BSL Interpreters HIDE Issues EXPOSED NOW!

(My English lack of my real emotions contain more information while playing the video clips - my BSL is emotional more information than English).

Hello. I am very crossed why the interpreter again pick deaf people (blacklist). They pick deaf people they really like or get well with that person, and remove other deaf people from their assignment!! I BEEN FIND OUT!! SHOCKING! Been witnessed hearing who organised for a BSL interpreter. BSL interpreters been asking "who is this deaf person? Hang on, no way Sorry I do not want to work with this person!"

I am very angry I have been told you all last year I have been so clear told you, why you interpreters WANT SO MUCH POWER than Deaf to bottom of the list (passive). Rejecting them at your gain. WHY STILL AGAIN!?! OHH, I SEE THESE INTERPRETERS ARE SELFISH.

Those interpreters WANT themselves thinking "I am Professional! I am an interpreter! I am deciding to do this because of Health and Safety regulations! I am important! No, I must have two interpreters as a rule! I refused to work unless I have another interpreter! No I cannot work all day on my own!" with bad attitude.

I have seen it happen often! Now I found out they are still doing picking deaf clients! STILL!! Using the name of clients! WHY!!!

I tell you from now!

All interpreters not allow to ask the name of the clients from now! Who is that person! Not allowed! They must now ask what is the assignment, subject, how long is the assignment, date and time, but not "who is that person!".

(pointing the finger)

All these must STOP NOW!

I am telling you - Interpreters have broken their Confidentiality rule! I have responsibility to tell to deaf community it has been happened. Deaf people told me they broke the confidentiality. Have one of these examples - Interpreters been talking with other interpreters with client information name, and problems the interpreters have with. Other interpreters has been advised them not to work with that client anymore pretend that there is no work or the assignment is fully booked. Why the interpreters lied or making excuses?

STOP!!

I know already there were 300 interpreters shortage 10 years ago. Yes it was a big problem. But now there were over 650 to 700 interpreters, there were more and more new interpreters, more more will be more.

It is now "no excuse" to say interpreter shortage! Please take off "interpreter shortage". You all interpreters have to be aware.

FIRST IS DEAF POWER. Interpreters are second and must follow what deaf is priority. What deaf people want? In America, interpreters are 2nd, and 1st are Deaf and they work well over there.

In Britan, why INTERPRETER GOT MORE POWER THAN DEAF? Deaf is bottom? NO!! I tell you NO! Wanting Deaf to be passive? NO! NO!

We will check to Interpreters now! Deaf must involved in moderation! To these interpreters. MUST!

IN interpreter egroup, interpreters been discussing and continue to make decisions without deaf people. Not much deaf people are aware of what going on, many deaf people in community do not know. Interpreters made decisions!

Interpreters must accept feedback from deaf people. If deaf people gave feedback then interpreters do not want to work with them, then we will launch a campaign against Interpreters. Yes.

Thank you!

---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk

Thanks to Deafread and I know one person

English Translation

Hello. I like to say Thank you to Taylor and Deafread Team for creating more ideas for changes on DeafRead. I thank you to Deafread for allow my posts get through on the main page, for submitting information on deaf issues and information on audism/favouritism that rejected in deaf community.

I have seen many deaf professionals pulling down to deaf to rock the bottom. I have been evidenced. For example,

G.O.D. Website, Alison Bryan owed the website. Sadly, I have seen her pulling downing deaf people down to rock the bottom. I am shocked she used myself as example. She says I attack, give wrong information, libel.

NOW I RESPOND... Alison Bryan, I see her judge harshly on information, she should not have been judged to Deafread, WRONG. ONE BIG EXAMPLE...

On Deaf-UK, I have been many times asking face to face with her. She ignored. I have been email few months ago. Can easily have webcam conversation with her. I was happy to discuss with Alison Bryan. To show that I am happy to unite deaf community, share information.

She says sorry, I cannot. I have RSI, I cannot sign well. But.. (thinking)... really strange. Because I told her I understood. Then I move on.

Then last week, I went to Deaf Genes Debate in Cardiff, then I say... I saw her use sign language really well. Great! Good Sign Language fast. I cannot see her injury. Nothing.

I have met her straight away and face to face her. I have not seen her for few years. I press my hand on her arm. Face to Face. Alison was looking at her mobile (her hand is OK). Then she was looking at me. I say "Can we sort out talk now or later?" She look away, shake her hand, signed you assault me. Me thinking me assault you? What? I press my hand on her again. She was moving away against me, shaking her hand. I STOP! Only one time I press her arm, not more. Enough. I know. FACT. EVIDENCE. SHOW REAL.

Alison Bryan is not HONEST. She is lots false with all. I see with my eyes, I can see that now.

For ages, I have been move on, contact her to sort out, but she was not listening. When I was not there in any room, she highly criticising me really horrible. She use my name, slagging me off with many people in deaf community. I have found out many.

