SOUND ON SOUND

[MOF]

.. and while I'm here, I DEMAND that all contributors to this forum should mandatorily HAVE to include their gender, age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, political preferences and attitudes to meat at the foot of EVERY post. :lol:

Not much use to you if I lied about myself when I joined. :lol:

[OneWorld]

I do have a small confession: my A Level grades were just shy of what they needed to be to get to university and to this day I still suspect I got an unconditional acceptance because I was Deaf.

I never played the Deaf card of course, and it worked out for me so I can’t complain

I too have a confession. I was walking down the street and came across The Club for Perfect People, I went to enter but the doorman refused me entry saying I might lower the tone, but I insisted I was in fact a person, so he let me in. When I got in I looked around but found I was the only one in there :-(

[shufflebeat]

When the signer arrived she/he asked where they should stand so that their signing could be seen. "Actually, no-one who's coming has indicated that they need a signing facility."

"OK; fair enough, I'll go. Just pay me the cancellation fee."

"No; we'd like you to stay and sign - otherwise it looks as though we're not inclusive." (or words to that effect.)

Not sure what you mean by this story. Is the intended comment that it was wrong to hire a signer, or a waste of money?

In that case, I do not agree that it is.

Making provisions for people with physical handicaps should happen regardless whether or not they ask for it or not.

In an ideal world I agree 100%, however, in a world where budgets for support services are limited [insert new thread here] it's important to make sure the provision is not wasted on empty gestures and that the resources are focused towards that for which it was originally intended.

[shufflebeat]

You make a good point there. I used to teach coding in various colleges and universities, and no matter what we tried, campaigns and initiatives run by the female lecturers, we only attracted a few women into coding.

By the time a young person reaches university age, it's simply way too late. Gender-based division of labor is likely established much earlier, and probably a result of a number of repeated stimuli and the implicit biases they generate. Like all such biases, they affect both people who suffer from them and people who do not.

Gender based division of labour can, of course, be imposed pre-natally.

There is another view that the nature of computer science, particularly as it has evolved over such a short period in it's current form, takes on the characteristics of it's relatively few developers more than if it had developed more gradually and with a broader base.

In this case the nature might need to be actively re-imagined in some way to be more inclusive, not only of women but other "out" groups.

I suspect this will happen anyway as industry and the economy move away from manual labour to more imaginary goods.

[Dynamic Mike]

Returning to the O/P's point... I recall that not too long ago the BBC made provision for those who were deaf by having a signer present at a big staff presentation. When the signer arrived she/he asked where they should stand so that their signing could be seen. "Actually, no-one who's coming has indicated that they need a signing facility."

"OK; fair enough, I'll go. Just pay me the cancellation fee."

"No; we'd like you to stay and sign - otherwise it looks as though we're not inclusive." (or words to that effect.)

Having been a member of a BBC Regional Advisory Council at one point, I can't say that this story overly surprised me....

Not sure what you mean by this story. Is the intended comment that it was wrong to hire a signer, or a waste of money?

In that case, I do not agree that it is.

Pretty much every Civil Service/NHS invite asks if you require accomodations for any disability. It ensures they are only provided if they are required. This saves waste & makes econommic sense to me.

However, the worst accomodation in my experience is providing BSL. There is a geographical monopoly of providers & they set their own rules. Locally we can only use translators from Action on Hearing Loss for NHS appointments as they need DBS clearance. Most appointments are 15-30 minutes but you can only book a signer for a minimum of 3 hours. This costs the NHS £180 plus travel plus expenses. They require 7 days notice of cancellation or else they charge in full. So if a deaf person needs to cancel & rebook for whatever reason you're looking a £360 minimum. By way of comparision you could get an agency Band 5 experienced clinician for 15 hours for slightly less. It's the only agency provider I'm aware of that isn't price-capped.

It's a total ripoff compared to any other translation. You can get Farsi, Tamil, Punjabi etc. for £33.50 & cancel on the day before with no penalty.

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be provided but it needs to be regulated.

[Folderol]

That's positively criminal :shocked:
It also reflects badly on deaf people, as it is they who will be seen as the 'problem' :(

[S2]

Not sure what you mean by this story. Is the intended comment that it was wrong to hire a signer, or a waste of money?

In that case, I do not agree that it is.

Making provisions for people with physical handicaps should happen regardless whether or not they ask for it or not. That's because asking in itself can be a difficult thing, as it places the burden of action onto individuals who, for a number of completely unrelated reasons, may not be able to bear it. Think how difficult it is, for example, for people with mental health issues to do the obvious thing - ask for help.

If the objective is a level playing field , lots of provisions are "just in case" - and most often won't be actually used or necessary. A wheelchair-friendly pathway in the subway, for example, is used much more rarely than a regular one, because people in wheelchairs are much less than people with working legs. Having one is still right, innit?

