Deaf access fail at the Department for Work and Pensions

Imagine someone telling a wheelchair user that the disabled toilets are just up the stairs. You’d think it bonkers. Well, the Department with overall responsibility on disability policy seem to be on well on their way to pulling a similar trick with deaf people.

There’s been lots of discussions about how the process for claiming the new Personal Independence Payments benefit will work in practice. In a nutshell, you have to make a pre-claim before you’re given a personalised form for your proper claim.

And how do you get a pre-claim form? Easy, you give the benefits team a call and they will do a short interview over the phone. And if you have problems using the phone? No worries, you’ll get a paper form to complete. And how do you get a paper form? You give the benefits team a call.

Frankly, it’s more than just a little disconcerting that the people looking after benefits for disabled people haven’t quite twigged that not every disabled person can use a telephone or have a textphone. So much for the new digital age and for the Government leading by example when it comes to access for disabled people… Am told that Department officials are working on trying to get an online form set up for the new PIP benefit… but it may not be ready in time when the new benefit launches in April next year.

They’d better get a move on. It’s not only just bonkers and ludicrous, but discriminatory.

Rubbish subtitles: an update

In the past couple of weeks, I’ve found myself unexpectedly in the Daily Mail, the Metro, Digital Spy and the Sun. Sadly, it wasn’t due to scandal or celebrity mayhem. Instead, with my NDCS hat on, I had put my name to a quote lambasting ITV for their rubbish live subtitles for Dancing on Ice. Some of the worse examples included Philip Schofield suggesting the contestants would be “toasted to their limits.” Live subtitles are never perfect. These subtitles were appalling though and suggested a real lack of thought and prep by the production team. If live subtitles of reasonable quality can be done on the X Factor, it can be done on Dancing on Ice.

The only thing worse that rubbish live subtitles on live programmes are rubbish live subtitles on pre-recorded programmes. Which brings me to the Young Apprentice over on the BBC.

Last November, the BBC found itself on the deaf naughty step by showing the final of the Young Apprentice with live subtitles. Which would have been fine except it wasn’t a live programme, it was evidently filmed several months before. Charlie Swinbourne’s blog set out the case against the BBC.

I made a formal complaint to the BBC. I had a cursory reply back then referring to “technical problems”. I politely replied asking what exactly these technical problems were. Three months later, they finally got round to coming up with another excuse. The gist of their reply:

“The technical problems to which we refer is that many programmes are only completed close to transmission or have to be re-edited just before broadcast for countless possible reasons thus the reality is that sometimes there just isn’t time for our subtitlers to step in between when a programme has been finished or edited and the time of broadcast… We genuinely do our utmost to have full subtitles on absolutely all programmes because we are committed to providing a great service to all audiences and it is as disappointing for us as it is to you when we’re not able to for reasons beyond our direct control.”

On reading this, my face was full of such scorn as to put Margaret’s raised eyebrows and Nick’s pursed lips to shame. I wouldn’t mind a late reply, if it bothered to address my concerns properly.

Namely, how exactly is this outside of their direct control? Who commissions these programmes and sets out expectations for what the end product will look like? The BBC surely don’t accept any old rubbish. So why do they accept programmes that arrive too late for subtitles to be added?

And secondly, how exactly is completing programmes close to transmission and re-editing them at last minute a “technical problem.” It isn’t a technical problem. It’s poor planning. It’s some guy in the production team deciding not to leave enough time in the schedule to allow subtitles be ready in time. It’s some guy deciding that access for deaf people is a lesser priority.

I’ve sent my complaint straight back to the BBC and asked them to look again. With a new series of the Apprentice starting soon, I’m determined to toast the BBC complaints team to their limits until they deal with this properly.

Love film but hate lack of online access for deaf people?

I got an email the other day at work about Lovefilm and the lack of subtitles for deaf people who sign up to their online film streaming service. A father of a deaf daughter was angry that she wasn’t able to watch any films online with subtitles. It quickly became apparent via Twitter that this wasn’t an isolated issue and that loads of other similar companies are equally poor. Another example of access failing to keep pace with technology and incredibly frustrating.

I would say that Lovefilm and other companies that fail to provide full access to deaf people are acting unlawfully under the Equality Act 2010. Their defence? Lovefilm would probably use the get-out clause that it would be an “unreasonable burden” on them to provide access. Ultimately, someone would have to take Lovefilm to court so that a judge could decide who was right.

