Now With Signing For the Deaf

I've written to my MP to demand that something is done to help the deaf. Not sure if that's the right word. Is it 'deaf' or 'hard of hearing'? Or perhaps it's 'aurally impared'? I can never keep up with the latest PC terms. Not that it matters. The point I've written to my MP about has less to do with the deaf and more to do with those of us with good hearing. Now I come to think of it, it's hardly got anything to do with being deaf at all. It's really a vision problem.

I mean why are the people who provide sign language for TV programmes so ugly?

It’s hardly helped by their gurning for hours on end. Didn't their mothers warn them that it might stick like that? And can’t something now be done to help these poor people?

As the government introduce new initiatives to ensure that more of the TV output is signed, broadcasters are cramming their night time schedules with signed programes, leaving their peak hours free. It's ruining my late night TV. I’m finding that I can’t watch a program after midnight without it being spoiled by some face in an overweight blouse grimacing at me. And then they do all that pointing, holding their noses, and flapping their hands. Sometimes they stick out their tongues and make obscene shapes with their tonsils.

If you think I’m being a bit harsh, I want to emphasise that I don’t have a problem with the deaf. My problem lies with the people who do the all the signing, many of whom aren’t actually deaf. When you think about it, none of them can be deaf, otherwise how would they know what to sign? And I don’t actually understand why they have to scowl so much. The deaf can see perfectly well. Do they prefer to see facial emotions exaggerated. Aren’t they supposed to be able to see better than the rest of us?

If technology can show half a dozen courts at Wimbledon, or dozens of camera angles for football matches, why can’t it provide signing for the deaf that doesn’t spoil a film or TV programme for the majority of the viewers?