Ouch Too

Forum => Talk => Topic started by: Sunny Clouds on 07 Aug 2021 10:59AM

Title: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 07 Aug 2021 10:59AM
Here we go, a thread for letting rip about the BBC and disability since OtE and I were, I think, at risk of diverting a different sort of thread.  It won't bother me if it goes off on a tangent about other media outlets.

My personal moans about BBC and disability -

1. Having drop down menus across the top of the screen for main topics, then disability hidden as a sub-topic under 'more'.  Why not either integrate disability stories into other topics such as news and have a combined one such as turning 'health' into 'wellbeing' for stories that don't fit 'news'?  If it comes to that, is new wheelchair technology 'disability' or 'science'?  I'd rather see it under the latter.

2. Those wretched BBC programmes that pop up in my Youtube recommendations "What not to say to people with..."  I think the very theme of it makes disabled people seem touchy and can inhibit conversation.  I'd rather someone dropped a clanger than avoided talking to me lest I took umbrage.

3. The increasing use by the BBC of background 'music' drowning out speech.  I appreciate that it seems to be fashionable on various news and documentary outlets I encounter on Youtube to do this, but that doesn't make it right. The answer if you complain is that you should use subtitles, but given that subtitles go over the screen image, they can block out important parts of what you're watching.  Why no option to have them running across the bottom of the screen under the video?  It's not like that would be difficult with modern technology.  

4. If you try to complain about BBC policies over these things, they tell you you can't raise general issues about policy, you have to complain about specific programmes. I think it will take legal action under equality law to stand a chance of changing it, and even then (showing my political bias) not very likely with those currently in power, aligned closely to a government that kicks disabled people at every opportunity.  (As it does others with disadvantages, be that social disadvantages or financial disadvantages or whatever.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: KizzyKazaer on 07 Aug 2021 05:00PM
Quote
3. The increasing use by the BBC of background 'music' drowning out speech
Oh, how I detest this, and also actors mumbling so you have to rewind three times - and turn up the volume to the extent it might annoy the neighbours - just to catch what's been said... and I'm not even hard of hearing, so what it must be like for those who are :f_doh: Don't the sound engineers check this sort of stuff?
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 07 Aug 2021 05:30PM
Quote
Don't the sound engineers check this sort of stuff?
I wondered this a while back about something different - call centre telephone music and pre-recorded messages.  What I concluded there maps onto this as well.


I think that the sort of people that do jobs that involve recording and approving stuff in a range of contexts including television programmes and other not-making-music recording/broadcasting probably have very good hearing and very good sound-discrimination.  If not, why do that job?

Further, they probably normally listen to what they record or edit or approve on very good equipment.

Then sadly, all too many don't seem to take on board that an awful lot of other people don't share their good hearing and good equipment.

I daresay a few don't care but my guess is that those are in a minority.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 07 Aug 2021 07:52PM
I'm laughing at myself.  I don't watch much BBC stuff these days but just after posting here earlier today, I went on Youtube and a short BBC video about chronic-condition influencers popped up and I watched it.

You guessed it, it had music over the voices.

It was also very poorly written and presented.  Further, reading the comments, I think they shot themselves in the foot. 

The basic premise was rather vague along the lines of some people with chronic conditions objecting to some sort of trend in chronically ill influencing that was being portrayed by the programme as in some way fake or leaping on a bandwagon.

But the comments below pointed out that two influencers whose sites they briefly showed on screen had been posting/influencing long before their conditions came up. 

So it was badly presented, badly argued, with badly chosen examples.  My gut feeling is that it will have alienated some viewers against what they may conceptualise as 'moaning anti-influencer disabled people'. 

Mentally I map my feelings about it onto my feelings about the 'What not to say to' series.  Probably doing more harm than good for disabled people.

That being said, I don't think the BBC is necessarily making a worse job of making programmes about disability issues than it is of making programmes about a lot of other issues, but I have to declare here my limited knowledge in that I watch very, very few BBC programmes these days.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: bulekingfisher on 07 Aug 2021 08:25PM
Hello Kizzy Kizzy Kazaer

I fully understand your frustration at the BBC for trying to hide disability under gobbudly Gluck I think the only way to solve this problem is a SOCIAL REVOLUTION  like if every disabled person was to refuse to use/attend a day center as that would affect ambulance driver's + attendant all the OT's, physio therapist's, +the cleaner's + a whole lot of union members including the N.H.S staff then va lot of big organisation's including the BBC would have to come to the negation table to Coppermine with us
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 07 Aug 2021 08:58PM
My only concern about that approach would be that I don't think the unions have any real power any more.  Thatcher hit them hard and their power never really recovered.

I say that as someone who was a union rep at work and who grew up with a close relative who was senior in the trades union movement, who had a very strong influence on me.

That being so, I think that if disabled people abandoned day centres, the centres would simply be closed and the staff sacked.

So I think that for me, I'd like the principle but directed differently.  Maybe turn up somewhere like their MP's constituency office, or their local Conservative club, or other place where influential people hang out and declare that to be the new day centre?  Or better still, set up a big marquee outside the BBC headquarters and declare that to be the new London day centre for disabled people.

It hurt me writing that, reminding myself how powerless so many working people are these days.  But maybe there's hope for a better future if people work together and don't give up?
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: KizzyKazaer on 10 Aug 2021 05:03PM
Quote
...set up a big marquee outside the BBC headquarters and declare that to be the new London day centre for disabled people.
:f_laugh: that sort of action would float Bule's boat :thumbsup:


Quote
It hurt me writing that, reminding myself how powerless so many working people are these days.  But maybe there's hope for a better future if people work together and don't give up?
Through this wretched Covid-19 pandemic, a lot of people have been doing a lot of kind things, so I think the potential is certainly there.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 10 Aug 2021 06:50PM
I'm not usually religious, but this last couple of days, I've been perking myself up by singing along to Pete Seeger singing 'God's counting on me'.  You don't have to be religious to buy into the song's message, and I don't think you need to be as left wing as I am and I think he was.  Extracts leaving out the repetitions and a verse about an oil spill.

[Chorus...When we look and we can see things are not what they should be God's counting on me, God's counting on you ...hoping we'll all pull through, me and you...]

It's time to turn things around, trickle up not trickle down...

Don't give up don't give in, workin' together we all can win....

There's big problems to be solved, let's get everyone involved...

When we sing with younger folks, we can never give up hope...
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 05 Sep 2021 01:19AM
I notice that the latest edition of Disability News Service has an article on the BBC's Disability and Lies documentary.

For those that haven't seen it, there's a Change petition to the BBC.  It's not so much a request as a statement, including

Quote
But I can assure you @bbcnews you’ve added fuel to our fire for why our advocacy is so important. To continue to tear down the ableism this world thrives on.
So thank you for being a prime example of ableism and why our community stands so strong together.
You attack one of us, you attack all of us.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 05 Sep 2021 01:26AM
Incidentally, a different aspect of BBC disability programming.  They did a series on BBC3 about "What not to say to..." featuring lots of different disabilities, differences, conditions etc.

It got under my skin big time.  I felt that the impression that could be left on a non-disabled viewer is that disabled people are touchy so you have to be very, very careful what you say to us, and that all disabled people with any given condition hold approximately the same views.

But then I was one of a number of people who bristled when, a few years back (not many, I just can't remember when), Bipolar UK published an article on its website stridently declaring "I'm not bipolar, I have bipolar!"  I looked on their forum and there was a bit of a set-to over it, but I stopped visiting the site after that because it had left me feeling too uncomfortable.  Just because they are the big, national bipolar group doesn't give them the right to tell us whether it's ok to say "I'm bipolar."  Heaven help me if I dare to tell their spokespeople that "I'm manic depressive."  Presumably that's a total no-no.

Sudden memory.  A wheelchair user pushing himself up a slight hill in a shopping area one Christmas.  I stuck my oar in and said he looked a bit weary and would he like a bit of a push for a few minutes.  He jumped at the chance, saying where he wanted to go, which wasn't far.   We chatted and agreed that so many people who'd like to help wouldn't because they'd had the idea pushed on them that disabled people are touchy about offers of help.

Flip side - when I used to use a white cane, I had so many lovely offers of help.  Never mind "What not to say to..."  E.g. someone waiting for lights to change getting out of his car and crossing the road on foot to ask if I'd like help to cross the road, or people spontaneously reading out a bus number to me.

So the BBC documentary petition is so much more to the point than my mere ranting on the topic of how the BBC portays disability, because it's a reminder to the likes of me to keep saying things to non-disabled people, and to keep rallying disabled people to speak out, whether their views agree with mine or differ.  Even if the petition doesn't change anything at the BBC, it rallies disabled people to speak up.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 06 Sep 2021 11:23AM
I don't watch the BBC much, to be honest, I gave up attending care in the community lectures years ago.  The currently disabled representation there is token, and offensive to my mind, they created some sort of 'Luvvie' set up since we were all kicked out.  I did watch 'Jerk' which I thought was brilliant disability viewing, but the BBC DON'T accept feedback or any view that is aligned to it, and you can get banned or blocked online for using any of the same rhetoric.


Every stupid cliche charities and mean-wells used was ripped apart on this show, it should be prime disability viewing.  Beats the hell out of pathetic charity and focus group awareness.  A disabled man NOT afraid to take the pee out of himself or his peers...  I suspect not getting any invite to the TV's 'Hero' awards though :)
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 06 Sep 2021 12:51PM
I didn't ever see Jerk.  I shall be rummaging around online to read up about it now.

I like Channel 4's Last Leg.  You can agree or disagree with the politics (I generally do because I'm left of centre and a fair bit of their stuff is) but on the disability front they're not patronising.

I rarely watch the BBC on their site.  I find any video I access via their news pages keeps stopping.  I don't know why it won't work properly with my computer.  I used to watch stuff on iplayer but find the current version of that very, very difficult to use, so gave up unless I, rarely, find a link from elsewhere saying to watch something.