In the meantime, there are a few things that can be done to make a fuss about this.

1) Complain. If your beef is with Lovefilm, you can contact them via their website. You could ask them to justify why they don’t provide access and whether they think they are acting lawfully under the Equality Act 2010. Other companies should have a “contact us” page on their website tucked away somewhere. If lots of people complain, this will start to get noticed internally.

2) You could also raise with the Equality and Human Rights Commission – who can look into companies that are not complying with the Equality Act.

3) Ofcom are responsible for regulating telecommunication companies and setting access requirements. For example, they require mainstream TV companies to provide a certain level of access according to their size. Currently, they don’t (I think) regulate online TV or media access. But you should certainly feel free to tell them you think they should.

4) Finally, tell the Government to sort it. The relevant Ministry is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A new Communications Bill is expected soon-ish and this offers an opportunity to get the law changed on things like online access, if enough people say it’s needed.

Be really interested to hear any other nightmare stories or how others have got on when making complaints like this. Or of any solutions that people have stumbled across.

What an ill chicken tells us about deaf access to universities and colleges

Sorry, I didn’t do a blog yesterday, my chicken was ill.

If you haven’t a clue what I’m talking about, then clearly you haven’t yet watched the BBC3 documentary, Deaf Teens: Hearing World, nor been aware of how a sequence involving a notetaker explaining she couldn’t support a deaf student for a whole 2 hours because her chicken was ill exploded onto the deaf community’s consciousness. Charlie Swinbourne’s blog explains how this quickly went viral, with a Facebook group attracting 1000 members in less than 24 hours and tweets abound using the #deafteens hashtag.

How did it pick up so much attention? Well, frankly it’s the most ridiculous (and hilarious) excuse I’ve ever come across for communication support failing to come through. Secondly, behind every brilliant joke is a regrettable knowing truth. In this case, that knowing truth is that deaf young people are rarely in control of their communication support at college and universities and too often are left to fend for themselves. The sequence hit a real nerve.

On the programme, this was the deaf teen’s first day at university and somehow they still managed to cock up (no pun intended) her communication support by not checking whether her notetaker could stay for the full 2 hours. Not exactly an auspicious start. In a further epic fail, another student on the programme at a different university on her first week was forced to lipread a lecturer in a dark room. My own experiences at university weren’t much better – I had to arrange my own provision and my “communication support” were often other students trying to make a quick buck. It also took around 9 months for my council to sort out my Disabled Students Allowance.

I’m sure there are a lot of good intentions out there. But a lot needs to change before deaf young people can be confident they’ll get the help they need at colleges and universities, without having to rely on the good health of chickens or other random occurrences.

The documentary, by the way, was brilliant and must-see viewing for anyone wanting to understand the experiences of deaf young people.

Celebrity DJ calls subtitled films at cinema “daft”

Today gave me a whopping reminder of the power of Twitter in campaigns when “celebrity” DJ, Sara Cox managed to unite the deaf community in anger at some fairly idiotic tweets last night.

It’s a hard life being Sara. She’s goes to the cinema on a date and then, shock horror of horrors, finds the film is showing with SUBTITLES! Frankly, I would tweeted in amazement that she managed to chance upon a film that was accessible to deaf people. Instead, she describes this on Twitter as “daft”. A few people point out that actually the subtitles are there to help deaf people access films. She dismisses them with what I can only describe as a naughty Northern swear word. A huge outcry later, still going the last time I looked on Twitter, said offensive tweets were deleted and an apology issued. Apparently, she thought the subtitles were for foreigners. Daft, indeed (here’s a screengrab of her nonsense – courtesy of @Deaf on Twitter) and the story has been picked up in a couple of news outlets including the Telegraph.

Is this enough? She’s said she’s mortified at the offence caused, should we tweeters get some perspective and all move onto something else? Maybe. But I’m still pretty annoyed and disappointed by the whole thing.

Subtitled films are few and far inbetween. Deaf people can’t just turn up to watch a subtitled film. We have to plan our social lives around the few showings around and then sit with our fingers crossed through some rubbish adverts in the hope that the man in the projector box doesn’t screw up the subtitles. Deaf journalist, Charlie Swinbourne, hit the nail on the head in his article for the Guardian a while back. Deaf children and grown ups need more access, not less.

