« Playing God, Times Online | Main | S4C streaming BSL interpreted programmes online »

RNId = The New Google?

rnid.jpg

Well, you never know what they know.

jen

See also:
Coming soon: will you be forced to get your hearing aids from the RNID?
Autonomy and Gurning

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference RNId = The New Google?:

» The RNId's new digital hearing aid... from Grumpy Old Deafies
... not. I don't think even the RNId can afford this hearing aid. For a start, it's made from solid 24-carat gold and is studded with 220 diamonds. It has a remote control. It is expected to sell for... [Read More]

Comments (29)

Yeah but will the search results be any good?

Just for the heck of it, since everybody has so much against the RNID here, I have set up a Wiki to allow you all to specify your ideal charity. Amble over to http://deaf.wikidot.com and write what you think our national charity should be like!

My ideal deaf charity? NONE!

Please explain why we need charity?

What do we need another charity for? There's well over 400 deaf ones in the UK already.

Why don't they just give us the frigging money, and WE can DECIDE HOW TO SPEND IT!

At least volunteers can make a case for a wage instead of giving their time for free.

Dale - that's bloody easy. Millions of quids? Just give it all to me. I'm deaf so I must need it. I can retire.

jen: My ideal deaf charity? NONE! Please explain why we need charity?

Somebody to provide a decent online forum that everybody is happy to use, perhaps? It doesn't have to carry the `charity' badge - it can be regarded as our organization or institute or association. Why not go over and write down your idea?


Alison: What do we need another charity for? There's well over 400 deaf ones in the UK already.

How come none of them help me? Which one has ever made any effort to put me in touch with people in my situation? If you read the wiki, you will realize that this is not an attempt to create a new charity, but to define what an ideal charity or organization would look like.


Tony Nicholas: Why don't they just give us the frigging money, and WE can DECIDE HOW TO SPEND IT! At least volunteers can make a case for a wage instead of giving their time for free.

What money? Where would the charity get its money from? So consider a charity that wages its staff - all the way down to the grass roots.


JGJones: Dale - that's bloody easy. Millions of quids? Just give it all to me. I'm deaf so I must need it. I can retire.

Where will the millions of quids come from? Do you really think deaf people are going to pay a subscription just to feed a bigot like you?

That's exactly the point Dale! Re none of them helping you. None of them "help" me either, and what makes you think another 400 odd charities will solve the problem? If it can't be done in 400+ charities, one wonders.

There is always going to be a conflict of interest between charities and individuals. A charity's no. 1 interest is to survive, and survival means money. Ego also comes with it too: our organisation now rakes in x millions, look at how good I am. All that is not necessarily in the best interests of us.

The problem with charities currently is the ride off the backs of us and do we actually benefit? Anyone can set up a charity, making outlandish claims that they are HELPING US, hearies including. Through this process, they can earn a wage, via fundraising: statutory contracts, trusts, etc. However, when such charities fill in application forms ... they will have to justify how many people use their services.

E.g. you are a regional deaf organisation, you have x number of people attending Deaf Club (social thing, entirely separate from the organisation), so you use this as your excuse that you serve. Issue: Deaf people attending / running the club won't get paid, will possibly be in jobs that pay the minimum wage or perhaps on benefits. Now these people are probably perfectly capable of organising their own social life etc, yet usually some hearie will fundraise, cos they are a special cause.

The money doesn't necessary go to the end user, perhaps bits. However the administrator (or CEO) invariably a hearing person, might receive a 50k salary for their "services". Why does the CEO need to be there? Deaf people aren't capable of organising themselves?

Could come up with similar examples that focus on deafened or hard of hearing people.

UKCoD is possibly one of the biggest mistakes to exist. Whilst if you look at it re sharing information between the 100 organisations that are there, it also forms an exclusive club and justifies taking away power from individuals. Almost a maintaining the status quo, and propping up a justification to exist. With this, it disempowers individuals.

As an umbrella organisation, their members are only organisations themselves (businesses can be affiliates). Deaf people cannot gain access to networks and information, or even future strategy through both formal and informal means. This begs the question, how much control do we have over our issues and campaigns? Do you know what UKCoD is campaigning for atm, and more to the point the finer detail of this?