My problem with iplayer is that it's one of only two sites online that I'd want to use where it's got big pictures and as you scroll down, they change size and shape.  I can't realistically scroll with my cursor down the side of the screen because then I'm watching that as I adjust for unsteadiness.  So basically, I can't read what's on the screen.

I tried to find if they'd got a version that just stays put or with drop down menus and they said no.

But I do watch some BBC stuff on Youtube, albeit not much.

I largely gave up on radio, but that's not actually because I didn't want to listen, it's about losing my daily routine and not coping with mentally digesting stuff and having problem with my radios and sound quality.  I keep trying to get back into the Archers but can't mentally catch up with the stories.

I used to look at their news site regularly, but it's nowhere near as good as it was.  I'm not talking about the bias - we'd all disagree about precisely what their bias is because it's not simply right/left, it's more complex than that.

Also, because they got rid of various regional offices, the local stuff is mostly just a list of links to stories in other outlets.

That being said, some of those other outlets are better than the BBC at basics.  I find it shocking that it didn't take long in the pandemic to realise that BBC summaries of government guidance and rules was useless, but that Reach (Mirror, Express, local rags) was far better. 

I'm getting very worried here, OtE.  We've a reputation to maintain for disagreeing on everything and we're agreeing about a lot relating to the BBC! 
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 07 Sep 2021 10:34AM
It was bound to happen at some point lol  The BBC has to go in my view.  It's a bit like the lottery, the odds of finding anything valid or decent to watch is astronomical.  My post box (Usually filled to underflowing), was quite full of angst recently, yet more demands I save the planet, eat grass, be more kind, contribute to persecuted ass's in Malta, recognise every minority, ethincity, colour, and language spoken or written, whilst waging war on plastic etc.  I sent a torrent mail response to them all telling them I'm a bit cream-crackered currently trying to comply, and, can I save the planet next week instead?  All I got was a torrent back, full of claims I am ist, ism or phobic of some kind...  I'm seriously considering going Binary +5.


Apparently, some disagreed with me on lanyards and badges to plaster ourselves with, so those of us who have a disability that cannot be seen without a wheelchair, can get some sort of awareness going... I said,OK, we advertise the fact we have a hidden issue then what? Joe Public already under more pressure than we are, will go "Hey! you are deaf? Great!!" and then launch into full flow with BSL at me, I suggested that scenario was a bit unrealistic really, and I prefer SE anyway.


It's a bit like flashing doorbells for the deaf, OK I know someone is probably trying to sell me double-glazing but I won't have a clue what they are saying if I open the door anyway, I usually play my trump card and launch into my homemade language a cross between total gibberish and serbo-Croat instead, and they soon disappear.  The point being accessories are less than half the issue, ditto deaf dogs etc, apart from us having to pay the national debt to keep them in food and care, they tend to crap everywhere too, I'll give them a miss thanks.  Kids are easier to manage, and they don't shed fur everywhere or bark, OK mine did but.....


Rather than blame everyone and his assistance animal or carer, far better we made a bit more effort where we can instead.  I just tell people I haven't a clue what you are saying, you may have to write it down or speak Swahili etc, and that works for me near 100%.  I refuse to use the stat 'face me and speak as if I am a 3 yr old..' advice for obvious reasons.  Most 3/4 yr olds I know are well into social media and one just spent 4 days in the Australian bush on his own no problemo.


I think independently disabled, or deaf, Deaf, HoH, severely deaf, acquired deaf, Cultural deaf (call me MR DEAFIE!), or, 'I don't hear very well, in fact not at all really, I am blagging it',  areas, tend to be in conflict with established disabled norms.  But awareness, is all a game isn't it? laugh and the world laughs at you etc...


NB Is your censor checker on the blink?
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 07 Sep 2021 01:20PM
The awareness thing and labelling oneself is difficult.

I think the sunflower lanyards really came into their own in the pandemic when disabled people exempt masks wanted to fend off criticism, but I rather suspect (and have no proof) that quite a few of the sunflower lanyards worn where I am are worn by people who may not be exempt, and quite a few people who might benefit from some sort of official exemption badge, if such existed, don't see virtue in the sunflower lanyard to stop aggro.

That being said, a checkout assistant at a local supermarket wears one and seems to find it very helpful at getting customers to understand he has some difficulties/differences.  I don't pretend to know what underlies them, but they revolve around a sort of lack of interaction.  Seeing the lanyard seems to help customers to register that what they're not encountering is grumpiness or hostility or indifference.

So it's context.

I'll admit I've come close to wearing a 'deaf, please speak loudly' badge and these days it's probably at least once on each shopping trip that I'll take a hearing aid out and lift it up saying, with a grin that shows round my eyes, something like "I shan't be offended if you shout at me."

When my ataxia was bad, I used to go everywhere with a sign on my back and signs all round my trolley (used as mobility aid - better than any of my collection of different wheely walkers).  The difference they made was amazing.  People being so much more careful, and if I did get accidentally knocked over, people being so much more understanding.  Why should that be?  Well, I don't look like a 'fragile oldie', I don't have a walking stick, and I'm very adept at falling safely (i.e. crumpling softly) so before I started labelling myself, I had to put up with accusations of having faked it.  I'm not joking.  People shouting at me and about me, especially in shops, assuming I was trying it on to be able to sue someone.

So I think if you label yourself, it depends on things like where you are and what you're trying to achieve with the labelling. 

I find the issue of people labelling what they are in the way of what I'll call 'out and proud' is a question of context, and probably more relevant to youngsters when they're going through the demonstrate about everything phase (which actually I value).  I there are also contexts where people are being outed by others or recognised by others as belonging to a particular minority or disadvantaged group and turn it round by being overt about it so that people can't derive satisfaction from outing them.

A very difficult balance, to say when you're different when you want to, but not to feel obliged to.

Now to display my ignorance - what's a censor checker?

Oh, forgot, flashing doorbells - useless if people are going to ring your bell to talk, but useful if you're expecting a delivery of something.  I noticed 'visitors by appointment only' stickers on people's doors and got one myself.  I get very, very few unsolicited visits since I put that up.  I rather think, though, that the effectiveness of that sort of thing varies a lot. 

Something my parents had on their door for a while when there were too many door-to-door tradesmen was a sign that looked like it was institutional and said something like "All enquiries should be made to head office. Staff and residents are not able to agree to works being done on the property or items being purchased."  I.e. "This is some sort of small care home or supported housing, we don't need you to tarmac the drive/cut the trees/fix the roof, so bog off."

Anyway, I don't have a flashing doorbell here but did before.  Evidently I didn't find it too useful or I'd have one here, wouldn't I?
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 08 Sep 2021 10:24AM
The awareness thing and labelling oneself is difficult.

I think the sunflower lanyards really came into their own in the pandemic when disabled people exempt masks wanted to fend off criticism, but I rather suspect (and have no proof) that quite a few of the sunflower lanyards worn where I am are worn by people who may not be exempt, and quite a few people who might benefit from some sort of official exemption badge, if such existed, don't see virtue in the sunflower lanyard to stop aggro.

That being said, a checkout assistant at a local supermarket wears one and seems to find it very helpful at getting customers to understand he has some difficulties/differences.  I don't pretend to know what underlies them, but they revolve around a sort of lack of interaction.  Seeing the lanyard seems to help customers to register that what they're not encountering is grumpiness or hostility or indifference.

So it's context.

I'll admit I've come close to wearing a 'deaf, please speak loudly' badge and these days it's probably at least once on each shopping trip that I'll take a hearing aid out and lift it up saying, with a grin that shows round my eyes, something like "I shan't be offended if you shout at me."

When my ataxia was bad, I used to go everywhere with a sign on my back and signs all round my trolley (used as mobility aid - better than any of my collection of different wheely walkers).  The difference they made was amazing.  People being so much more careful, and if I did get accidentally knocked over, people being so much more understanding.  Why should that be?  Well, I don't look like a 'fragile oldie', I don't have a walking stick, and I'm very adept at falling safely (i.e. crumpling softly) so before I started labelling myself, I had to put up with accusations of having faked it.  I'm not joking.  People shouting at me and about me, especially in shops, assuming I was trying it on to be able to sue someone.

So I think if you label yourself, it depends on things like where you are and what you're trying to achieve with the labelling. 

I find the issue of people labelling what they are in the way of what I'll call 'out and proud' is a question of context, and probably more relevant to youngsters when they're going through the demonstrate about everything phase (which actually I value).  I there are also contexts where people are being outed by others or recognised by others as belonging to a particular minority or disadvantaged group and turn it round by being overt about it so that people can't derive satisfaction from outing them.

A very difficult balance, to say when you're different when you want to, but not to feel obliged to.

Now to display my ignorance - what's a censor checker?

Oh, forgot, flashing doorbells - useless if people are going to ring your bell to talk, but useful if you're expecting a delivery of something.  I noticed 'visitors by appointment only' stickers on people's doors and got one myself.  I get very, very few unsolicited visits since I put that up.  I rather think, though, that the effectiveness of that sort of thing varies a lot. 

Something my parents had on their door for a while when there were too many door-to-door tradesmen was a sign that looked like it was institutional and said something like "All enquiries should be made to head office. Staff and residents are not able to agree to works being done on the property or items being purchased."  I.e. "This is some sort of small care home or supported housing, we don't need you to tarmac the drive/cut the trees/fix the roof, so bog off."

Anyway, I don't have a flashing doorbell here but did before.  Evidently I didn't find it too useful or I'd have one here, wouldn't I?


The censor checker was strange (Your spell checker), it locates an 'offensive' word in the middle of another word.  I typed 'G.R.A.S.S', and A.S.S. ( the animal), and it was viewed porn or something lol I will try C.O.C.K.A.T.O.O. and see why happens lol.


Yes 'labelling is some desperate attempt to buy into the ID issues some deaf people have or even hearing who acquire deafness have when they struggle to fit back in with what they knew.  'Born again deaf' etc probably the worst culprits. Initially, I used to nod sagely and then patronise via 'Whatever you think you are, why not?' thing, but it all got out of hand and got very silly and I lost patience with it as various campaigners skewed the whole thing and made some sort of cult of it.