As has been powerfully pointed out by fellow deaf tweeters, thanks to an ill-informed tweet, a celebrity, with lots of followers who seem rather keen and willing to defend her views, has now helped make it legitimate and OK to complain about access for deaf people and made it harder for deaf campaigners to persuade cinema to show more subtitled films. A lot of valuable work, potentially undone. Very frustrating indeed.

I’m sure Sara is genuine in her apology. But the damage has been done and there are no naughty Northern swear words that can take it back.

Stuck in the 80s – deaf access to telecomms

Image courtesy of http://www.geekalerts.com

Imagine that it’s still 1981 and all technological progress has just stopped. So no i-phones – everyone is still walking around with a brick-like phone looking like a muppet. No 3D cinemas. Just 4 channels on the telly. Subtitles only available on Blue Peter and Eastenders. Deaf children still wearing a box around their waist as a hearing aid.

Well, in terms of how deaf people use the phone, you don’t have to imagine, because it really is still 1981.

I can’t hear on the phone so if I want to communicate with the hearing world – *shudder* – I need someone , a 3rd party, to relay or type to me what the hearing person is saying. I need a relay service.

Currently, there’s only one show in town – text relay where I have to type what I want to see and have the 3rd party read it out to the hearing person for me. I hate text relay in its present form. I hate the fact that someone else is speaking for me when I can speak the Queen’s English perfectly well, thank you very much. That the call takes forever. And that I don’t know what the operator is plonked in the middle of my conversation. It feels a bit like getting my Mum to make my phone calls for me. If I were a deaf teenager, I’d be mortified if I had to use this service. In some respects, the dead have an advantage – an ouija board would probably be a more enjoyable and speedy means of conversing with the outside world.

It may have been acceptable in the 80s, but it’s certainly not now. So why are we stuck in the 80s?

I blame the regulators. In a nutshell, the regulatory framework means that only BT is required to offer a text relay service. And BT self-fund it. You don’t have to be a behavioural economist to realise there are no incentives for BT to modernise, improve or market the service. And as for video relay services for sign language users? Forget about it – it’s not mentioned in the regulatory framework.

Does it have to be like this? No. Deaf people in other countries enjoy a much better service. Captioned relay – where the operator uses voice recognition technology to speed up the phone call, where the deaf person can speak for him/herself and read a live transcript on the computer screen – is available in the States. As are video relay services, where an operator transposes text into sign language for deaf people who communicate in BSL. And in the States, they even have a choice of different providers. Competition! How modern!

The good news is that new European legislations mean that the Government and Ofcom, the regulator, are required to make improvements. It’s a shame it took the EU before Ofcom and the Government actually woke up to the current situation but anyhow.

The bad news is that Ofcom and the Government are dragging their heels and not taking it, I think, seriously. There seems to be a bit of ping-pong going on between the two with neither stepping up to the plate. Ofcom seem mired in very narrow perceptions of what the law allows them to do. A review is underway but it’s been going on for so long, I fear it may be another 30 years before it concludes.

Pressure is needed to break the status quo. The UK Council on Deafness is co-ordinating a campaign on this and a range of organisations, including DAART, TAG and VRS Today, are also applying pressure. NDCS has also set up an online campaign action for people to nag their MP about the issue. It’s fair to say that whatever happens in the next few months will determine whether any improvements are ever made to drag deaf access to telecommunications into the 21st century.

How deaf friendly are banks?

I had one of my angry deaf moments last week. It took me a while to work out who I was most angry with. Sainsburys Bank for swallowing my debit card? Or my own bank, First Direct, for being completely useless and deaf unfriendly? In the end, First Direct won hands down.

To my discredit, despite having moved house around a year ago, I still haven’t got a textphone for my new home. I hate using textphones anyway but that’s another story…

Not to worry, I thought. I will just email my bank. I joined First Direct because I could do everything online, so no worries.

I needed to call. Sigh… Oh well, I’ll ask my other half to interpret for me. But the first call didn’t last very long. Because for “data protection reasons”, the bank refused to take the call. I was furious. I happen to know for a fact that the Data Protection Act allows for some flexibility. But, more importantly, what about the Equality Act? What about the legal requirement to make reasonable adjustments and to show flexibility in order to meet the needs of disabled people? The bank was ill-advised to try and play legal top trumps with me, an ex-civil servant and now a campaigns officer. My fury went unabated…

The 2nd call was slightly more successful… but only after some rather terse exchanges and being left on hold for a rather long time.