One could argue that it is the duty of member organisations to consult their membership and filter issues through, but in reality this does not happen. Half the reason is the fact some of these organisations are not member organisations. You can see the full list of members here. e.g. TAG is is a group of individuals (please correct me if I'm wrong re membership accountable structures), the Ear Foundation is not accountable to anyone apart from a small group of hearing people. I could say the same for many of those organisations on there.

Even if you take a so called "member organisation" such as the RNID, filtering out information and consultation does not happen. They don't feature UKCoD information in their newsletter, nor directly ask their membership what they think. In reality, some member of staff (usually hearing) will make a decision - even as a group it influences corporate direction - on their PERCEIVED thinking of what we need.

Lamb's comments on hearing aids are a perfectly good example of this. Lamb is hearing, and probably making these decisions because he decided it would be a good thing FOR THE ORGANISATION. I don't see zero evidence of anyone asking us what we think, and secondly even filtering down this information in the first place.

There's so much more I could type ....

Bigot - moi? Ha!

The reason I don't bother with the wiki - what good would it do? Are we going to use it to create yet another chairty? Will RNID et al take a look at it and think "bugger me it's time for us to change look at that wiki that anyone online around the world can change! It make sense you know!"

It's just a talking shop at the end of the day. If after 400+ charities just for the deaf, they've had plenty of chances to get it right.

That is why I made daft jokes at the expense of it. Because I see it as pointless. How it would...erm...encourage RNID to change? We point out RNID because no other charities for the deaf come anywhere near the size of RNID - they're the Microsoft of the deaf charities.

So no, I don't bother to fill out the wiki becase I do not see how it would benefit anyway. Perhaps I fail to see that, so if you could explain why it's actually needed? What good would it actually do?

You make a lot of interesting points, but they are all based on organizations that exist now. I'm asking you to think of one that doesn't currently exist; suppose there are rules that only deaf people may take waged positions, that there is no CEO but a cabinet that is elected by the membership every four years, that all written complaints must be publically answered, [insert your own ideals here].

Comparing UKCoD with an organization for deaf individuals is like comparing apples with oranges, and is irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm not proposing another 400 odd charities, I'm just curious, given the amount of negative discussion that goes on about existing organizations, how the community would define a single ideal organization, one which would actually help them in some way.

Get outside of your box (and jump down from your soap box for a minute) and think positive instead of negative, creational instead of destructive. Be happy.

JGJones: it is a talking shop, it states itself that it is not the intention to create a new charity. I set it up to satisfy a curiosity which I think a lot of people (who are getting fed up with negative non-constructive blogs and posts in forums) have about how the community see its ideal organization, and in the process I expect the community will realize that formulating such an ideal organization is not as straightforward as first appears...

Just enjoy it for what it is: an intellectual exercise if you like, another platform to moan about existing organizations if you like, whatever...

Dale - I'm a happy person.

But I still can't see the point in doing a wiki on an ideal charity. It's not gonna change an organisation such as RNID. For me to spend time on a wiki - it's gotta to have an impact, but I honestly really do not think it would.

Mind you I would love for it to prove me wrong. Seriously. But I don't believe an organisation such as RNID would take a look at it and change based on it.

Just give me the fucking money and save on the admin and running costs! What is so hard about that eh Dale? Charities send out volunteers to door knock and ask for money, how about they door knock and give us money? THAT'S THE IDEAL CHARITY!

Just give me the fucking money and save on the admin and running costs! What is so hard about that eh Dale? Charities send out volunteers to door knock and ask for money, how about they door knock and give us money? THAT'S THE IDEAL CHARITY!

Tony: what money? I haven't got any money to give you. If I had, what would you do with it to help me?

@dale
" since everybody has so much against the RNID here"

Because its a largest charity that the Hearing people agree and sponsor with. when they start doing what they are supposed to maybe target other Deaf charities, but i suspect that they do a better job of it
They have leaflets in doctor's surgery ,audoligist because that have sold it to rest of us that they represent the Deaf and a pillar of the deaf community.

Also Dale what do you and I need the RNID for?
What were they supposed to help you with?
Do we actually need help as we are not capable of doing so?

When you think about charities like Cancer or Aids they are there to pay scientists to eradicate the disease... Hell we can now test for Downs in a woman's womb and abort them.

RNID is charity what are they supposed to be doing..are they funding CI?
9 out of 10 Deaf children are born to hearing parents they should be saying hey its not the end of the world we can get jobs etc.
but instead there is a rise of CI for the parents benefit rather than getting people to change attitude that we don't really need help.

one American research says it saves a tax payer to implant the child from as young age as 3 month than to send them to a Deaf school...... so who's helping the Deaf?