Awareness of NEED and support was replaced with an awareness of ID, human rights took a fair hammering so needs to be re-written as a result so we can insert a clause with 'Common sense only please..' in it.  The mantra even replaced what formats of communication were THE essential component of being deaf, then it became discrimination officially recognised and backed up with the cultural ace card, placing image 'power' and communication support, in the hands of loony tune extremes in the deaf community, who by and large are the most able to profit by it.


THEY have access, have effective communication, have a wage telling everyone OTHERS are going without, but neglecting to show their part in hindering it all.  The deaf community works only in relative Isolation and if it can operate in parallel with the mainstream, so inclusion is a hot potato with them as this undermines the social system they have.  90% of the rows are about how they mismanage that problem.


Anyone suggesting bilingualism is a must, gets short shrift because they want deaf education to be monlingual aka sign only basically.  All this feeds back to poor inclusion and anger at a system that will never be designed to adopt BSL as a norm.  Having waged the virtual 'war' against the nonsense and impracticalities, not least there are no teachers of the deaf or signs to enable what they ask for, or, are even being trained to run a BSL curriculum it is sheer frustration really.


If you were a migrant e.g. you would be acutely aware of the need to learn a language of the country you enter, or you can't work effectively etc, the deaf sit it out demanding the system adapts to them, that is the difference.  Deaf say we have a disability, it is not the same..' but online they are at pains to suggest they don't have a disability, it's just hearing people being nasty to them.  Even myself looking at previous posts I made found I had typed 'Deaf and Disabled' so the promotion seems pretty effective that disabled are from Mars and Deaf from Venus etc.


I also think the disabled are no match for the deaf too.  Their unity is to be envied their expertise second to none in some communication areas, which just tends to reinforce the fact their messages are a bit 'too clever' and thought out, it works on the basis if you tell a lie often enough at some point it will be seen as truth.  The ideal behind it is that old chestnut control really.


I used to be really worried about it, but on the ground and at street level deaf youth are not buying into it.  The fact clubs and culture is relatively unsupported by young people means they are moving outwards and benefitting from that, the old deaf community was designed around a system where the deaf could not do that, inevitably it must fall to advances.  Progress, in short, deaf don't feel being isolated and restricted to only each other is what they want, nor do they want to tie themselves down to sign language but learn alternatives. They want and use bilingual options where they can.


The doorbell thing, the point was that knowing someone is there doesn't help me communicate to whoever is.  The point I also made about lanyards, badges and dogs etc.  Few are very effective communicators. It may tell people you have an issue it doesn't tell others what they need to do to help.  Again an 'ID' thing more than anything, at least the autism and diabetic bracelets give info as well, unless you forget to wear them lol  OK I wear a lanyard and need to lip-read, that takes no account most are rubbish lip-speakers.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 08 Sep 2021 01:56PM
It occurs to me that whilst I find we have a lot in common, just as I've got my foibles with the way I describe people and things, I find one of your foibles/linguistic traits very difficult.  You have a style of describing people that seems to lump people together into a single grouping, which logic says you don't or you wouldn't be speaking out on things.  You probably find my inclination to split hairs, draw distinctions etc. difficult.

E.g. you speak of 'the deaf community' as a single entity, but where I am, I don't think of it that way.  There's a range of D/deaf communities round here.  Maybe it's because I live in a large urban area where we're united in a geographical sense but have lots of different communities.  To extend that, I'd see the term deaf community meaning different things in different contexts, so in one context I'd see myself as belonging to one, in another as belonging to another, and in another...well, you get he picture.

Likewise in a wider context, if you think of here, you, I and the other deaf poster (I'm not naming her because my mind's gone blank whether she uses the same posting name here as elsewhere) each have different views (albeit overlapping), move in different circles (albeit overlapping) etc.  Are we the Ouchtoo deaf community?  I'd say that logically we are.

As for the 'deaf and disabled' thing, references to disability are, as I see it, seriously messed up by a couple of things that mess up lots of other words in our language. 

One is that the terms disabled/disability have specific meanings in relation to certain legislation (which as we all know here varies from context to context - disabled in the context of, for instance, a blue badge is different from PIP and different from Equality Act), and the other big problem is that they are used differently in terms of overlapping everyday usage, in many ways affected by things like theory and philosophy.  What one person calls disability, another calls impairment, but that doesn't mean the impairment term user doesn't use the term disability, just that they use it differently. 

It doesn't help here that as with a number of other important words, some of which relate to disability, American usage is different from British usage and the influence of the internet is causing, I believe, a far greater use of American linguistic norms.

So it's very difficult, but what people have discovered over the years (over the centuries?) is that if you come up with a new term for something, it won't be long before people use that differently from how you did when you came up with it.

Thus if you think of disability in terms of something like being defective, then it can seem odd to sound strong about it, but if you see it in terms of being different, turning weakness into strength can seem positive, and if you see it in terms of social disadvantage, claiming your legal rights or social equality can seem like a reasonable defence.

All entwined, all annoying in some contexts, particularly where our approaches clash.

It's like I remember my debates with Seán about whether there should be a separate disability support service. Such a tangled mix.  I didn't want it separate from health service, because I believe that separation can mean that those whose disability/impairment relates to or arises from a health condition can be tossed back and forth and fall through the cracks, as happens to countless people with dementia.  He saw it more, I think, in terms of rights and in terms of not being seen as in some way defective needing fixing.  Where we met was a belief that maybe the government will finish privatising the NHS faster than social care.  Well, we've seen the government's recent cop-out on disability support.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with calling myself deaf and disabled in relevant contexts.  In some contexts it could be interpreted as "I'm disabled, and the sort of disabled that is is deaf" and in others it could be interpreted as "there are contexts in which my deafness is the focus of what's relevant, and contexts in which my disability is the focus of what's relevant, so I fall into both categories".

Oh dear, I suspect you didn't want a linguistic analysis.  It's just that I have a big obsession with its being a major problem with the English language, far more so than a lot of other languages, and that it makes issues like 'disability rights' and 'deaf rights' and 'deaf culture' etc., etc., etc. (aargh etc.) difficult to discuss.

All that being said, I get the distinct impression that in a range of contexts you've come up against D/deaf people who've seen being D/deaf as core of their identity and seeing D/deaf people as a homogenous blob and how dare you, OtE, not fit in that stereotype and be like they think D/deaf people should be and want what they think D/deaf people should want?

You and I will carry on disagreeing about a range of political issues, but I think (?) we are agreed that neither of us wants to be expected to fit a neat little category and to want precisely the same as everyone else in that cateogory etc.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 13 Sep 2021 11:05AM
It occurs to me that whilst I find we have a lot in common, just as I've got my foibles with the way I describe people and things, I find one of your foibles/linguistic traits very difficult.  You have a style of describing people that seems to lump people together into a single grouping, which logic says you don't or you wouldn't be speaking out on things.  You probably find my inclination to split hairs, draw distinctions etc. difficult.

E.g. you speak of 'the deaf community' as a single entity, but where I am, I don't think of it that way.  There's a range of D/deaf communities round here.  Maybe it's because I live in a large urban area where we're united in a geographical sense but have lots of different communities.  To extend that, I'd see the term deaf community meaning different things in different contexts, so in one context I'd see myself as belonging to one, in another as belonging to another, and in another...well, you get he picture.

Likewise in a wider context, if you think of here, you, I and the other deaf poster (I'm not naming her because my mind's gone blank whether she uses the same posting name here as elsewhere) each have different views (albeit overlapping), move in different circles (albeit overlapping) etc.  Are we the Ouchtoo deaf community?  I'd say that logically we are.

As for the 'deaf and disabled' thing, references to disability are, as I see it, seriously messed up by a couple of things that mess up lots of other words in our language. 

One is that the terms disabled/disability have specific meanings in relation to certain legislation (which as we all know here varies from context to context - disabled in the context of, for instance, a blue badge is different from PIP and different from Equality Act), and the other big problem is that they are used differently in terms of overlapping everyday usage, in many ways affected by things like theory and philosophy.  What one person calls disability, another calls impairment, but that doesn't mean the impairment term user doesn't use the term disability, just that they use it differently. 

It doesn't help here that as with a number of other important words, some of which relate to disability, American usage is different from British usage and the influence of the internet is causing, I believe, a far greater use of American linguistic norms.

So it's very difficult, but what people have discovered over the years (over the centuries?) is that if you come up with a new term for something, it won't be long before people use that differently from how you did when you came up with it.

Thus if you think of disability in terms of something like being defective, then it can seem odd to sound strong about it, but if you see it in terms of being different, turning weakness into strength can seem positive, and if you see it in terms of social disadvantage, claiming your legal rights or social equality can seem like a reasonable defence.

All entwined, all annoying in some contexts, particularly where our approaches clash.

It's like I remember my debates with Seán about whether there should be a separate disability support service. Such a tangled mix.  I didn't want it separate from health service, because I believe that separation can mean that those whose disability/impairment relates to or arises from a health condition can be tossed back and forth and fall through the cracks, as happens to countless people with dementia.  He saw it more, I think, in terms of rights and in terms of not being seen as in some way defective needing fixing.  Where we met was a belief that maybe the government will finish privatising the NHS faster than social care.  Well, we've seen the government's recent cop-out on disability support.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with calling myself deaf and disabled in relevant contexts.  In some contexts it could be interpreted as "I'm disabled, and the sort of disabled that is is deaf" and in others it could be interpreted as "there are contexts in which my deafness is the focus of what's relevant, and contexts in which my disability is the focus of what's relevant, so I fall into both categories".

Oh dear, I suspect you didn't want a linguistic analysis.  It's just that I have a big obsession with its being a major problem with the English language, far more so than a lot of other languages, and that it makes issues like 'disability rights' and 'deaf rights' and 'deaf culture' etc., etc., etc. (aargh etc.) difficult to discuss.

