Feedback from the Trustees.

If you look to your left, there is a link named ‘Ouch!’ under the heading ‘The Issue.’ The first post was a letter that I sent to all the RNID trustees some time ago which identifies my two main areas of concern. The first paragraph talks of the need for deaf people to have a say or suffrage at RNID. In respect of feedback on this issue I have some good news and bad news. Unfortunately the bad news is more recent, so I’ll start with that.

Somebody suggested to me that I contact RNID trustee, Malcolm Bruce MP because nobody amongst all the trustees is more likely to understand the importance of democracy and having a hand in your own affairs. Incidentally, Jackie Ballard has compared her role to that of an MP in the last ‘one in seven’ magazine.

My e-mail was as follows:

Dear Mr Bruce,

I'm not sure if you have received my letters to you in your capacity as RNID trustee at Featherstone Street. I am a deaf person who, amongst others, have been concerned about the disenfranchisement of deaf and hard of hearing people at RNID.

There has been some discussion of this matter by deaf people here:

Draft letter to RNID Trustees

RNID claims to represent all nine million deaf and hard of hearing people of the UK, but does not give us a say or a vote in matters which directly concern us. This excerpt from the above site explains what I would like to see implemented:

"I think, in the age of internet, there are better ways to expedite a feedback process. I see the role of trustee as rather like that of an MP – where the interests of constituents are carried forward through surgeries/consultation."

I would like to ask whether you agree that deaf people should be able to have a free say on matters which concern them and, if so, whether you will press for deaf people's suffrage at RNID.


Yours sincerely,

Although I received a very nice reply from Mr Bruce’s assistant informing me that Mr Bruce will respond, that e-mail was sent on October 12^th (over two weeks ago) and I have still not heard back from him. This means that I will have to take the provisional view that Mr Bruce does not think it’s very important for deaf people to able to have a suffrage or say at their own organisation.

However, there is some good news too. Another trustee, Dr Judith Langfield, instructed the executive assistant to the chief executive to write to me to say that she will bear my comments in mind. The most promising and enthusiastic response came, unsurprisingly, from Jeff McWhinney, who thanked me for my efforts and gave me some good news on the training of deaf people at RNID senior level.

So there you have the catch so far – a bit of a mixed net.

RNID “Your say.”

I was looking at the RNID’s website recently and came across a brand new glossy page with the slogan ‘your say’:

Member Community

My first thought was ‘oh my goodness! Could it just be possible that RNID are finally listening and giving deaf people or at least their members the right to express their opinion?’ It was certainly worth investigating further. I eventually found a page where I could comment on an issue which concerns me:

Your say

The question was ‘what can we do to involve you better in all RNID’s work and campaigns?’ So I filled in their form and answered the question – they could involve us better by creating a general forum so that we can share our concerns and perhaps create e-surgeries so that the trustees can become aware of our priorities and implement them at RNID.

However, I noticed a caveat at the bottom of the form – ‘NB We reserve the right to withhold any comment from publication.’

It will no doubt shock you to learn that my comment has not appeared on their website yet. There was a comment from Tim, but unfortunately it was the wrong Tim. Could it be that we are only allowed to ‘have our say’ as long as we sing from the same song sheet as RNID?

LATE EDIT: I've just had an e-mail from RNID saying that they would like to include my comments in their next 'one in seven' magazine. Are RNID cleaning up their act? I'll report back when the magazine is out and just maybe we'll get a response to what seems like perfectly reasonable asks.

The Relationship between RNID and Deaf People.

I think it’s worth considering the dynamics of the relationship between deaf people and RNID. On a superficial level, I suppose some would say that RNID are our kind helpers to whom we ought to be eternally grateful. That, however, is a subjective view only held by some. Those of us who don’t subscribe to such ‘crying clown’ sentimentality might have a more objective or factual picture of what each party in the relationship actually is. Once that has been determined, we can decide what each party’s rights and responsibilities are.

I would argue that deaf people are equal private individuals who go about their lives minding their own business.

The RNID, on the other hand, have taken it upon themselves to represent us – to speak for us, to act for us, to collect money for us and to spend it for us – all without our permission, all without our proper involvement, all without our proper say and all without our genuine suffrage.

So I would have thought that it is very clear from those points that deaf people do not have to justify themselves to the RNID or it’s supporters. The RNID, however, do have to justify themselves to us. To borrow from Rousseau, the RNID are our agents, not our masters.

I hope to put forward more news items and commentary rather than opinion in my later posts.

Personal Attacks.

One of the most common mistakes that I see in an on-line debate about RNID, or in any discussion for that matter, is the use of personal attacks. This fallacy even has its own formal Latin name – argumentum ad hominem. You can google that if you would rather evade my waffle, but I think it is well worth my spelling out just how wrong and unfair they are.

Personal attacks are wrong because they are misdirection; they mislead the audience away from the actual subject - the thing being discussed - towards the character of a debating opponent – which is irrelevant. It is attacking the person because they hold a certain opinion, rather than refuting or even addressing the opinion itself.

Personal attacks are unfair because they attempt to incite bad feeling in the audience towards somebody. Making out that somebody is a bad person in this way is a bad thing in itself.

You may think such insistent exhortation unnecessary, but bear in mind that this dirty tactic is often being used against the very people who the RNID and its supporters would have the public believe are vulnerable and in need of support.

Try the following exercise. Put aside the RNID and think of a time when you objected to something. It could be the war in Iraq, poor treatment from the NHS or from a bank. You knew at the time that you felt you had a genuine grievance. Now imagine somebody who disagrees with you comes along, ignores your actual complaint and instead accuses you of ‘carping.’ Yes, that’s how devious and unfair personal attacks are.

Welcome!

This blog is written by a deaf RNID member mainly to give an alternative view of the organisation that represents deaf people without their consent, involvement or proper say. When we had to undergo the torture of cross-country at school, we were often hit by pain caused by the build up of lactic acid. Our sympathetic PE teacher suggested a choice of two different remedies - either focus on the pain or ignore it. Some people might say that I am obsessed by the RNID issue, but I am in fact just focusing on the pain.

I welcome free speech in comments because I believe in transparency, accountability and public debate. However, I reserve the right to remove comments which are profane, offensive or fallacious in logic.

I choose the name 'The Regency' because it sounds like a nice pub and it is us, deaf people, who should rule our own affairs.