To further emphasise my suggestion, here’s an extract from a statement, written by Malcolm Wright – MD of Signpost (ITV – Tyne Tees), to Ofcom during their Access Services review 2006.

Digital switchover – the need for better informationOfcom’s current research finds that:

• people with hearing and / or visual impairments watch rather more television than the average viewer
• people with sensory impairments are likely to be older and older people are less likely to be aware of digital television and its capabilities, and more likely to have difficulty purchasing, setting up and using digital television. This may limit current access service use

These findings all strongly suggest that the roll-out of information about digital switchover – and attendant publicity – should be accessible in BSL as well as in English. Ofcom’s proposed review of current arrangements for BSL on TV should address how it is promoted, and identify what needs to be done to ensure that older deaf people can benefit equally from digital TV technology.

In the light of the recent furore about BBC’s See Hear being knocked off the Saturday scheduling, into the middle of the week and downscaled to 30 mins instead of the usual 40 mins.  Terry Riley, the editor of the programme, outlined the BBC and See Hear visions in response to the  tide of discontentment among the Deaf community. His letter can be found here.

The power-to-bes at Auntie Beeb have taken the stance that we, the audiences, must evolve our viewing habits and embrace new technology. I fear that not all Deaf audience will be clued up on how to use the digital switchover and have knowledge on a burgeoning market of products/services that caters for the digital evolution. BSL users who require this knowledge need a starting point, which led to my suggestion in response to Mr Riley’s letter.

 Hi TerryThank you for taking your time to outline See Hear’s vision in these a-changing times. It is reassuring to know that SH haven’t been singled out for changes as other minor programmes are also affected – however it is a worrying trend to witness. Anyway, it will be an interesting challenge for your team to adapt to these changes and keep the spirit and the aims of SH intact. I wish you all the best.

In the meantime, whilst BBC usher itself into the ‘self-service’ era, might it be a good idea if you do a consumer segment, investigating and educating us on how to take advantages of these technological advances such as PVR and whatnots. I am certain that people will lose out through these changes because they are not technical savvie enough to go at the same pace as BBC, which could partially explain the discontentment and resistance to scheduling changes. The range of digital ready products / service providers / etc are enormous and invariably bewildering too.

Best Regards
Tony Barlow

Posted this on the Deaf-Uk forum and felt it was too deep to discarded on the DUK server – owned by someone else. So, posting it again under my bog……blog!!!

I am absorbed by these comments from Erick. It is quite hard hitting for my liking but as I understand it is an American trait to be forthright and can understand his zeal because they got results by standing up for themselves and believing in themselves.

Like I said before, I would still be wary when to use the word ‘audism’ unless it is absolutely clear that it is occurring and inflicted upon us. I have to admit that I didn’t like the bit when Erick said if the parents of the Deaf person refused to learn BSL, he would be surprised if they didn’t disown them. That rankled me a teeny little bit.

The reason for my concern is this……

A wee bit about me – I was brought up via the oralism route – my memories of my time in the PHU is quite vague but 7 of us got on pretty well but we still had speech lessons. In mainstream classes, I had no comm support and I was happy in my own world of daydreaming, drawing faces of people (which I was quite good at). However, red ears and steamed up headphones was the norm of the day. Shit happens. I don’t remember having speech back then – only gestures and actions – until I was approaching nearly ten. When I was discovered deaf at the age of 3, my education became an issue and my parents was convinced that making me oralised was the right way to go about it (no thanks to the NDCS back then – we are talking about the 70s). Then I go into Mary Hare. We all know what happened there. The most oralised pupils have a better time than BSL pupils cos of their oralism approach. I was oblivious to that fact cos I was having happy time in me own dream bubble. Anyway, I found my Deaf identity 5 years after I left Mary Hare and joined the Sheffield Deaf student scene of the early 90s (approx 25 of us).  Despite discovering BSL, I have always communicated to my parents through speech. Now, fast forward 7 years ago, after the millennium, I met my future wife. She was the 1st BSL partner, whereas previous partners have been mainly deaf and oral. What did my parents do, they enrolled onto BSL classes in Gloucester, without me asking them. Now, my mum is still making an effort to communicate with my wife but, regrettably my dad have given up after trying one whole course and failed the stage 1 exam. He simply cannot make sense of new language because, by his rationale, he is not a language person. He still make an effort, bless him, but have to rely on me to interpret for me, which my wife don’t mind. Cos we are all not perfect.