As users of RNID services, we should all have a say in that provision, I am surprised the signing deaf are still adopting the stance of moaning at the RNID and demanding its downfall, (And curiously condemning charities but not the BDA ?), while not actively doing anything about it. As is pointed out by others and it applies to the BDA and the rest too, NO PAY equals NO SAY.

We could apply to the Charity commission on the grounds as bona-fide users of services the RNID provides (And we ALL do !), then this might influence them to lean on the RNID,I haven't read the remit of the RNID completely but what I have read suggests users have an equal voice, we don't pay to use their services, why do we have to pay to vote on them ?

Sign users can get stuck in without feeling they have betrayed the signing cause and without paying as members, It's a thought, one thing for sure, if moaning about the RNID ever did anything, I would have won this battle on my own years ago :) Signers are peeing in the wind. The RNID rolls on... They have a yen for martyrdom apparently....

Fintan> Because its a largest charity that the Hearing people
Fintan> agree and sponsor with....
Right

Fintan> Also Dale what do you and I need the RNID for?
That is the exact question I am trying to answer by creating the wiki.

Fintan> What were they supposed to help you with? Do we
Fintan> actually need help as we are not capable of doing so?
Personally, I would have liked two decent hearing aids when I was at school, instead of the one crappy one. As individuals we cannot afford the R & D to develop good, cheap aids, but collectively, i.e. through a central organization, we might.

Fintan> When you think about charities like Cancer or Aids they
Fintan> are there to pay scientists to eradicate the
Fintan> disease... Hell we can now test for Downs in a woman's
Fintan> womb and abort them.
Fascinating. Point? - Is it that you're stoutly pro-abortion and think disabled children should be terminated? Or are you saying that all charities and scientific research should stop?

Fintan> RNID is charity what are they supposed to be doing..are
Fintan> they funding CI?...
Fintan> one American research says it saves a tax payer to
Fintan> implant the child...
This is your opinion on one specific issue, and you are entitled to it. You disagree with the RNID, okay, but now turn this on its head and make a negative into a positive: if you were CEO of the ideal charity, what would you be doing instead?

Dale, sorry, but I still fail to see how it would be positive to put onto a wiki how we want an ideal charity to be?

What good would it do for us? It won't change RNID's behaviour. Not in the slightiest and one concern is that if we get people to spend time on the wiki, instead of focusing on the real world and the action we can actually carry out...that's not exactly positive.

Dale, there is no ideal charity....their work is contrary to the principles of self empowerment. Deafies, for one, don;t need charities, ideal or otherwise. We need independent Deaf services... e.g. Interpreting services via independent agencies rather than RNID, RAD or whoever. Training providers via education bodies, and so on............

JGJones: you're taking this *way* too seriously. I knocked this together for the heck of it, I'm not asking for lots of time. Ignore it if you're too busy.

Tony: I agree mostly. But independent agencies need a standards watchdog, as do training providers, etc. We do need a central institute to look after our collective interests. This applies in the world generally; it is not a deaf thing.

Charities are a pain the bum all of them,but the fact remains the most successful and national one for the deaf and HI, is the RNID, so ignoring it isn't an option, neither is whining from the signing sector. Neither the RAD nor the BDA are really in it....The 'Alker Syndrome' has done for the cultural deaf, finished them as a force to be reckoned with, instead they wallow in the 'injustice' of a BSL user getting the chop, yet do nothing about it. When Alker went, so did BSL aspirations ? this says more about the deaf 'community' than it does about the RNID.

When MM and a few others including Tim and Cornishandy kept up the attacks on the RNID, we were met with derision from signers, a few weeks ago that australian twit said enough was enough on the RNID, seems to depend who talks about it, not the issue ! as he now joins in... DOH !!

The signer is near finished as a force to campaign, and not just with the RNID either, they should address why that is happening, I could suggest they UNITE with other deaf people and HI but they probably wouldn't listen....

There are strong people on both sides of this issues, seemingly terminally divided on everything from titles to basic access, there is no real agreement. So much easier when we had nothing, really, there was a clear goal to aim for. Now we get an occasional terp and watch titled TV the war is over....