All that being said, I get the distinct impression that in a range of contexts you've come up against D/deaf people who've seen being D/deaf as core of their identity and seeing D/deaf people as a homogenous blob and how dare you, OtE, not fit in that stereotype and be like they think D/deaf people should be and want what they think D/deaf people should want?

You and I will carry on disagreeing about a range of political issues, but I think (?) we are agreed that neither of us wants to be expected to fit a neat little category and to want precisely the same as everyone else in that cateogory etc.


I hate labels. I often fall foul of the d/D thing myself although I oppose the capitalisation of the term deaf, it seems they have brainwashed most of us the deaf people and Deaf people (!) are one and the same, I usually attempt to ID them via refusing to use the capitalisation mostly, but there you go, others get puzzled who you are talking about,  whether we should accept the blurring of the terminology or the people who want to be seen via that term is moot. I want the D gone.


We may be deaf as in not hearing anything or nothing of real value that's it, every person today has their own view of what deafness or hearing loss is, it was far easier years ago, you couldn't hear, you were deaf that was it.  Now the fact you can hear a bomb drop next to you or even hear most, or even a little, with a hearing aid, BAHA,  or a CI you can still be claiming a Deaf ID, I've seen hearing people claiming to be deaf.  They know allying with that area means easier access to funds and support.  That doesn't mean most actually are members of that particular community.


Deaf use the community term as a collective one for themselves, but it gets allied to hearing loss that is when issues emerge, they are mixing issues and people up.  You could be a good lip-reader, then the 'Deaf' will disown you as well.  The disability thing? well, this is a deliberate conundrum promoted by signing/cultural deaf to gain funds, welfare, support, and recognition for their way of life, since there is ambiguity if they demand funding just as 'Deaf', culture/language are the key with that your chances of funding is pretty high. 


That neither are applicable to the majority of us just gets tagged on to everything.  The 'deaf' or 'HoH' need an angle as well, are but hampered by the fact they are in denial or wearing an aid.  Loads still queue up to purchase a hearing aid nobody can see why do that? Vanity? or denial?


Are they 'deaf' or not?  Some don't want anyone to know, 3m won't even wear an aid.  Its a mess basically and the only beneficiaries are the signing deaf. If I can draw an example, in Wales whilst researching support provision via the Senedd website, those with hearing loss (!), came under 17 different definitions, deafness under 11, and it was all down to using a capitalization of the deaf term. I asked the website to differentiate which area they were describing and they said it was impossible because capitalisation of the term deaf, defeated their AND the Google search option and spell checkers.   Such is the power of changing just ONE letter.


Of course, confusion and relentless sign/cultural promotion prevent a lot of sense from being made of it all.  The idea is to keep moving goalposts to avoid me scoring a goal I think!  To a degree, I have to make an educated assumption (If that is possible), and go for it.  Whether we are deaf or disabled makes no difference to how WE perceive our own loss.  We ALL feel disabled by hearing loss, but systems go by how you manage it, not how many db you have lost, the DWP is the sole area I know that actually does that over and above the NHS clinical definition. 


HoH e.g. appear to manage very well, they make few if any demands on systems for help, next to no need for social clubs etc, whereas the signing deaf can rely totally on it.  They have national support set up and social area, necessary they say because hearing won't let them in, that is their biggest lie really, they just cannot cope with it or want to.


I think the usage of the Letter D disabled most, and just emphasised and marginalized those 'Deaf'.  They are flying in the face of reality as the much-promoted 'community' contains fewer and fewer actual deaf people.


It's rather sad they are trying to play both ends by claiming disability support and funding and then going out declaring deafness to them isn't a disability at all. Then they pile in social or medical argy-bargy, they need sorting out.  I think it suits some NOT to.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 13 Sep 2021 01:27PM
The difficulty with whether it's ok to claim disability support then say you're not disabled is that people may do that with different views on it. Some may think "I'm not disabled in the way people think I am, but the label that gets used for the legislation and funding is disabled, so I'll put up with it."  Some may think "I'm disabled by society for my difference, so seeing myself as socially disabled but not medically disabled is perfectly valid."  Some may think "I'm disabled, but that means different, not defective."  Others may simply be inconsistent.

Personally, I have no hang-ups about considering myself socially disabled whilst considering myself not in some way defective.  That arises from rebellion against years of being given grief by a psychiatric system.  I was referred to it after horrible things had happened to me and had to put up with years of being told what was wrong with me.  Except that a lot of what they said was wrong with me had previously been seen as a strength in other contexts.  The army loved having someone who'd go off on a frenzy of activity getting stuff done, then crash out for a while.

(another post follows)
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 13 Sep 2021 01:41PM
On the hearing aid thing - I loathe the modern tiny aids, but we've been given very hard sell, like they used to do with glasses in the days when they were trying to sell contact lenses.  I don't think this is about customer demand, I think it's about what the manufacturers are selling.

Also, people are more likely to wear hearing aids when they get older, only to be bombarded with advertising that associates hearing aids with being old, so they're seen as labelling the wearers as decrepit, defective.

At least with glasses, it's not like when I was young.  They don't seem to say any more "Boys don't make passes at girls that wear glasses."   But we didn't, I think, have a similar phrase for hearing aids that can fade into disuse.

That being said, I'm seeing some youngsters playing with some sort of apps or something on their smartphones (I don't have one so am uncertain about the jargon) that turns them into hearing aids.  More to the point, I see ones doing it that are very open about it.

I also see middle aged and older people starting to use apps that let them tweak the sound balance on their wifi hearing aids, and again more and more seem very open about it.  You meet them and say something and they ask you to wait whilst they turn their hearing aids from birdsong/music/mute/wife's voice to standard speech or whatever they call it.

I also see people wearing badges, and encounter people in a range of situations such as shops, bus stops etc. openly telling people they can't hear well.  I remember one day being in a queue at a till and both the woman in front of me and the assistant had badges.

That's in addition to women I've seen who've gone private to buy sparkly ear moulds or insisted on having the 'wrong' colour hearing aid, e.g. not the dark brown one for dark brown skin and black hair.

(Ooh, memories of when I was a kid and the optician was insistent about the NHS glasses for girls - pink/pearl for pale girls, black for dark girls.  Aargh!)

So I believe that the manufacturers of hearing aids are going to have to do an about-turn soon and market aids that are big and bold, or they'll lose the market to what I conceptualise (again probably with the wrong jargon) as the music and technology creatives.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 13 Sep 2021 01:45PM
I want to post more because you've prompted so much thought, but I need to go out and I only crawled out of bed at well gone one.  But then I didn't get to sleep until about five, and then kept waking.

I'll be back to annoy you, erm, debate with you, again later.

Oh dear, now why did I mention people around me being open about deafness?  I shall be walking down the street mentally notching up everyone who's 'out and proud' about having hearing problems.

Oh, forgot to mention, I think maybe on a social level rather than official level 'deaf' is used differently where you are?  Round here, it implies any level of hearing loss, including quite mild.  I hadn't thought before how much that might vary regionally. 
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 15 Sep 2021 11:40AM
The problem with social modeling, is it deteriorates into the blame game, it expects everyone to be aware and are annoyed when they find that isn't happening.  Hearing are not responsible for the fact we cannot hear.  As regards including us, that requires awareness that even WE cannot agree on, and skills others don't have, or see a need to acquire.  Do they learn BSL in the off-chance they may meet some deaf who use it?  they don't.  Learners tend to be family, friends, or support, few actually qualified.


The fact most deaf turn up with a 3rd party support also suggests there is nil need for others to make the effort, visibly they see support is already there.  Campaign-wise deaf demanding that.   If we are honest it requires most deaf or HoH to step away from what support reliance they have, and present at the 'coal  face.'  This would promote awareness of what is required, only 'demand' does that, not campaigns.  Naturally, there are deaf (And HoH), who cannot cope doing that, so catch 22 tends to always exist and be a 'brake' on real inclusion.  That is the minority within the minority, but the awareness is blanket and doesn't ID that fact.


Near me they promote 'Mentors' as well, it had a LOT of opposition from people who saw it as a 'recruitment drive' to promote systems and attitudes that have long gone.  Ideally, a 'Mentor' would be (A) Someone like yourself, and (B) Someone who succeeds in the mainstream and is able to function in or outside the 'community'. 


What we saw were Deaf sign users who promoted the 'Deaf' way of life and sign language and culture, with no emphasis whatever of surviving, adapting, or managing the hearing world outside it, the 'mentors' offered no encouragement to move outward, it was non-inclusion based mentoring, and promotion of the cultural mantra.  Most had little or no experience in the mainstream and had lived a life in the deaf community.


We questioned the validity of such mentoring in regards to awareness, or inclusion as they were basically promoting own versions of both, and, without valid inclusive experience to pass on, neutral and unbiased mentoring never took place. It all goes back to education which in deaf terms is a mess of rights and ignorance mostly.  To be honest, it's a harsh world out there, and the sooner all are taught mechanisms to cope with it the easier some of it gets.


Deaf or any specialist education by default, 'protects' the child from these realities, a natural response, but, they aren't in specialist schools for life, and may well not get specialist support/care they need after either.  They are blissfully unaware until formative education (And state responsibility), ceases as adults, then chips on shoulders occur, blaming others goes on, isolation then seems preferable to fighting the corner, and of course, most can't, they were not taught how.  They don't challenge aspects of specialist deaf education because they felt included, supported and safe there.


Mainstreaming has thrown a spanner in that work.  I think it needs a generation or two to work effectively, to re-write 100 years before it that was dedicated to isolating them and viewing them as retarded or something.  Little wonder some deaf hark back to the 'good old days' of deaf schools etc.  They had a shock when they left them that they were unprepared for.  It is still the thrust of deaf campaigns to revert to such systems, but this time with their own school curriculums based on a signed approach and a cultural-based curriculum. 