The experience left me angry for 2 reasons. First, the lack of flexibility and dismal awareness of the concept of reasonable adjustments. Second, the lack of facility by which deaf people could contact the bank urgently through other means – online chat, SMS, all those fancy bits of technology that like everyone uses these days, especially deaf young people. It’s hard enough for young people to learn about finances, banking, etc. Banks don’t exactly seem to help matters for deaf young people.

A very frustrating experience. First Direct… what a load of bankers.

Research on access to telephony services

Last night, I took part in an online focus group discussion about telephony services for some research being done for Ofcom. It was great fun. I would have done it for free, and they gave me £35 for taking part. Chocolate digestives all around!

I was asked lots of questions on what I wanted from telephony services and what I thought about text relay services, where a woman from Liverpool (where the service is based) reads out what I type on a textphone to the hearing person and then types back their reply. I gave my usual spiel that I only used text relay when I absolutely had to: that it was impersonal, took ages to make a phone call and that I hated having someone else speaking for me. It almost feels like having your Mum making phone calls for you. No wonder that so few deaf children and young people seem to use it.

Interestingly, I was then asked about what I thought about other technologies, such as video relay and captioned relay. Captioned relay would mean that I could speak for myself but that an operator would listen in and transcribe the conversation on my computer screen through the magic of the internet. It’s already readily available in the USA and Australia. It would be perfect for me and I would be phoning everyone up all the time if it was available here. I would be far better able to campaign for deaf children; I’d be on direct dial to the Houses of Parliament! So I felt encouraged that the researchers were sounding out people’s views on this and looking at other options. It’s on the agenda, which is a start.

Fingers crossed that the research finally leads to some positive change in the UK and that Ofcom act on it. It’s the 21st century: deaf children and adults shouldn’t be stuck with poor telephony services that don’t meet our needs.

The research are apparently still looking for people to take part – their website has more details. And my friend Tina does a lot of campaigning on this, as you can see from her blog, as do the Telecommunications Action Group (TAG).

X Factor: looking for pig talent

This could be interesting, I thought, as I sat down for my Saturday evening viewing. Pigs battling it out, a kind of “Porkie’s Got Talent” and a plethora of terrible bacon-related puns from Dermot?

Alas, it was one of many subtitling errors on Saturday’s opening to the new series. I think they meant to say “big talent”?

Yes, the X Factor is back. Which means the return of tone-deaf singers, lots of shouting from Dermot, fashion wars between Dannii and Cheryl and TRULY AWFUL subtitles.

Every year, it gets worse. Numerous typos and subtitles so out of sync with what’s being said that I only get the lame jokes around 5 minutes later. I could kind of forgive it for the live shows (though BBC news manage to at least appear to be trying to match the speech with the subtitles) but even on non-live shows, the subtitles on the X Factor are among the worse I’ve seen on any programme.

Is there some assumption at ITV that they don’t need to bother with decent subtitles because deaf people don’t listen to music? If so, then this is a pretty idiotic and offensive assumption to make. Lots of deaf children and young people watch and enjoy the X Factor. It’s unacceptable they don’t have equal access to what is one of ITV’s most popular shows.

I’ve emailed them to complain – if you want to do the same, the email address is viewerservices@itv.com. I’ll keep a keen eye out for any more errors in coming weeks.

University access for deaf students fail

Image courtesy of the Northern Echo

An interesting article appeared in Guardian yesterday about Rosie Watson, a deaf mature student, who took Durham University to court for breaking disability discrimination laws.

On the one hand, it’s a very inspiring story about a gutsy deaf person who refused to let the university get away with it. On the other hand, it’s appalling what she went through what she did. The Guardian also reports that disabled students at Oxford are twice as likely to drop out and that the Students Loans Company is failing to approved Disabled Students Allowances quickly enough.

It all reminded me of own experiences at university (many years ago), which I blogged about ages back. Back then I speculated whether this was a one-off experience. I’m beginning to think that it probably isn’t.

It all raises a lot of questions. Are these one-off cases or widespread problems across all universities? Why? Do deaf students know their rights? Are they making a fuss about it or are they just “coping”? Were universities having a sick day when the Disability Discrimination Act was passed? Do they think that deaf young people are so thick that they would never think of applying, or even going to university?

What are your thoughts? Do you know of any cases where deaf students have been let down at university? Be good to hear about it.