I see again, issues brought up favouritism and audism. It still are there. Deaf Community was unite, now break up in small different groups against with each other. Many time I say please unite. Still spilt up groups. Who's fault? Alison Bryan!

Hang on, Deafinitely Theatre Alison is wrong information. Deafinitely Theatre been contact Deaf say anyone are welcome to the event. But myself and other deaf persons, were not allowed, basis on audism/favouritism. Audism is definitely there.

I WELCOME ALISON BRYAN TO SAY I LIBEL. Welcome. But I do not agree it is libel. It is for public benefit to all community - deaf or hearing community. All must aware what is going on for deaf professionals pulling down to rock to the bottom. Like Alison Bryan.

STOP. You all have to positive all deaf community. But you all not think about nothing.

Now I say to Alison Bryan. In professional or personal capacity, I do not want to know you. If you bring up my name again, I will definitely respond to you and bring up LEGAL!!

Thank you for all watching me.

Blacklist to Paula Garfield, Director, Deafinitely Theatre

John Savva Deaf-UK Owner now blacklist Deafinitely Theatre, blacklist DVD launch for 29th February 2008 - reason Audism and Favourism.

* Paula Garfield refuse for me to got their DVD launch as Deaf-UK Owner because I made a public annoucement on Tomato - life partner (on BDA who audism with me), and said that I have abused him (using word "Abuse" repeately).
* Paula Garfield lied said it is for medicial people only but later admit lie that she dont want me and other deaf specific persons to go their launch - a lie!
* I have allow Deafinately Theatre to advertise for Deaf-UK for years for free PR, but refused.
* Tried to face to face with her, but she refused to listen, and mention things are really personality, mixed up with professional. Not professional as a Director of the Theatre,
* Favourism invite some well known professionals, and not invite other deaf who are need to access to deaf community and access to the Theatre.
* Blacklist to the Theatre for audism and favourism, because DVDs and Theatre should be access to ALL, not favourism!

---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.deaf-uk.com

BBC REFUSE to provide more signed programmes - What is going on?

Dear Mr Savva

I write in response to your recent email regarding in-vision BSL signing on
BBC News programmes.

My name is David Larner and I am the BBC Information Divisional Advisor
with responsibility for the BBC's Access Services including subtitling and
signing. This matter has been escalated for my personal attention. Please
accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

The BBC is now signing 5% of programmes across BBC One, Two, Three, Four,
CBeebies, CBBC and BBC News24. This is in line with Ofcom's requirements as
set out in their code on Television Access Services which came into force
in December 2003 as part of the Communications Act 2003.

I note that you have expressed a wish for 100% of programmes to be signed.
You may be aware that Ofcom - the communications industry regulator - is
obliged under the Communications Act to "from time to time review a code
setting out how applicable television services should promote the
understanding and enjoyment of television by people who are deaf or hard of
hearing, or blind or partially-sighted, or who have a dual sensory
impairment".

I understand that Ofcom carried out a review into Television Access
Services in 2006 and the details can be found online at:
www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/accessservs

Your thoughts and feedback in this area would therefore be best addressed
to Ofcom in the first instance to help them shape their future plans and
rules on access services.

Currently, parts of BBC Breakfast are signed on weekday mornings, along
with the One O'Clock News (on the BBC News 24 simultaneous broadcast).
There are also regular Sign Zones in the late evenings on BBC One. Whilst I
appreciate that you would like to see more signing across BBC channels, I
have to advise that as things stand with technical and resource
limitations, we have no plans to increase the percentage at the moment.

The Disability Discrimination Act calls for organisations to make
"reasonable adjustments" to ensure all users are accommodated. The BBC
believes that we have undertaken such reasonable adjustments and
furthermore that these are in line with the legal requirements set out in
the Communications Act.

I am sorry not to be able to provide you with a more positive response to
your email at this time but I hope that I have been able to explain some of
the background to this issue.


Yours sincerely


David Larner
Divisional Advisor
BBC Information

House of Parliament - BSL translation to be needed? Message for CornishAndy and Joe

Disabled Persons Independent Living Bill - important for Deaf?

Disabled Person Living Independent Bill - please click

House of Lords
Friday, 14 December 2007.
The House met at ten o'clock: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, in both senses—in the parliamentary sense of a Second Reading and in the sense that this is the second time that the Bill has been before the House. As noble Lords will know, it is the same Bill that was passed by this House last April. It was subsequently introduced in the House of Commons by Roger Berry but ran out of time there. The Bill is a high priority for those of us concerned with disability. I declare an interest as a disabled person, so there is a certain self-interest in this Bill being passed by both Houses.