This guarantees a Deaf community survives.   Personally, I don't think they have any chance of that happening.  Like Martha's Vineyard, young deaf have seen a door of opportunity opening and they don't want people closing it on them.  It's 2021 now not the 19thc.


There are so many advances today, deaf are ARE in there pitching, and good on them, so we have to defend that right. 'Back to the future'  was an escapist film,  we can't live in the past.  We can't live in an elitist deaf community either, where sign is all or else, young deaf don't care for culture, they do care for having the same as hearing peers, and know what is required for getting it.   That isn't sitting in a deaf club with deaf peers blaming everyone else.


Unfortunately, the state of inclusion/Diversity/respect and awareness is crazy at present and unviable.  Only the loudest and most extreme voice is going to be heard.   It does seem the more diversity demands, the less tolerance there is as a result. Deaf or disabled cannot insulate themselves from that.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 15 Sep 2021 11:57AM
You should disseminate responses and do a paper  lol
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 15 Sep 2021 12:09PM
Gosh, we do live in very, very different worlds.

When I was on a BSL course, people were on it for lots and lots of different reasons. 

As for the social model, I don't think it's about a blame game.  More to the point, it can be win-win.

For instance, think of the purple pound.  That can seem like just a gimmick, but now think of something that's not about disability but is about difference that can be, in practical terms, a bit disabling in some contexts - left-handedness.  Well, mostly, left-handers adapt, but look how some manufacturers have worked out that there's money to be made from things like left-handed scissors.

Or the classic 'disabled by lack of ramp' illustration.  Older people are more likely to have difficulty with stairs up to buildings,  but they may also be more valuable customers to some of those buildings. 

Back in the nineties, as a 'community leader', I pointed out to councillors that in relation to some of the developments in our town centre, the focus was too much on trendy architecture and a trendy image for the shops.  I pointed out that the disability access was rubbish.  Didn't they want the custom of people with poorer vision, poorer hearing, a need to sit more often, a need to use a walking stick or a wheelchair etc?  They pooh-poohed me. 

Oh dear, now what's happening?  The young, fit, able customers are buying online.  The oldies and wobblies who are still potential customers are even going so far as to drive to other areas to do their shopping.  Meanwhile,  lack of accessibility for disabled people also makes a place less convenient for lots of other people.

Example, you're somewhere where deaf people say they want the information on displays not shouted, and please make them readable.  Visually impaired vice-versa.

Hmm, it's noisy.  You wonder why you've got so many lost and frustrated customers/public.  Oh, you didn't realise that problems with sound discrimination and hearing that's less than good affect about one person in seven, so even if it's just one in twenty or thirty that can't make out your announcements, you've got a lot of chaos in your mall/station/hospital/public buildings.  Oh, guess what, it's annoying some and driving others away.  What a pity that's costing you money and/or alienating your voters/constituents.

So if you make adaptations for some, you can end up making adaptations for others, and it can be worth doing for lots of reasons.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 15 Sep 2021 12:18PM
As for schools, the whole scandal of offrolling shows what's gone wrong with inclusive education for SEND pupils.  Likewise punishment cubicles, overly occupied by SEND pupils.

The curriculum in England (don't know about the rest of the UK) is hideously useless for a range of SEND pupils.  I got fed up as a child (with my glue ear not my war damage) with sitting through lessons just copying from textbooks or the board.  In theory these days pupils have teaching assistants or similar to help, but round here it's just token if you can get it at all.  When a school can't even afford enough books or stationery, then funding to produce extra resources for SEND pupils to bring their education up to the level of others in a mixed teaching environment is a struggle.

But some SEND pupils can and do thrive in environments geared up towards their specific needs.  That doesn't mean that if you have two profoundly deaf pupils they will both thrive in the same environment.  Their deafness isn't the only factor.

But we're probably never going to agree about teaching pupils through the medium of BSL because I think we have different views on the importance of multilingualism, and we have, I believe, fundamentally different interpretations of the scientific research into the value of having more than one language in learning those languages.

I get the impression that from your perspective, if a child learns language A then language B, you expect that child to be disadvantaged in language B by comparison with other children, and I'm guessing you've found research on that, whereas I prefer to believe the research that says that the child that learns language A then language B can be advantaged in language B by learning language A, if they are taught in a language B environment.   But then I grew up multilingual. 

I still think in more than one language but no one has ever suggested that my English lacks fluency or accuracy.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 15 Sep 2021 12:26PM
There's something I'm pondering on.  I'm paraphrasing what you've said, so shan't be offended if you tell me I've misunderstood.

One aspect of what you write appears to be an idea that where children are taught in a BSL-based environment, it brings them up to want to live in an exclusively BSL world.

To me, that doesn't 'compute', either in the usual meaning of the phrase, or in the context of a computer-driven society.  If children around the world with hundreds of different mother tongues grow up with increasing amounts of what I'll call 'computing and internet English', how does a child brought up in a BSL school environment grow up without doing that, unless they have significant learning disabilities or other issues such as psychosis?

That being said, I wonder how far I'm ignorant of how Deaf schools/units are in other parts of the country.  Here, I don't see Deaf children not going to the play facilities or places of worship or whatever with other children.  We'd still see them round about.  Or maybe there are some that we don't, it's just that the ones that we do are more obvious?

The other thing is that I'm then mapping it onto my nearest Deaf centre.  They welcome non-signers with open arms.  But now I wonder whether I'm missing something. Are there what I'll call hidden or secret Deaf communities?
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 17 Sep 2021 08:03PM
Everyone's experience is different.  Education in my time at school was totally geared around us being 'factory fodder'.  Education is or was, based on teaching you skills future employers and advances/options are going to want to hire you for.  To that end there were essential 'basics' that you did not get a choice to opt-out of, these were learning the host country language of course, and the 3R's.  Deaf did not have an opt-out either, many older deaf I met had copper-plate handwriting and didn't use BSL at all, but predominantly finger-spelled everything.


Deaf were taught that way to acquire essential spelling and English skills.  Since 1970 onwards such skills have fallen as they argue over how a deaf child should be taught and included, or using English at ALL is a bad thing and a discrimination against deaf people.  They never actually define who these 'deaf people' are, they base it on old deaf school basis, that no longer exists and hasn't for 15+ years or more to my knowledge.


There used to be 100s of deaf schools UK-wide now less than 20 survive, there used to be twice as many deaf clubs and they are decimated now, some activists are flying in the face of the reality. The very first BDDA filmed meeting showed no BSL (which is a late 60s/70s thing).  In areas e.g. Cornwall, fingerspelling was the dominant form of deaf 'signing' the dictionary, much challenged but accepted, later gave sign 'BSL' even language status.  Go back pre-1970s next to no mention of BSL exists.

Today 'some' deaf feel they can choose to opt-in or out of the mainstream, make demands others must comply with, they can't, and then ignore the consequences.  As deaf people, we cannot pick and choose what we do, we don't have the skills or choices to do that, or the society to go with it. The reality as I stated before is deaf today i.e. rank and file, know and adapt anyway, it is these pointless and divisive 'inclusion' demands being made by people who basically don't represent anyone really,  but make a living selling the dream of some deaf 'utopia' ignoring the huge disadvantage deafness and communication issues present. 

We can do everything but hear, erm, no, we can't actually.  A lot originates where most ill-thought-out ideas do, in the USA. My view is my own a lot don't agree with it, When choice is not an option, then you adapt far quicker.   For the record 68% of ALL deaf do the same, ask any BSL interpreter, whose services they never use or need to.

I think 'Deaf' choice is misunderstood, without the skill alternatives and education, it does not work. It's the same with any child. So we are back to the foibles of deaf education again, you have to start day one with how you mean to go on.  That means a bilingual education that takes into account the mainstream is not going to give concessions or make allowances, and deaf have to adapt or go without.

Deaf have to compete 100s to 1 with people who can hear and speak, have much higher literacy, and present fewer issues to employers etc.  Taking the moral higher ground isn't helpful or useful, employers will take the hearing first, so not only do we have to be equivalent to hearing peers, but indeed better to stand still. It's unfair? Life is.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 17 Sep 2021 10:17PM
Doesn't whether a deaf person can do a job on pretty much equal terms with a non-deaf person depend on the job?

I can think of jobs where you'd need a relatively low level of fluency in English to function, albeit needing to work in the context of others doing what I'll call the liaising, i.e. others in those roles in an organisation, or agents.

I realise that many roles aren't going to be there without lots of extra help, but doesn't that apply to people with a whole range of differences, difficulties & disabilities?

I can think of various functions involving repairing and servicing physical things where you could do it in the context of an organisation.  Or various forms of creative artwork and design.  There's a lot in the way of sewing, knitting, patchworking etc. 

I think it'll always be difficult, and certainly I'd want to  make every effort to help every child and adult to be as fluent as they are capable of in the language(s) used in their local community,  facilities and workplace, which in the UK is mostly English, I just feel that I'm concerned that over-emphasis on language can go both ways.  A person who's first language is BSL or other sign language may feel defensive if they perceive they're being seen as inadequate if their English isn't fluent.

Your reference to the number of deaf schools puzzled me so I looked it up, and yes, it appears there are 22.

But what doesn't make sense to me is that there's one very, very close to me that isn't on the list I found.  Then I thought how it's on a campus with other schools and part of a MAT, so maybe it's not technically a separate school, just a separate 'unit'.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 20 Sep 2021 10:33AM
Doesn't whether a deaf person can do a job on pretty much equal terms with a non-deaf person depend on the job?

I can think of jobs where you'd need a relatively low level of fluency in English to function, albeit needing to work in the context of others doing what I'll call the liaising, i.e. others in those roles in an organisation, or agents.

I realize that many roles aren't going to be there without lots of extra help, but doesn't that apply to people with a whole range of differences, difficulties & disabilities?

I can think of various functions involving repairing and servicing physical things where you could do it in the context of an organization.  Or various forms of creative artwork and design.  There's a lot in the way of sewing, knitting, patchworking, etc. 