I'm guessing that the difference is that you may work in the private sector where money is perhaps less of a problem. In the public sector we'd be crucified for wasting money like that, though it would never get that far as we wouldn't be allowed to book someone if there was no need.

[CS70]

In an ideal world I agree 100%, however, in a world where budgets for support services are limited [insert new thread here] it's important to make sure the provision is not wasted on empty gestures and that the resources are focused towards that for which it was originally intended.

Sure, I get that :) but my point was that such intuitive approach has a fallacy: it's very hard to say if it's sensible or not - because you do not necessarily can't rely on people needing it asking for it. Again, mental health issues offer a very good analogy: for centuries they were completely ignored as, well, nobody asked for them.

Asking for support and special treatment is perceived, in our society, either as a sign of weakness or arrogance. It is seen that way even more so in recent times, where lots of people seem to have lost track of some of that society's foundation and even the most basic empathy and compassion is found mssing in the face of horrific situations. Therefore it's even more important to simply do certain things - no qualifications.

Most often in any budget you can find far emptier gestures, which don't get particularly scrutinized because they're well packaged, expected and supported by someone in charge.

My $.1 of course

[CS70]

I'm guessing that the difference is that you may work in the private sector where money is perhaps less of a problem. In the public sector we'd be crucified for wasting money like that, though it would never get that far as we wouldn't be allowed to book someone if there was no need.

It's exactly the idea that such things are "wasting money" that is wrong.

Luckily most western public sectors (and obviously the BBC in that case) don't see it like that - so we get pathways for wheelchairs, braille signs on elevators, signers for deaf people and so on.

It's exactly that gut-based prioritization of demands (which of course comes into play only when resources are scarce, otherwise there's no problem) that I disagree with. That is one of the many jungle-law instincts that, over centuries, we as a society have manage to raise above.

If you really mean that equal opportunities (not equal results) should be given to all, there's no escaping doing these kind things without waiting for someone to ask explicitly. They simply level (a little bit) the playing field.

Of course some may not mean that a level playing field is a good thing, but that's a different matter.

[shufflebeat]

In an ideal world I agree 100%, however, in a world where budgets for support services are limited [insert new thread here] it's important to make sure the provision is not wasted on empty gestures and that the resources are focused towards that for which it was originally intended.

Sure, I get that :) but my point was that such intuitive approach has a fallacy: it's very hard to say if it's sensible or not - because you do not necessarily can't rely on people needing it asking for it. Again, mental health issues offer a very good analogy: for centuries they were completely ignored as, well, nobody asked for them.

Asking for support and special treatment is perceived, in our society, either as a sign of weakness or arrogance. It is seen that way even more so in recent times, where lots of people seem to have lost track of some of that society's foundation and even the most basic empathy and compassion is found mssing in the face of horrific situations. Therefore it's even more important to simply do certain things - no qualifications.

Most often in any budget you can find far emptier gestures, which don't get particularly scrutinized because they're well packaged, expected and supported by someone in charge.

My $.1 of course

Fair points.

[Mike Stranks]

Returning to the O/P's point... I recall that not too long ago the BBC made provision for those who were deaf by having a signer present at a big staff presentation. When the signer arrived she/he asked where they should stand so that their signing could be seen. "Actually, no-one who's coming has indicated that they need a signing facility."

"OK; fair enough, I'll go. Just pay me the cancellation fee."

"No; we'd like you to stay and sign - otherwise it looks as though we're not inclusive." (or words to that effect.)

Having been a member of a BBC Regional Advisory Council at one point, I can't say that this story overly surprised me....

Not sure what you mean by this story. Is the intended comment that it was wrong to hire a signer, or a waste of money?

Not been 'in' for a few days...

My point is that this is an example of 'tokenism'... "we know the facility isn't needed, but we'll provide it so that people can see we're providing it (even though we know no-one will benefit) so that we'll be seen to be 'right-on', inclusive, etc."

I'm all for providing appropriate facilities and services for those who need them, but when any organisation or group 'plays the game' just so it looks good it seems to me that things have gone somewhat awry. I'm not up with all the new trendy put-downs... is this 'woke-ism'?

[CS70]

Not been 'in' for a few days...

My point is that this is an example of 'tokenism'... "we know the facility isn't needed, but we'll provide it so that people can see we're providing it (even though we know no-one will benefit) so that we'll be seen to be 'right-on', inclusive, etc."

I'm all for providing appropriate facilities and services for those who need them, but when any organisation or group 'plays the game' just so it looks good it seems to me that things have gone somewhat awry. I'm not up with all the new trendy put-downs... is this 'woke-ism'?

I think I already replied to this idea a few posts above. Your position appears simple and intuitive, but the situation is neither.

Happy new year!