Those of us who are interested in disability issues intend to make them a high priority in this country. Without that we will get nowhere, but with public support we can make progress. We are determined that this Bill should become law. It may not happen now, but it will definitely happen. A Government who support the Bill will find themselves in good favour in the country. They have been warned that if they reject this Bill or do not bother with it, somebody else may take up the cudgels.

I thank Caroline Ellis of the Disability Rights Commission for her magnificent help, work and support on this important Bill. I warmly appreciate it, as do millions of disabled people around the country. The Bill includes many things and all claims for it can be verified. It is a rescue operation for the victims of the worsening crisis in social care. It is a blueprint for the future, compensating for the many short-sighted policies and practices. It is a Bill that seeks to end the misery inflicted on disabled people and their families by an antediluvian system of care that is restrictive and inflexible.

The need for reform grows more urgent every day. It is staggering that three-quarters of councils are now refusing to support people with moderate needs and at least four councils provide support only if the person would otherwise die. You have to be dying to get any kind of help from councils and, of course, if you die it is no help anyway. Three-quarters is an outrageous figure. Unless you are dying, you need not bother applying. Those are the facts in Great Britain. Without support, people are left to deteriorate, carers cannot work and families are put under strain.

Pilots, reviews and warm words from Ministers are not what people want or hope for. They want a new law that gives them clear entitlements and guarantees them a chance to live an ordinary life contributing to their community. They hope that the Government will seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to bring

14 Dec 2007 : Column 424

about a real and lasting change. The House will listen with great care to the Minister who winds up. We are hoping for something that is positive, constructive and definite. Disabled people hope that the Government will seize the opportunity offered by the Bill to bring about a real and lasting change. If they do not, they must take the consequences, as we intend to make social care a high priority.

I remind the House of the main points of the Bill. First, it provides a set of guiding principles for the delivery of public service support to disabled people. It would prevent the everyday abuses of dignity and autonomy that we see today. Nowhere in the existing pattern of community care provisions will we find any reference to choice, control, dignity or equality. Disabled people are as much entitled to those as anybody else, but social services departments routinely make decisions that contradict those fundamental values.

The Bill would get rid of fragmented services and bewildering bureaucracy. It would place local authorities, National Health Service bodies and other key partners under a clear obligation to promote independent living. This goes hand in hand with greater strategic duties to co-operate and pool funds. Under this scheme, disabled people would be relieved of the nightmare of negotiating with a bunch of different agencies to try to get their needs met.

The Bill empowers disabled people to assess their own support needs, supported by an advocate if they need one. This gives every disabled person the right to be told up front what resources they are entitled to and to plan their own support package. It gives people a real choice between managing their budget with practical assistance, placing it with a trusted person or organisation to manage on their behalf or taking statutory services in lieu of cash. These are important changes.

Some councils only feed and clean, nothing else. In place of the insulting feed-and-clean-only approach, the Bill provides for holistic entitlements to support that extend beyond personal care. Disabled people would have clear rights to support for mental health and communication needs and for rehabilitation, as well as rights to support in bringing up children. These are things that the Government have pledged to deliver for disabled people by signing the United Nations disability convention. We thank the Government for that, but the catch is that they have yet to enshrine that in law. There is no point in saying how clever we are in singing the declaration if it is not legally binding, so the Government may be wasting their time if they do not pursue this further and make it mandatory. We want the law. I ask my noble friend the Minister, who I see is listening carefully, when disabled people can expect the Government to enshrine these provisions in law. It is a positive, constructive step, which I fully expect the Government to take without hesitation.

This new framework provides for national minimum guaranteed entitlements so that postcode lotteries are eradicated. To make freedom of movement a reality for disabled people, the Bill provides for portable support packages. With these, disabled people can move from one local authority to another for jobs or family reasons without the uncertainty of having to

14 Dec 2007 : Column 425

undergo reassessment and renegotiate a support care package from scratch. That happens. People who want to move for any reason find themselves having to negotiate each provision with different local authorities. Imagine all those bureaucrats lining up to tell you what you can and cannot have. It is a nightmare. The Bill would definitely eradicate that. I hope that the Government accept that without any discussion at all.

The Bill also fills the glaring absence in law of effective protection against unnecessary institutionalisation. This is an important point. It would be unlawful to institutionalise—a hell of a word, but you know what I mean—a person against their wishes or on grounds of financial expediency. For those in private and voluntary sector care homes, the Bill provides the full protection of the Human Rights Act.

A decent home is at the heart of independent living. The Bill places a duty on local authorities to establish disability housing registers to ensure that they make more efficient use of existing adapted or accessible stock and provide disabled people with real choice. All new homes would be built to lifetime home standards and an appropriate proportion of new homes would also have to be built to full wheelchair accessibility standards. Although we have not decided on a proportion yet, we will eventually decide on an effective and reasonable figure. That is important.