I think it'll always be difficult, and certainly, I'd want to make every effort to help every child and adult to be as fluent as they are capable of in the language(s) used in their local community,  facilities and workplace, which in the UK is mostly English, I just feel that I'm concerned that over-emphasis on language can go both ways.  A person who's first language is BSL or other sign language may feel defensive if they perceive they're being seen as inadequate if their English isn't fluent.

Your reference to the number of deaf schools puzzled me so I looked it up, and yes, it appears there are 22.

But what doesn't make sense to me is that there's one very, very close to me that isn't on the list I found.  Then I thought how it's on a campus with other schools and part of a MAT, so maybe it's not technically a separate school, just a separate 'unit'.


The jobs deaf qualify for a menial that's the trouble, many jobs are demanding quite high levels of academic qualifications the deaf don't have, or at least, cannot attain currently.  Yes, 20 odd deaf schools still remain when looking that up its is important to also research how MANY deaf are in them, which has plummeted by over 31%, so a number are on the line for closure unless that changes.

There are numerous mainstream 'deaf/HoH' areas besides schools, PHU's e.g. Partial Hearing Units.  This is mainstreaming basically, some are in 'annexes' which are tokenistic, many are contentional at present because they are seen by deaf activism as 'token' inclusion of deaf children, and lack adequate support.  To a degree they are right, and LA's prefer mainstreaming to paying for specialist schooling.  The last time I looked deaf assessed as requiring a deaf specialist schooling in my area, it was in single figures, Wales has no deaf schools e.g, nobody is going to fund a school for that low demand.

We need to also take into account (Which activism doesn't), parental choice.  Many want their deaf children near, and with hearing families and peers, so family support is there, they choose not to send their child to any residential or distant option, they want their child included.  Some parents claimed such a child returned home from deaf schools almost strangers and had difficulty relating again to hearing family. BSL usage was blamed for that, social aspects were impacted too.  Deaf parents were attacked online by activists, accusing them of child abuse, if they supported HA or CI's etc..

Obviously, deaf related to deaf, they all signed, and were in deaf surroundings, another issue some parents had with specialist schooling, they weren't taught to communicate with hearing people as such.  It wasn't helped with determined opposition from some quarters against hearing aids, genetics, mainstreaming, CI's, BAHA's, etc as well as English language and grammar opposition, again, parents found such 'rights' demands, as negatives, and a direct challenge to them and what they wanted for their children, after all, the law says they are legally responsible not deaf activists.

On the job front, it is said 63% of deaf never get or hold down a full-time job. (I think this reflects with other disabled stats too?).   Covid apart, nil has changed but rhetoric demanding inclusion.  The last word isn't however down to activism or inclusion law,  but the employers.  I recall after the old 1995 DDA emerged, the CBI launching seminars on how to circumvent it.  It was clarified as 'explaining legal points to employers' but it was designed to find ways of NOT employing disabled and how not getting taken to task for turning disabled applicants down.

The fact doors got widened to admit wheelchairs, didn't enhance at all getting a job after going through them.  Sadly I still feel the deaf lack the educational wherewithal to advance themselves as hearing can. University take-up was/is a fudge, they struggled to manage or read coursework, indeed one University said they should not be admitted as they lacked basic literacy to make a course viable.  Some universities ran literacy classes for 6 months for deaf people before they started a chosen course.

Uni's claimed inclusion laws advocated substandard student admissions and lowered standards all around.  While more do now attend UNI's, the drop-out rate is alarming as they struggle, despite Access to Work support/education help, it appeared to make little difference.  we can argue against discrimination till the cows return home, but I think it all goes back to school curriculums and the bottom lines specialist schools need to adopt.  Work training needs updating too, it is almost non-extant.

It IS unfair those with a disability will always struggle, but the world of work is unkind, fast-moving, and support is seen as the domain of the state.  I rather fear every demand made for more 'help' for deaf and disabled just suggests they would be more of a 'problem' to employers, who can easily hire a hearing or able-bodied person instead.  Yes, it is all wrong, how do we address it?  More laws? more demands? more claims of discrimination?

Nothing changes... people just get angrier that's all.  Where a disabled or deaf person has the qualifications then we can fight their corner more effectively, not, if they don't have them, and that is the first excuse employers will use.  Can we really insist everyone else adapts to us? I think it is unrealistic in part because a number of us simply struggle anyway.  Perhaps we need to look at the world of employment differently?  Maybe subsidized work areas again?

Access to work can (for the most disabled), mean a maximum grant near £900 per week.  Would you see that as the way ahead? or, is there another way to see deaf/disabled really employed?  education is the key.  Specialist schools are failing I think, the focus is caring mostly, not academics.  Care is an obvious priority, but is ill-equipping them for the future on its own.  Do we accept this?  If we do, we accept the employer argument too.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 20 Sep 2021 04:44PM
Gosh, a lot of food for thought.

I'm afraid I think the current education system in England is ghastly unless you can afford to go to a 'good' private school.  Did I already do my 'what's wrong with education' rant?  If so, just sigh wearily and scroll down.  I just mention it because I think it impacts on deaf & disabled kids as well as others.

The national curriculum appears rigid and unhelpful, and too many of the academies, particularly the MATs, seem primarily concerned with meeting official targets and making profits for friends of board members.

(I do not say that all are like this, there are some good ones with very dedicated staff and board members.)

So part of the difficulty in my opinion overlaps with my views expressed elsethread on how people with mental issues are often seen/treated.  The mental health system is geared up to telling us and everyone else what is wrong with us.  I believe that mirrors schooling in England.

Once we had secondary moderns and grammars.  Then we had comprehensives but where I live, we still have grammars, so actually comprehensives are, in their essence, what I'll call 'inferior grammars for the thickos'.   Essentially the 11+ where I live is no longer determining whether you'll be better off focussing on academic stuff or whether you'll be better off focussing on practical stuff, it's all about saying whether you're good at academic stuff or not, and if not, spending the next five or seven years ramming home that message.

So what I'd like to see is a change to a system that looks for strengths, and more to the point, a whole range of strengths.

My favourite army illustration is the air photo reading one.  A room full of us on first day of the course, each with our own desk and stereoscope.  One eye saw a scale left to right, -10 to  +10.  The other eye saw an arrow.  "Where's the arrow?" asked the sergeant major.  Student after student answered him, then I asked him "Where do you want it, sir?"  "You won't be needing a stereoscope then?"  "No, sir."

What elsewhere was a defect, a disability, my eyes moving independently, was for that role a distinct advantage. 

Likewise, the same brain condition that causes that also affects my pituitary (which is next to the optic nerve) which in turn affects my thyroid.  Boy do I feel the cold.

But imagine how useful the army found it to have a soldier that didn't feel the heat.  A soldier that was a slow runner but ran as fast in 40 degrees as in 10 degrees, albeit a bit more comfortably in 40 degrees.

Ok, so now you have profoundly deaf people.  Loads of roles where not being disturbed by noise can be a big plus.  Loads of roles where being primarily visual and or physical/gesturing can be a big plus.  But our society sees what people can't do better than it sees what people can do.

So for me, logically, what's needed for deaf & disabled people to get a better deal is to look at our attitude in society to valuing different sorts of skills.

No different from my army days with the soldier with what appeared to be a very low IQ but who could drive a truck & trailer like nobody's business.  The army probably wouldn't value him these days, but in those days it did.  And if we had to help him get his uniform looking tidy enough, who cared?  He kept us safe and alive.

As for issues about mainstreaming etc. with schooling, I think as our conversations progress, I'm realising that has very different manifestations in different places, and I don't just mean our respective parts of the UK, but also probably from town to town adjacently and even almost down to neighbourhood.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 20 Sep 2021 08:44PM
Gosh, a lot of food for thought.

I'm afraid I think the current education system in England is ghastly unless you can afford to go to a 'good' private school.  Did I already do my 'what's wrong with education' rant?  If so, just sigh wearily and scroll down.  I just mention it because I think it impacts on deaf & disabled kids as well as others.

The national curriculum appears rigid and unhelpful, and too many of the academies, particularly the MATs, seem primarily concerned with meeting official targets and making profits for friends of board members.

(I do not say that all are like this, there are some good ones with very dedicated staff and board members.)

So part of the difficulty in my opinion overlaps with my views expressed elsethread on how people with mental issues are often seen/treated.  The mental health system is geared up to telling us and everyone else what is wrong with us.  I believe that mirrors schooling in England.

Once we had secondary moderns and grammars.  Then we had comprehensives but where I live, we still have grammars, so actually comprehensives are, in their essence, what I'll call 'inferior grammars for the thickos'.   Essentially the 11+ where I live is no longer determining whether you'll be better off focussing on academic stuff or whether you'll be better off focussing on practical stuff, it's all about saying whether you're good at academic stuff or not, and if not, spending the next five or seven years ramming home that message.

So what I'd like to see is a change to a system that looks for strengths, and more to the point, a whole range of strengths.

My favourite army illustration is the air photo reading one.  A room full of us on first day of the course, each with our own desk and stereoscope.  One eye saw a scale left to right, -10 to  +10.  The other eye saw an arrow.  "Where's the arrow?" asked the sergeant major.  Student after student answered him, then I asked him "Where do you want it, sir?"  "You won't be needing a stereoscope then?"  "No, sir."

What elsewhere was a defect, a disability, my eyes moving independently, was for that role a distinct advantage. 

Likewise, the same brain condition that causes that also affects my pituitary (which is next to the optic nerve) which in turn affects my thyroid.  Boy do I feel the cold.

But imagine how useful the army found it to have a soldier that didn't feel the heat.  A soldier that was a slow runner but ran as fast in 40 degrees as in 10 degrees, albeit a bit more comfortably in 40 degrees.

Ok, so now you have profoundly deaf people.  Loads of roles where not being disturbed by noise can be a big plus.  Loads of roles where being primarily visual and or physical/gesturing can be a big plus.  But our society sees what people can't do better than it sees what people can do.

So for me, logically, what's needed for deaf & disabled people to get a better deal is to look at our attitude in society to valuing different sorts of skills.