That is why we have to be careful not to be too eager to use the term “audism”. There could be other factors that are not based on prejudice and ignorance. Some people are conditioned that way and it is through no fault of their own.

Awww, heck. I am past caring now whether I get banned from Deaf UK. The antics of the moderator have gone too far and left me pretty disillusioned and feeling down in the heart. Members on Deaf UK are also pretty fed up with all this ongoings, which never seemed to have gone ever since the infamous 4 got banned.

I just wanna put a flag up about the poor chap, Rob Wilks. To me, it is the moderator’s very public character attack on Rob Wilks have left me completed aghast and rattled my sense of injustice. Moderator called Rob dishonest, a liar and a crap solictor. When I suggested that if the moderator wanted to express his views, I never expected that and, Rob’s blogs in question, certainly didn’t warrant that. Rob, I am really sorry all this has come about as I feel somehow responsible.

Various postings, in response to the post, have now gone off in several direction relating to the definition of audism and a revival of Deaf UK, under a different title, just like it used to be. 

I just want to bring the attention back to Rob, who is the real victim in all this. I am struggling to identify where in Rob have said in his blogs (this one and this) that is considered inflammable and defamatory towards DUK moderator in particular. There were some negative and disparaging takes about DUK moderating style and Rob did highlight what others have said about this. No attacks was made on the moderator on the personal level and about the moderator’s attributes. So, on both blogs, it is opinions and observations on the current state of affairs within the Deaf community and DUK – huh, so what.

Anyway, it is sheer hypocrisy that gets me when the moderator attacked Rob Wilks so publicly and so personally. The moderator is on dangerous grounds when he declared Rob is a crap solicitor using information based on ‘hearsay’ (as repeated in BSL - seen on this vlog) – isn’t this tantamount to libel? Rob is a young trainee solicitor and quite possibly have plans to represent Deaf people on a professional basis since he is a Deafie himself. Furthermore, Rob write his blogs as a Deaf person but not in his professional capacity. This so-public attack will be detrimental on his reputation, so early in his career, unless the moderator make a public apology (but it will still leave a cloud over Rob nonetheless). Now, let me bring you to a segment of the recent draft policy circulated on Deaf-UK recently by the moderator.

11. Personal attacks are NOT allowed. These should be dealt with
outside of Deaf-UK. No `third-party’ attacks will be allowed either.
Deaf people always direct to 3rd person is not allowed either.

I rest my case.

For a more detailed version of how we have arrived here, have a look at Tony N’s blog for a general idea of the ongoings.

P.S. I wish I could vlog this so a webcam is on my shopping list – a very looong shopping list btw.

Whilst there is a lull at work, while the students are rushing to hand in their assignments and swotting up for exams, I came across this old article. The list below is an extract from this link (a personal website). Because of the empowerment angle, I felt it is worthy enough to be filtered out via the web 2.0 arena. Any thoughts anyone?

