Just incase you are interested Look East have done an opt-out and have been running an hour long special programme since 6:30pm (to 7:30pm).
Saw most of it, and thought it was totally brilliant despite the sound problems. Hats off to Stewart White who was outstanding and really caught the mood well, especially his sign-off statement. Brilliant work.
The Beeb used it for pretty much the same thing outside the Old Bailey, and personally I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
It's not the best quality, but then it is not intended for close up, detailed shots, rather to give a broad overview of a situation. It was better than having nothing at all.
Neil: without wishing to get too heavily into the details of what I do remember and what I do not remember, I do recall the conversations but not specifically requesting any sort of first name basis. Either way, it was sarcasm and I don't care.
Think the black/gay argument is flawed slightly. (a) deaf people need services specially provided for them, whereas black/gay people do not (b) there is a large minority of black/gay people watching, whereas there is a small minority of deaf people watching and (c) there are already provisions (i.e. subtitles) in place should the sign language person be removed.
Given the Beeb's obsession with viewers, it would've made more sense for them to stop putting people off watching the channel by just getting rid of it and the associated on-screen mess.
Given the Beeb's obsession with viewers, it would've made more sense for them to stop putting people off watching the channel by just getting rid of it and the associated on-screen mess.
Nothing to do with the Beeb. It's a legal requirement
I think that it is better the way they sign now - ie part of the signing person is covered by by a black bar and the astons are their normal size than shrinking the whole picture, like it used to be done prior to the relaunch.
Signing is much easier for death people to follow than reading subtitles if that was not the case then signing would have been long gone. I agree that it should be an interactive option for - lets say - five half hour slots during the day - not too difficult on Sky I suppose - however I assume there is not enough space on freeview for it to happen.
I did not say they were second class citizens, noggin, it is just common sense.
If we are going down the line of discrimination, why not have an Arabic translation? There are more Arabic-speakers in the UK than there are those able to understand BSL. Is that discrimination?
Why not fill the screen with people doing sign language in every language? Where are the Welsh subtitles?
No other news channel in its right mind - this obviously excludes the ITV News Channel - would have 1/3 of the screen covered in a combination of black emptyness and a sign language lady during its coverage of the most anticipated court case verdict there's been all year.
I don't give a sh-t what liberal, public-service claptrap you or the rest of the Beeb want to throw, noggin, it's common sense just to get rid of it, upset all 4 viewers who probably found it useful and delight a few hundred thousand who found it irritating and distracting.
Very silly of Sky to go and blur out the DOG on that footage, unless they had permission from the Beeb.
There is such a minimal amount of signing on News 24 I just don't get why it is such a big issue to some people. It is a legal requirement for non-BBC DTT channels, that the BBC have agreed to match.
What I do very strongly believe is that a service that is specifically made available at fixed times to a core community of the British public should not be ditched just because it is a breaking news story and more people might be watching...
You may feel public service is clap-trap - I chose to differ.
Yes - closed signing (i.e. an optional overlay) is obviously preferable to open signing (burned in for all viewers). However the technology for overlaying is not yet available properly - and the STB rendered avatar systems are not yet able to do BSL correctly - just SSE (which is pretty much equivalent to subtitles in signing - English rather than BSL)
Would they be allowed to provide the signing service on one of the extra digital channels? It would remove the distraction element for people who don't want to see it whilst still being available to the majority of viewers...
Given the Beeb's obsession with viewers, it would've made more sense for them to stop putting people off watching the channel by just getting rid of it and the associated on-screen mess.
Nothing to do with the Beeb. It's a legal requirement
It is only a legal requirement for ITC licensed DTT services (i.e. not the BBC DTT TV services) - however the BBC have agreed to match the ITC targets - though there is no legal obligation on the BBC to do so AIUI. (This may change in the New Year under OFCOM - I'm not sure)
(c) there are already provisions (i.e. subtitles) in place should the sign language person be removed.
That argument is flawed though.
Subtitles are fine for people who are hard of hearing, or who have lost their hearing after previously speaking English.
BSL is NOT English in sign language - it is a different language. Suggesting that BSL users fall back on subtitles is close to suggesting that we should listen to programmes dubbed into French.
Come on - it is less than an hour a day isn't it? We hearing people get a full service 24 hours a day...
BSL is NOT English in sign language - it is a different language. Suggesting that BSL users fall back on subtitles is close to suggesting that we should listen to programmes dubbed into French.
Come on - it is less than an hour a day isn't it? We hearing people get a full service 24 hours a day...
Exactly; BSL has its own sentence structure and the sequence of the signs in BSL is therefore different to that of spoken and written English. In most households where a deaf child is the offspring of deaf parents, the child will grow up with BSL as their first language, and English will be their second language.