No different from my army days with the soldier with what appeared to be a very low IQ but who could drive a truck & trailer like nobody's business.  The army probably wouldn't value him these days, but in those days it did.  And if we had to help him get his uniform looking tidy enough, who cared?  He kept us safe and alive.

As for issues about mainstreaming etc. with schooling, I think as our conversations progress, I'm realising that has very different manifestations in different places, and I don't just mean our respective parts of the UK, but also probably from town to town adjacently and even almost down to neighbourhood.


The 11 plus was an exam to id an educational and social elite basically.  To qualify for a grammar school and hence to a University after, your academic prowess alone didn't get you on the ladder to FE.  They looked into your parents' jobs and status too.  I know because I was the sole person to take the 11 plus twice in my area.


Initialy, my exam marks were good but so was another classmate who had near identical marks, they said there was only 1 place available for the grammar school, so a face-off was done for both of us to take part of the exam again.  It produced near-identical results again, there was a school board meeting and then they told my Dad I had failed.  He asked why they said there was nothing to choose between the boys, but, as one had a GP for a parent we felt he would benefit more than your son, after all you are just a factory worker.


My dad fought them for a placing for me, but 4 months after I was consigned to the secondary modern school the lowest form of 11-plus education apparently.  My dad did challenge that and I was transferred to a halfway house of education a 'technical' and boys-only  school, which was close, but no cigar as was Grammar.


Part of the issue is deaf pushing rights above qualifications, there are people with A-Levels stacking shelves.  For myself I started going deaf at 12 years of age, I did manage to do an apprenticeship in electrical engineering, but when I went profound deaf nobody after would employ me doing the same job.  Instead, I did labouring toilet cleaning, menial shovel and broom work, because I took anything and everything to get a wage.


I didn't have the 'luxury' of demanding rights or complaining. Disability work inclusion was enabled in 1944 during the war, with an act of parliament, mainly because many able-bodied were conscripted, so they had to employ disabled.  However, post-war, the disabled were then moved to Remploy and other areas when the men returned from war and wanted their jobs back.  As we know prior to 2,000 our government sold the work to industry instead, leaving many deaf and disabled out of work and back on benefits.


Talking to older deaf there seemed but two option mainly for them, women went into sewing and allied work, and the men to labouring or working with wood.  Aspiration was zero really they were just glad to work, and being deaf was no 'excuse' not to.  The old DWP was the DSS deaf didn't use the disability employment officers at the job centres.  For those who had extreme difficulty getting a job there were 're-hab' centres for them, they assessed if the deaf/disabled were just lazy or unemployable, mostly the advice was for such deaf people to accept unemployability status.


Re-hab centres were strict and oppressive.  we are talking 1960s really towards the end of them. DRO's were replaced by DEA's after huge campaigns at the discriminations and cruelty of it all, their training was changed to accept deaf job seekers.  However deaf education stayed pretty much institutional and didn't enable the deaf school leaver.  It is why there is such reluctance to replace such a system again not least because of the abuses deaf childen suffered there, two schools in England and Scotland recently (Last 2 years), were under intense pressures to close as a result changes are slow even now.


There is an area of the deaf community that does very well, but others who don't even get a foot on the ladder.  While we can debate why this happens, the employers simply state deaf aren't qualified for the work they are offering, it is a state issue to sort out.  But rows as we know continue on what sort of education (Or language), is the prime medium to help deaf adapt and prosper against hearing peers and pressures.


Quite obviously even deaf like myself have views on what needs to be done and others who have different views of what will work.  I feel a BSL education being an untried option, is a risk and one that parents perhaps don't want their children to take. It could succeed, or could fail, if it fails who gets the blame etc?  The reality is the tuition and curriculum doesn't yet exist to try it out.  There would be years of argy-bargy on what a BSL curriculum should consist of. 


The NDCS currently is not supportive of a BSL education and has reservations on a BSL Bill too.  They have to steer themselves between deaf rights and parental ones, all they can do is support the child where it is.  Everyone supports BSL but not in education.  Recognition of sign use was put to the UK government by the EU, who put up 37 other 'minority languages' up for recognition too. To be frank the UK never legalised it at the school level, despite the BDA insisting it did. 


Choice was paramount but concern from the state BSL, was a hindrance rather than a help for the deaf adult.  Mainstream is a bit of a mess because the support for deaf has fragmented with deaf school closures and children attending schools locally, which meant the residential/specialisation options shut down through lack of pupils.  Teachers had no schools to teach in.  To know deaf futures you need to understand the deaf past and not make the same mistakes again which kept the deaf out of the running.  Whether this can work with a modern 'twist' is up for debate, I think personally not..
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 21 Sep 2021 07:33PM
I want to reply but I went to an exercise class today then did a little shopping.  A couple of incidents happened on the way back that left me rather stressed and now I've got my usual post-activity crash. 

Bear with me because I want to re-read your really interesting stuff tomorrow or the day after and respond.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 22 Sep 2021 11:47AM
I want to reply but I went to an exercise class today then did a little shopping.  A couple of incidents happened on the way back that left me rather stressed and now I've got my usual post-activity crash. 

Bear with me because I want to re-read your really interesting stuff tomorrow or the day after and respond.


As a postscript my view on deaf/disabled Uni students seems to have been endorsed yesterday by Uni's declaring there are valid reasons not to take them in, and, that diversity nor inclusion trumps qualification.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: ally on 22 Sep 2021 06:34PM
OTE.  Where is the evidence that supports what you said above?  Just interested
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 22 Sep 2021 07:29PM
OTE.  Where is the evidence that supports what you said above?  Just interested


It was on the News report in Wales yesterday. I'll try to find the newslink.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 23 Sep 2021 10:18AM
It seems localized to Wales at present? yesterday they did another item about how black students were not getting Uni access either.  Does anyone actually KNOW what basic qualifications are essential for a University placing? All I am getting is discrimination claims but with no descriptions of basic qualifications essential for University acceptances?  There is a view inclusion and diversity is bypassing the academic requirements by default, and then students struggle to succeed with their chosen courses, the deaf being ID's in particular via their issues with English.  This was the reason many dropped out, but the official stance is discrimination.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 23 Sep 2021 04:40PM
I'm trying to catch up here.

I think to some extent we're never going to agree on the linguistic thing.  I believe that if you are fluent in language A in linguistic environment B, your brain will be wired to do better at language B than if you had the same degree of learning of language B without having the knowledge of language A.  I think that you think children learn the environmental language best if it's their first language.

But at the same time, I think we agree in terms of whether it's ok to put a child in an exclusively signing environment, although possibly for different reasons.  I don't believe in monolingual education except in the case of those incapable of learning a second language, and to be that mentally impaired, you'd need to struggle in your first language.  You, I think, don't like it because you don't think a sign language should be what I'll call a first language.

Either way, I think we agree that BSL shouldn't be a child's only language unless they are incapable of learning English or other regional language.  But then I struggle to see how a child in this country could be reasonably/properly be educated with access to the internet, so whatever their primary language, they need English.

Incidentally, as a young child with glue ear and spending a lot of time alone reading, I know from looking back at essays I wrote as a child that I had a vast vocabulary of words I didn't know how to pronounce.  I worked that out later, but the vocabulary was there.

That being said, I'm mother tongue English, having started French at the age of about seven and still partly thinking in it (which I think you'd agree doesn't Frenchify my English) and having started to teach myself German from a French textbook whilst still at primary school.  I went to a secondary school where I studied French, German, Italian, Latin, Ancient Greek (Homeric, Attic, Doric), Biblical Greek.  I remain very visual with languages and remember vocabulary better if the language is written in an alphabet I'm fluent in, whether or not that's the alphabet usually used in that language. 

I have very, very strong views about issues relating to university education in the UK, which map onto my views about schooling.  I cheer on today's youngsters when they demand a fairness, no longer willing to put up with a lot of what we did.  In relation to my undergraduate course, the entrance requirements were unfair, some of the subjects very badly taught, the library resources not good, the exams didn't map onto subjects as taught etc.

So ironically, I think that one thing that students in general can benefit from is universities reviewing what adjustments they make for various disadvantages, because my gut feeling is that mostly they result in general improvements for all students.  I also don't believe that having parents wealthy enough to send you to the 'right' schools should give you an advantage at university entrance.  Example of that:- it's now the case that it's no longer rare for what I'll call 'posh' schools in England that are, by virtue of not being state schools, not bound by the national curriculum, to enter their pupils for completely different exams.  I don't mean different subjects, I mean different qualifications.  Some universities appear to treat those as worth more.

There is so much bias in our education system, most of it, I belive, social.  For example, I believe that a large part of educational disadvantage experienced by some racial groups arises from being more likely to be brought up in certain deprived areas. 

Where I live, there are over a dozen state primary schools I can walk to without hurrying in under half an hour.  There are loads of secondary schools, state and private within either short walk or short walk plus one bus travel from where I live.  Massive difference in catchment.  Did you take your child to the right place of worship for a year before admission to that high-performing state school? Could you afford at least half a million for that house in a tiny state school catchment area, or do you have a large income for that school with a wider catchment area but fees?  If not, your child will go to the state school other parents don't want their kids to go to because it's got fewer facilities and fewer wealthy parents willing and able to donate to school funds etc.

So for me, if disabled people, including deaf people, want a better deal for their kids and greater inclusivity, the most important thing to do is to campaign for general fairness. 

But then I've also expressed the view elsethread that for decades now I've been in favour of the model of education that's about clusters of schools or 'houses' within schools, with shared facilities and activities and separate facilities and activities.  I think that that can work for loads of SEND children as well as working for children like myself that had a primarily single sex education but with shared facilities as well.  Badminton?  Pop next door to the boys school.  Woodwork?  Pop next door to the boys school.  Oh hello, there's some boys there that want to join our music group.  And the dance class. 

