Sign language on the BBC

[Ken L]

I'm sick and tired of seeing British Sign Language on the BBC.

Quite apart from the fact trhat it ruins any programs that I record after midnight:

 

There are only about 14,000 BSL users in the UK and most of them are perfectly capable of reading subtitles.

 

There are MILLIONS of people in the UK who are visually impaired and who can't see what's on the TV when the main pacture is reduced to less than half of its normal size to accomodate a BSL signer.

 

So, is the provision of BSL programming an appropriate use of licence funds ?

If there is going to be a sighn provision, should it only be available via "the red button" ?

[chesters1]

watch aljazeera no hands no signs

[Elton]

LOL As somebody who doesn't keep 'normal' hours, I've often thought the same, but figured I'd be shot down in flames for saying so.

 

With modern technology, I'd have thought it would be possible to switch the signing on and off, like subtitles.

[Ken L]

I had absolutely no problem with it (being mildly miffed that a recorded documentary doesn't look pretty doesn't really count) until I found out that the numbers of BSL users were so small.

The cost per user must be phenominal. It'd probably be cheaper to send an interpreter around to individual homes. 14,000 people employed to sign for 7 hours a day wouldn't cost that much in the great scheme of things.

 

Of course, with cochlear implants and the like beomming more common, the numbers of BSL users in the UK is likely to drop further.

[corydoras]

Lot's of opinion, lots of arguments from personal incredulity, very little fact in these posts.

 

The BBC only signs 5% of all it's output 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.

 

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/accessservs/

 

If met a few deaf people who have had cochlear implants. None of them were ever so profoundly deaf that they had to learn to sign.

[kleinboet]

I look after Brenda who is registered deaf/blind. We have a 50" HD television 2metres from her chair so that she can see something (she has 2% pinhole vision in her right eye. The room has been fitted with the loop (FOC) by the deaf/blind association. If she wants to listen, she turns her hearing aid on to T.

 

I agree - signing should be optional!!

Edited March 14, 2009 by kleinboet

[Alan Stubbs]

Not all deaf people are able to manage subtitles. Are you advocating exclusion of a section of society because you find their needs irritating?

 

So much for tolerance.

[Janet]

I agree it can appear a bit intrusive but as far as I'm aware, most, if not all of these programmes are available without the signing if you watch or record at the right time.

 

I'm actually going on a BSL course at the end of this month. Not for myself, but to enable me to communicate better with some of our profoundly deaf customers.

 

I'm sure I'll find these signed programmes most useful!

 

Janet

[ColinW]

All the signed programs are on earlier without signing, so buy a PVR and watch whatever you want whenever you want to. The cost to the BBC is probably pretty minimal, compared to the money they waste on the salaries of Ross, Wogan etc.

[Ken L]

Not all deaf people are able to manage subtitles. Are you advocating exclusion of a section of society because you find their needs irritating?

 

No. I'm advocating the exclusion of a section of society because there are so few of them that catering to their needs is a fairly low priority when you have a consumer base of 60m people.

14,000 out of 60m equates to less than 1:4000 customers. That's assuming that all 14,000 BSL users are incapable of reading subtitles - and yes, I am aware that for someone who is profoundly deaf and whose first language is BSL, the differences in grammar and syntax between BSL and written English can make following subtitles difficult.

 

There are many more than 14,000 people in the UK (legally or illegally) who speak Urdu or Punjabi, or Gugeratti but not English. Would you be happy for the BBC top allocate 3 - 5% of broadcast time to each of these groups ?

 

Attitudes to disability in society are very strange.

Allocating 5% of broadcast time to (at most) 0.025% of customers makes as much sence to me as fitting a ramp to the entrance of a shop that sells running shoes.

I'm all for practical assistance for people that need it but there needs to be some sence of proportionallity and the taboo about never questioning anything that helps the disabled needs to be addressed.

I'm reminded about a rather senior manager in the UK civil service who anounced that she had had her business cards printed to include her details in Brail. Did she ever hand one out to a brail user ? of course not. Was having them printed an appropriate use of public funds ? You decide.