10 reasons why charities have to go

1. We can speak for ourselves. Disabled people prove time and again that we can speak for ourselves. We are our own best advocates. We have created democratic organisations controlled and run by disabled people. Despite this Charities remain run and controlled by non disabled people and often don’t even employ disabled people. The big charities have had 50 or more years to empower us so why haven’t they. Why do we still need them to speak for us?
2. Give us the money cut out the middleman. Charities are a major block to disabled people and their organisations receiving direct public support. Charities not only take the public’s money but also actively compete against organisations run and controlled by disabled people to take national and local government money. Whilst disabled led organisations struggle some charities have millions of pounds sitting in vaults doing nothing. Isn’t it about time for the public to donate to the real struggle for disability rights?
3. They are part of the problem not the solution. Charities claim falsely to speak for us. They also actively advocate for things that disabled people don’t want. Charities are the main owners of the institutions that we are desperately trying to get rid of. Our segregation in this country is run by charities. Because they never valued our input they will always get it wrong. Charities employ full time lobbyists who whisper in secret in Ministers ears. Its time for an open campaign led by accountable disabled people.
4. Who are the great and the good? Who do they think they are? Most charities are spearheaded by the great and the good. People far removed from the discrimination that disabled people experience. They are unelected and unaccountable. Their motivation seems to be driven more by image than commitment. Worst of all it is these very spongers who decide how the cake is cut up when it comes to dishing out the cash the public gives. What gives them the right? Are they so arrogant to believe because they once were famous or are vaguely related to the queen that it entitles them to be experts on disabled people and our struggle?
5. Impairment specific causes create division and unfair, unequal competition. Most charities advocate for single impairment groups each one trying to outdo the other in raising funds. The successful ones with more money can spend more money in making money whilst the unsuccessful ones struggle. The richer the charity the more lobbyists it can employ to whisper in the governments ear at free lunches paid for by the donating public. This is a crazy way to distribute the resources needed to create an equal society.
6. We are not in control. Whilst the Charities are around it means disabled people are not in control of our own destiny, our campaigns, and our lives. The experience of many disabled people who sit on committees who attend meetings overloaded by people from the charities is that they have no idea that their very presence is oppressive and demeaning to disabled people. Our voice is lost in their confused and incoherent message.
7. They send out the wrong message. What messages does all this send out? Disabled people cannot organise, cannot deal with money, cannot speak, cannot think, cannot be trusted, cannot work. In fact we are so pathetic that we can’t even beg for ourselves. Until the charities are out of our lives out of our campaigns this message will persist.
8. Our bills not their sell-outs. Charities are driven by money not issues. Charities sold out disabled people when they gave the Disability Discrimination Act the thumbs up. Charities act as a buffer for any government to turn to when our demands are not met or when they need a compromise too far. There is always someone unelected, unaccountable in a charity who will praise the government whatever. So long as the money and peerages roll in.
9. Our urgency not their pace. Disabled people who directly experience discrimination have a greater sense of urgency than the great and the good in charge of charities. Charities are directly responsible for the slow pace of change in improving the lives of disabled people.
10. Work with us not for us. This does not mean disabled people do not want to work with non disabled people on the campaign for equality. The opposite is true. What we don’t want is non disabled people to work with non disabled people on our campaign. So join us in our campaign. Give disabled people your support and your cash. Lets build alliances between other campaigns for justice and equality lets build alliances with the big social movements. We’ve grown up as a disabled people’s movement its just that some people don’t realise it yet!!!!

Wishful thinking, eh!

I don’t want to clutter deaf-chat-uk but I am beginning to see why other commentators have expressed their frustrations at MM (Mellow Meldrew). He is very effective at deflecting attention away from real core issues, which is very annoying. Best thing to do is click ‘Delete’ because he is not even a proper devil’s advocate – argumentative rather than take position for the sake of the argument.

After intensive reading and hopping between blogs, bloghost sites, blogware – I have taken the plunge and entered the blogosphere fully informed. I have absolutely no idea what I am going to talk about so I will just go with the flow until I find my feet and establish core areas. From looking at other blogs, they tend to be centred around several core issues, with drizzled with personal interests.

I chose the title because I went to see a Deaf comedian, called John Smith. His performance was brilliantly executed and timings/acting were spot on. His version of enforced oralism suffered throughout his childhood were hilarious, albeit a raw topic for majority of the audience. When hearing aids became the focus of ridicule, he asked the audience for a show of hands from hearing aid wearers. As a hearing aid wearer, I shrank in my seat as I do not want to be ridiculed especially after seeing his public humiliation of 4 hearing woman studying Level 1/2/3 BSL [way to go, Johnny boy!] – which was incidentally very funny too.

Going off the topic, there is a coffee table book called “Look at me” by Lisa Mills. According to the blurb, its a positive and visual book about Deaf awareness. I haven’t read it but the title already makes me cringe even though I shouldn’t judge a book by its cover. It deserves a closer attention from me and if I ever see it on someone’s devastatingly cool coffee table, I won’t resist the urge to pick it up. 

Having said that, it’s “Don’t look at me!”.