Sign language on the BBC

[corydoras]

The problem is Dave, as written English isn't the natural form of language for a deaf person and I have known deaf people to say that sometimes they find written subtitles are replaced too quickly to be thorghly read

Yup, as a subtitle reader I can go along with that. Also the subtitles are not always a good approximation of what was actually said. I'll illustrate this point with a little anecdote.

 

A few years ago my son was over visiting me. One of the local cinema's was showing Les Visiteur's a French comedy film. There is a sketch where this guy's Range Rover get's trashed. Said owner of Range Rover is running around lamenting his loss and crying out 'C'est nique, c'est nique'. The subtitles read 'It's ruined, it's ruined'. Will my youngest, who was about six at the time tapped me on the back of the hand and whispered in my ear "He's not saying 'It's ruined, it's ruined'". I asked what he was really saying. Will whispered back, just loud enough for everyone in about 10 seats in every direction to overhear "He's saying 'It's f@cked, it's f@cked'. :-).

 

Chesters, a deaf person can watch the signing and take in the program just the same way as you and I can watch the film and absorb the subtitles at the same time.

[Alan Stubbs]

Yup, as a subtitle reader I can go along with that. Also the subtitles are not always a good approximation of what was actually said. I'll illustrate this point with a little anecdote.

 

A few years ago my son was over visiting me. One of the local cinema's was showing Les Visiteur's a French comedy film. There is a sketch where this guy's Range Rover get's trashed. Said owner of Range Rover is running around lamenting his loss and crying out 'C'est nique, c'est nique'. The subtitles read 'It's ruined, it's ruined'. Will my youngest, who was about six at the time tapped me on the back of the hand and whispered in my ear "He's not saying 'It's ruined, it's ruined'". I asked what he was really saying. Will whispered back, just loud enough for everyone in about 10 seats in every direction to overhear "He's saying 'It's f@cked, it's f@cked'. :-).

 

Chesters, a deaf person can watch the signing and take in the program just the same way as you and I can watch the film and absorb the subtitles at the same time.

 

 

People might disagree, but I think it's funny that I, being male and therefore limited on the multi-tasking front, struggle to watch the film whislt taking in the sub-titles, and although I can sign - I have BSL level 3, I struggle to keep up with the signer on the television when I try.

 

One of the signers is a Liverpudlian and an active member of the Deaf Society in Liverpool. I'm an associate member and go there mainly for the snooker and the fact that the beer is really cheap!

Edited March 15, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[corydoras]

People might disagree, but I think it's funny that I, being male and therefore limited on the multi-tasking front, struggle to watch the film whislt taking in the sub-titles, and although I can sign - I have BSL level 3, I struggle to keep up with the signer on the television when I try.

 

One of the signers is a Liverpudlian and an active member of the Deaf Society in Liverpool. I'm an associate member and go there mainly for the snooker and the fact that the beer is really cheap!

I can grock that. I find that I can better comprehend a French programme with French subtitles, than I can if the subtitles were in English. Not always, but often.

[kleinboet]

We seem to have lost the thread again - the main point (I think!) was that there is a complaint about unasked for signing. I agree. What should happen is that the programs with unasked for signings should make the signings elective - as with subtitles (888)!

[Alan Stubbs]

We seem to have lost the thread again - the main point (I think!) was that there is a complaint about unasked for signing. I agree. What should happen is that the programs with unasked for signings should make the signings elective - as with subtitles (888)!

 

 

Klein, we'd already implied an answer to that...you presuppose that prior to the nationwide implementation of digital tv people already have it, not everyone has access to digital tv through whatever format and therefore at present, 888 isn't an option.

 

Secondly, why should deaf people be marginalised when they are paying a full tv licence fee - and unable to use the BBC's radio services which are funded from...the tv livcence fee??

 

Thirdly, are you saying that the BBC should pay for 100% of it's tv output to have BSL signing embedded?

 

At present, your proposal is a disgrace as it seems you are happy to advocate the taking of money from people for a service which they are unable to use.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[corydoras]

Thirdly, are you saying that the BBC should pay for 100% of it's tv output to have BSL signing embedded?

To be fair to KB he alread answered that question.

Cory, my heart says yes, my head says no,

It would be lovely to have on programs that would interest them, but I think there are programs that would be of no interest to them at all, and I feel it would be totally unfair to burden the licence holder with the extra expense.

Subtitles (888) are not on all programs and there are even less audio described - BUT - they are elective and so should signing be!!

[chesters1]

"Klein, we'd already implied an answer to that...you presuppose that prior to the nationwide implementation of digital tv people already have it, not everyone has access to digital tv through whatever format and therefore at present, 888 isn't an option."

 

 

888 has always been there its no more than a teletext page

Edited March 16, 2009 by chesters1

[kleinboet]

AFAIK - the only "addition" that the digital TV brings (apart from HD - but that is something else!) is audio description!

This is ELECTIVE!!

Edited March 16, 2009 by kleinboet

[Andy_1984]

im sure, or atleast i hope deaf people pay their tv license like i hope most of us do so isnt it fair to say that they have a right to BSL overlays no matter what ?

 

They are paying for a service they may need. but yes it would be good to have it as an optional like subtitles.

[kleinboet]

Andy, Your sentiment is right - but what we are saying is that the BBC have overlaid programs and broadcast them whether you are a deaf person (who uses BSL, as there arwe some that don't!) or not.

All we are saying is that the BBC should be neutral in this respect and not try for "brownie points" from a small minority. Make it available? Definately! But as an elective option as with subtitles and (those who have digital) audio description!