The benefits of the Bill extend not just to disabled people but to carers and whole families. The Bill would end the scandal of children as young as five carrying out adult support roles for their parents because the parents are so badly handicapped. That is a fact of life. Adopting this policy would free hundreds of thousands of carers to rejoin the labour market and enable women carers to find a way out of poverty and build up a decent pension.

I assure Ministers and their advisers that I am well aware of their objections to the Bill. I do not seek to brush those objections aside, although I do not agree with them. After all, we are all on the same side in wanting a fair deal for disabled people without massive expenditure. However, that does not mean no expenditure. Nothing in this Bill can be accomplished overnight or implemented all at once. I recognise that and the difficulties facing the Government, but we must begin to make positive advances now. We can and must begin a dialogue on the contents, timing and phasing in of the Bill. If the Government seek to get away with a blanket refusal, they are heading for serious trouble, but if they begin discussions, we will be on our way, seeking sensible solutions to long-standing problems that are damaging disabled people and causing increasing difficulties for the Government. Those difficulties will increase enormously if the Government give negative answers to these requests.

The Government have reservations about legislating for independent living. They say that they are not convinced of the need for new law. That is a ridiculous statement. They are surely aware of the leading community care law experts who say that the law is a dreadful mess. Even senior judges, the most cautious men in the world, express dismay at the law’s

14 Dec 2007 : Column 426

complexity and obscurity. All the major stakeholders in this debate, including the Local Government Association, believe that the time has come for root-and-branch reform. That is precisely what is required, not a bit of tinkering here and there, which the Government have been advocating for some time in the hope that they will not have to reform the law after this debate.

Ministers have also expressed concern about timing. There is more than adequate evidence of the benefits and feasibility of key provisions for us to move ahead confidently. These, such as self-directed support, are just waiting to be implemented. Indeed, the message coming from all parts of the Department of Health—I know that my noble friend the Minister is not from that department—to local authorities appears to be, “Please get on with self-directed support and individual budgets”. However, the Government are not providing the necessary duties or legal framework, so I hope that they will change their mind on that.

If the Government deny the need for urgent reform, this will become a long battle of attrition between us. However, I hope to elaborate, perhaps in Committee, on what I think would be a workable timetable for implementing the Bill. It cannot all be implemented at once; I recognise that there must be a staged process. That is particularly important, as it will be implemented in the context of the current, extremely tight financial settlement. I recognise the Government’s difficulties on that. We cannot work miracles overnight, but I hope that we shall start with miracles and move on to the major miracles. As I said, if the Government deny the need for urgent reform, it will become a long battle of attrition. I hope to get together with the Government to discuss the tight financial settlement that they are faced with and the way forward.

I am glad that the Minister is listening to this because cost is a crucial element for the Government. They have failed to deliver the kind of investment for which people are screaming out in social care. The Comprehensive Spending Review was a bitter disappointment. Apart from some positive pledges on short breaks for disabled children and their families and greater access to psychological therapies, there was precious little to rejoice in. A derisory 1 per cent increase in local government funding and a rise of just £190 million in adult social care funding from the Department of Health were announced. Frankly—and we need to be frank—the Government have failed to respond to the crisis.

I have spoken for far too long, but I shall say that I hope that we may convince the Government of the benefits of investing in independent living. The Office for Disability Issues, an independent organisation, clearly understands those benefits and has done some excellent research showing the huge economic benefits of radically transforming the system. The money can be saved; it is there, if the Government act properly. The more we invest in independent living support, the bigger the economic savings will be as more people pay taxes and come off benefits and fewer people need acute healthcare. Why on earth

14 Dec 2007 : Column 427

have the Government disregarded this research? We do not need a massive injection of investment to get the reform process under way. The very process of transforming public service support for disabled people and their families in the manner set out in the Bill will free vital resources to tackle unmet needs. It is to some extent a question of redirecting resources to secure better outcomes for disabled people.

Stakeholders interviewed for the cost-benefit study commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues suggested that no less than 20 to 30 per cent of social services expenditure is wastage because it goes on inflexible block contracts and inflated agency fees. If we tackled that by implementing the Bill, the savings would be in the region of a staggering £3.8 billion. That is the amount that Derek Wanless said would be needed to extend support to 450,000 older people. Similarly, the Government have estimated that reducing the rate of institutionalisation among older people by just 1 per cent would save a further £3.8 billion, so the Bill’s provisions would save money and make it available for the Government to use in different ways.

I am sorry to have gone on for so long, but this is an important Bill. It is a blueprint for the future and will be acted on sooner or later. The sooner the Minister is able to act on it, the better for all concerned. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)

---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk

Deaf Eugencis : Response to Alison Bryan

Response to Alison Bryan, no excuses. This blog is about the main cause of the war zone in deaf community and need to be stopped.


---------------------------------
Deaf-UK Discussion Group
www.yahoogroups.com/group/deaf-uk
www.deaf-uk.com