And as I write that, I suppose that that's exactly what's happening with my nearest Deaf 'unit'.  It's got its own doors and classes, but it's on the same campus as the other 'units' and 'schools'.  You could teach the Deaf pupils no English at all and they'd still pick it up in the playground or on the bus, just as lots of immigrant children from non-anglophone countries pick up English in what seems like no time at all. 
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 23 Sep 2021 07:22PM
I take the points and no I don't think BSL as a first language empowers the deaf, neither if used early on does it assist in acquiring the basics of English etc, because as we know once they sign they don't want anything else.  The argument it is their natural tongue doesn't really gel because it isn't the tongue of everyone else, so preference or not they have to have more strings to their bow, if they want work or further education options, because the educational programs are designed for people w are literate in English and able to follow the courses in it.


It's not 'denying' inclusion it is identifying the reality these deaf are struggling to follow coursework because they have a poor background in literacy despite 14 years of pre-education first.  We can't just declare it is discrimination alone that prevents advancement,  hearing or deaf if you fail the exams you are out. Changing the educational bottom-line has to be done so deaf can 'compete.  If they want 'in' then they have to have the same keys.


If a migrant comes to the UK unable to speak or read the language, the very first thing they ask for is tuition to learn, the first thing deaf ask for, is the system to change to them, and that's the difference.  I don't know why the deaf talk themselves down, there is plenty of ability that enables them to adapt.  If we go here or online or anywhere where deaf are adept is exactly what they are and effective with it.  Online I find their standard of English very good, there is just this relentless drive to not focus that in education or the workplace, but to insist discrimination and oppression is rife, don't see it.


Nobody really explains why this is.  The very best deaf school in the entire UK is the Mary Hare Grammar School, an ORAL-based deaf education, this school also supplies 46% of BSL advocates, it is this 'elite' driving it all, again we don't know why that is given they didn't have a signed education themselves but,  fared better without it.  One of their graduates was Doug Alker who became CEO of the RNID, but who was sacked for trying to re-write the RNID itself and turn it into some BSL enclave.


HoH RNID members voted him out because his policies sidelined them in favour of deaf signers.  He then tried to run a disability main group set up by the government and the disabled voted him out for doing the same thing there, guess where he ended up? yup the BDA, the ultimate home of lost cultural causes.  There is still a hardcore who support his view and is very vociferous online using not sign language but English to promote it, go figure.


NO, we won't agree [size=78%]on sign as it is currently portrayed, but I am grateful (Thank You),  a debate is even possible because you would not be able to do that on a BSL Deaf site, I tried as did others.  They are closed sites with closed minds.  I waiting now for the huge arguments to start regarding Coronation Street and the hysterical deaf on there.  Pretty good example of supporting my view really![/size]

Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 23 Sep 2021 08:51PM
"...as we know once they sign they don't want anything else..."

I'm still struggling with the way you seem to lump all first-language BSL people together.  It just doesn't compute in terms of the people I've known in my life.  If I go to my local deaf centre, I don't find that typical of the atmosphere.  I haven't found it with BSL users in my local community.

Do you feel this way about those that learn first in Erse/Gaelic or Welsh?

"...If a migrant comes to the UK unable to speak or read the language, the very first thing they ask for is tuition to learn..."

Not our local schoolkids.  They go to school and pick up English really, really fast.  Maybe that depends on the schools, but for all that I've a lot of criticisms of schools, they can't stop kids learning in the playgrounds or dining room or changing rooms. 

So much school vocabulary has to be learnt in school anyway.  After all, even local dialect words and grammar have to be re-learnt.   

But as I say, what I find very difficult isn't the notion that there are some culturally Deaf people who feel they want to live in a monolingual Deaf & BSL world, and the consequential issues, but the sense that you see all first language BSL users in a way that I'd liken to, say, seeing all Christians as a single group instead of recognising differences such as those between unitarians & trinitarians, between Catholics and Protestants etc.  It just doesn't compute for me. 

But then by analogy linguistically it doesn't bother me if my neighbour uses, say, Creole or Cornish as her child's first language.  The child won't have to have had its first smartphone or laptop long to be typing away in that odd online communication that children use that makes those of us that feel modern using a hug emoticon feel out-of-date, and then they're launched into the world of more conventional stuff.

As for people listening to you, I think we both have communication issues with others when putting our views forward.  I think we're both a bit inclined to spout at length which works for some people (e.g. us reading each other) but not for lots of other people.

Also, just as I can annoy people with my nit-pickiness, I think a couple of your linguistic habits turn off people who might otherwise listen to you.  Seriously.  If I, who have some overlapping views with you, about how all D/deaf children should, subject to their mental ability (which wouldn't exclude many) be taught to a high level of fluency in their local language, which for most purposes in the UK would be English, feel niggly over your turn of phrase that seems to lump all D/deaf children into a single homogeneous blob, then what about people who at present wouldn't agree with you over anything in this?

I think it's worth reading what you write because I'm getting the feel from what you say that there are Deaf people out there that are hostile to learning English at all even when they're capable of it, and that this may be connected with the nature of some Deaf schools.  That was something that, based on where I live, I wasn't aware of as a problem except with maybe a couple of groups/clubs/organisations involving grown-ups somewhere. 

I mentally map it onto what I consider to be a very small minority of people in Scotland who feel that they should be able to stick to using Gaelic all the time and for all purposes.  I find that as unrealistic as if I were to insist on sticking at all times to my regional English.  On the other hand, I can go full-on rant about what I consider to be children's right to speak dialect out of school or even in the playground.

But I don't think you're going to win many arguments over your understandable concerns because whilst I'll be annoyingly nitpicky and say things like "I wish you wouldn't say X when what I think you mean is Y, because if you mean Y, we agree on quite a bit", others mightn't and might stop listening at the point at which they think "We're not a single blob."

Maybe consider how you put your case across and then maybe more besides me might take on board that there are aspects of Deaf education and communities that are different in different places to an extent we weren't seeing in the circles in which we move?

That's not to insult you about your posting style - after all, I've acknowledged my own style has its faults and I'm sure others could point out aspects I'm not aware of in relation to mine.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 25 Sep 2021 12:32PM
I blame current views on inclusion and diversity myself everyone is entitled to anything they say or do etc.  I tend to target a specific area of the Deaf, unfortunately, this gets misconstrued as 'global' criticism of all deaf, it is not of my making, just the nature of the beast really, via the d/D/Hi/HoH/AD and whatever (!) thing.  If you target specific people and areas directly then they mass against, that has been my experience, the extremes of the deaf world hide in plain sight.

If you can show me a way to target specific deaf people and groups who create all these issues let me know.  Online they simply block or ban end of. I share your view rank and file in the few clubs that still exist, exhibit next to none of these extreme views at all, sadly, what they will read is you 'attacking' deaf people since this is how it works when you challenge, and line up against regardless.  That's the strength in the deaf community, they may well not agree with their own extremes, but they will still support them as peers against you as all 'oppressed deaf' together.  That message has been sold to them.

This has led to many reasonable, moderate and adept deaf being ostracised from the community.  You are allowed only one stance regarding the issues of deafness, hearing loss, language, or culture.   I think if everyone on this site agreed with each other all the time, it would be seen boring, and the site exists because we disagreed with the BBC didn't it?

It is up to rank and file to get rid of their extremes, but many are a captive audience really knowing only sign and own social areas, they have this wall up for 'self-protection', but it works against anyone who isn't the same as they are.  Society today is riddled with such areas.  They struggle to communicate outside it, so they stay inside it.  At the same time launch inclusion and access campaigns, they are unlikely (or perhaps unable), to maximise anyway, it is why I go to the root of it all.  We know things like the BSL Bill etc are designed to take the deaf back to a situation that failed generations of deaf people before.


It's sold as a BSL Utopia of some sort, this follows recent campaigns in the USA wanting the same thing. Deaf cohesion is laudable and not at the same time, as it limits inclusion and diversity by default.  I think if you want change enough then you have to stand up.  I'm not a martyr, if I get cut I bleed too. Vested interests are entrenched and will use whatever to ensure you cannot progress.

There really is hardcore of quite adept deaf who are in it for less than inclusive means and want to control things.   There are also support charities who are against it because let's face it, they won't exist if all deaf attain independence.  We made a start years ago by dismissing the dedicated deaf social services here, only 35% could sign properly yet had been controlling deaf lives for 50 years, but the deaf didn't capitalise on it, held back by the fact they are still deaf, still hadn't effective access, communications, or the support to progress. Deaf extremists moved into fill the vacuum. They are very clever people.

Deaf can do everything but hear, but that's the issue isn't it? 68% don't even USE BSL support today. Online we see a rash of 'let's learn BSL',  going on, I ask why?  Is there some view all hearing will learn it? and if they do, all deaf will then abandon generations of deaf social living?  Inclusion will become real? Not going to happen is it?  Deaf inclusion can only be relative unless change happens.

The token representations in media are just a sop to most of it, next week the Blind etc who knows?  Recent inclusions have been a total embarrassment, simply because media doesn't understand inclusion or diversity, didn't consult diverse opinion, but included those instead with an axe to grind to lecture all and sundry on 'what you need to do to talk to deaf people', nobody suggests what the deaf could be doing to facilitate it, or how to address the issues deafness creates or even if we should..


There is no all for one and one for all, we are all making our own headway and we are not good at that.  Neither the disabled or the Hard of Hearing despite being a majority, have the support the deaf extreme does.  Another amble sorry,  x amount of characters only, like BSL, cannot go into detail and detail is where it is at.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: On the edge on 25 Sep 2021 12:56PM
I think in deference to the rest it is time to give this subject a rest lol  I have welcomed a response but the deaf don't come here anyway.
Title: Re: BBC moan (plus thread-drift)
Post by: Sunny Clouds on 25 Sep 2021 01:37PM
Quote
the deaf don't come here anyway.

I think it could be argued that proportionate to the small number of posters in here (as opposed to lurkers), those of us that are deaf are one of the biggest groups.

Anyway, if you want a rest, that's ok.  I've learnt things from you and I hope you've learnt something from me, even if just a little.