Dale>
Dale>Personally, I would have liked two decent hearing aids when I was at Dale>school, instead of the one crappy one. As individuals we cannot afford Dale>the R & D to develop good, cheap aids, but collectively, i.e. through a Dale>central organization, we might.

That sucks.. I guess I was lucky and years later these sort of things are happening... What have Charities done since then? .. nothing!

Dale>Fascinating. Point? - Is it that you're stoutly pro-abortion and think Dale>disabled children should be terminated? Or are you saying that all Dale>charities and scientific research should stop?

I am not Pro-abortion and you and I are disabled anyway.. so why would I say that all children should be terminated.
I am not saying scientific research should stop but they should be improving our lives if we so request it but for argument sake lets say the research goes as far as finding the child's hearing in the womb what choice the parent have have it or terminate it!
I am more pro choice but I cant understand why able bodies people don't accept the way we are and charities aren't helping!

Dale - no charity status. It comes up with lots of weighted intentions. However, therein lies the rub ... fundraising often can only happen because of this. There's a much wider society construct going on here, and history plays a huge role .... how charities came into existence in the first place, and these historical intentions are still in place today.

UKCoD thing - its relevant, and not comparing apples / oranges or whatever. Nothing exists within a vacuum. The reason I brought it up, it somewhat shifts accountability and justification of existence. Whilst the membership thing is still there, the access to networking and power structures causes a shift.

On a superficial level, I can see why UKCoD was set up: to exchange information, collaboration, information sharing etc. However, on a deeper level I believe it creates more problems that it solves.

The problem is, people don't address such concerns. In fact, through the above network structures people are NOT encouraged to speak out, or actually have an intelligent debate about this. Deaf organisations and careers that revolve around this are particularly bad. There's more I could say about this, but might blog about it at some point.

Alison: Charity status means that you are a legal entity able to more effectively put your resources, i.e. income, to work. It gives tax breaks and makes more money available for you to spend on the cause. Still, you are right: our ideal organization does not have to have charitable status if you see benefits otherwise.

You just can't get out of your box, can you? I'm not asking you to change allegiances or anything, just allow your mind to expand and think of things from a different angle for a minute or two. Start with a blank piece of paper (suppose that there actually is a vacuum even), and imagine how you would improve things for the collective deaf community in that clean space.

Dale - accusations are not helpful.

I did a lot of work for FDP at one time, which was supposed to be the ideal alternative. However, there were a lot of lessons from this. I think this is such a complex subject, and there's bigger issues here. E.g. if you become the ideal charity, that doesn't mean that other groups will step aside and do the ethical thing.

E.g. look at what happened in 2003 and leading up to this, over BSL recognition. Complete shambles and we still feel the effect in 2007.

E.g. take interpreting or BSL in Wales. Funding granted for this is NOT what Deaf people wanted, yet it went ahead anyway.

Know what charity status is, esp as a legal entity ... that's why there's so many of them.

This is coupled with the fact that people don't like each other, so go ahead and set up a new organisation because they can't have their own way.

However, legal entity does not exist within a vacuum and law only exists in response or based on a particular set of ideals / construct. Something that it goes much further than this including a socio-political one from a wider society construct, and secondly how it is placed against other organisations.

My reluctance here is nothing to do with the fact I cannot think outside the box (which here is entirely subjective on your part), but more to do with the fact I know this is an extremely complex subject and one that takes years to appreciate.

Alison: Good points. I know it's complex, so I thought a wiki would be the better platform to explore it, rather than an exchange on a blog.

The problem of competing organizations and people not liking each other is one I am pushing aside for the time being - it's a hypothetical organization in an ideal world! I know there are limits to thinking in _that_ box, but it's a place to start...

Thanks for taking the time to explain so many things to me.

Take the constitution of FDP as a starting point. Thing has been done already, just other factors came into play that meant it didn't work.

Where the constitution of FDP, now that the FDP website is defunct? I never knew why that organisation have ceased to exist - seemed to have withered away into the background before I knew it.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

New Here?

Hello! We're UK based, more about GOD.

This page only has one post (posted on July 27, 2007 5:14 PM). For more visit the main page.

Don't miss new content, subscribe to our feed.

  feed.png   Posts Feed
  feed.png   Comments Feed

[Don't know what RSS is? Watch this subtitled video.]

Paying the Host Bill




Creative Commons License

Usually the content of this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence, unless specified otherwise.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.33