particular nests, exhibiting blatant bias, and there is no real inclusive policy.

Over 2023 ATR MEDIA also expressed concern regarding BSL Deaf attacks on hearing aids, cochlear implantations, other alleviations, and genetic/health advances.  With parents called abusers and all sorts, this is NOT who deaf people or others with hearing loss are about, and we sincerely hope in 2024, the rot stops there.

ATR MEDIA. (2024)

ATR MEDIA is a TEXT-BASED medium, forget the myth of Deaf signers, we can all READ.