Sign Language Planning: individual rights to group rights

I agreed to stand in for a speaker the week before last at the recent Applied Sign Linguistics conference at Bristol University and that gave me a good opportunity to bring together my own research and thinking on citizenship, language planning and minority group rights.

I refer to language planning in the status sense: i.e. raising the status of a language in society.  Language planning and minority group rights have been discussed by, amongst others, Stephen May, Gabrielle Hogun-Brun and Bernard Spolksy, who are all experts in this field.  All three recognise and include sign languages in their work.

The key finding of my research on citizenship was, unsurprisingly, depressing.  Deaf citizens did not feel they were valued as citizens by all sections of civil, political and social society.  It wasn’t that Deaf people did not feel citizens in any respect at all, they clearly were and did, but it was a ‘thin’ citizenship, rather than a ‘thick’ one that they experienced.  They felt passive rather than active citizens, not in and by themselves, that was how they felt perceived by majority society; it was empirical research evidence.

My thesis presents compelling evidence, but I paraphrase the marxist maxim: ‘you’ve interpreted the world, how are you going to change it?’  I wanted to look at the concept of group rights in my PhD in that regard; my supervisors, rightly and wisely, suggested that to do so would be to take on too vast a project.

Thankfully, Leverhulme and the University of Bristol have presented me with an opportunity to undertake a small scale post-doc research project on group rights, in far more depth than I could give it justice in my PhD.  What I am finding so far is incredibly fascinating stuff; still ongoing.

At the Applied Sign Linguistics conference, however, I raised the point of moving on from sign language ‘recognition’ (read ‘acknowledgment’) to sign language acts, or language planning; ostensibly to protect, raise and strengthen the status of sign language in society.  Such moves were long ago suggested by political activists and academic thinkers prior to the 2003 British Sign Language (UK) ‘recognition’ statement, who have always recognised the importance of the statement but at the same time consistently and continuously maintained it never went far enough. It is far more important than that though: language acts are as much about protecting language from demise, something that several thousand spoken languages are at risk of.  Skutnabb-Kangas is regularly warning the world that spoken languages are already experiencing genocide.

In the UK, the next step from language ‘recognition’ (read ‘acknowledgment’) unofficially at least, might be a BSL Act.

However, the question I am asking is : what might that mean in practice?  Any presentation to governments to introduce Acts carries with it the assumption that these will apply to individuals. Our society, after all, is liberal democratic, where the will of the individual is held as paramount; there might be some form of exemptions, but the individual right (usually of the individual parents) will always trump the group right.

Now, I’m not suggesting there is anything objectionable to individual rights; but Acts, arguably, need to be powered by board(s) of (liberal) enforcers, not simply ‘advised’ by them.  Empowering such a group or board is what makes a group right i.e. that group becomes self-determining since it holds the destiny of the rights of the group in its own hands, and not to a random government appointed board that, with all due respect, are not the best guarantors or protectors of the group (since they have other interests in mind). Group rights can be upheld to protect individual rights, providing such rights are promoted to protect the group from external protections (against the demise of sign language for example), and not to impose internal restrictions (enforcing members of a group to forgo a liberal right).

The key theorist I am referring to here is Will Kymlicka, who has come under some criticism, but whose arguments that minority group rights are key to liberalism, and are not in opposition to it, is a powerful one.  After all, citizenship is already a restrictive practice (not all people of a nation can claim citizenship of a country automatically, for example), and group rights are already favourable to dominant national languages, such as English for example.  Kymicka is an incredibly important theorist, for human rights scholars don’t particularly favour group rights over individual rights: Kymlicka argues by not incorporating minority group rights they are failing the liberal project.

The crucial argument here is the need for minority group rights, precisely because our society is multicultural and minorities within society often lack protection, recognition, respect and rights by majority governing powers.

Therefore, in summary, what I am presenting for argument is that it is not enough simply to push for a language planning or a language act, it needs to be backed up by minority group rights, where the minority group holds some form of power(s), and isn’t simply there to give advice to existing Acts.  When I wrote in my conclusion to my PhD of the need for a ‘Deaf Perestroika’, this is one of the things I had in mind. The situation was in need of radial structural changes to ensure language protection and promotion: the situation demands it.

This is all, of course, something I am throwing up for subject for debate, and one that has come about following my PhD research. My biggest concern is that powers do not afford minority groups (i don’t just refer here to sign language communities) ‘epistemic justice’.  In other words, the minority group is not given a fair hearing by government in regards to its rights, and so practices that disregard its concerns continue, or the minority group is given token recognition. Yet it is within the minority group where there exist experts who hold a valuable understanding of a group’s rights and responsibilities.

I am not aware of a debate within the Deaf world on minority group rights possibilities; although Kymlicka wrote an article on the subject in 1998 and Jan-Kare Breivik has also commented on the issue in his work, both concluded that they did not see such rights as feasible.  The work, on this issue however, has not, as far as I’m aware, been subject to empirical research or the intense scrutiny and debate I think it deserves.  I perhaps shouldn’t be too critical, however, for historically, Deaf Studies is still very much a discipline in its infancy and sociological research funding is hard to come by.  Organisations seeking to protect the interests of Sign Language have perhaps been most concerned with the immediate ways in which sign languages and Deaf people can be protected, particularly within the ‘developing’ or majority nations.  The mechanisms for doing so are with (individual) Human Rights frameworks. They work with minimal resources, and on the statute books at least, there are inclusions that seek to protect sign language (although I’m aware these have been open to criticism because it has been argued, at the WFD Conference in Madrid in 2007, that mainstreaming of deaf children isn’t challenged as strongly as it could be).

Yet at the expense of pursuing the ratification of the rights of sign language users at a formal and official level there is a risk of failing to address a common academic critique: individual human rights, after 60 years since the end of the second world war, continue to fail to prevent abuses in the hearing world, often by countries that are the strongest supporters of individual human rights (just ask Amnesty!).  There is also an imbalance in the focus of human rights abuses in some nations more than others. Uncritically accepting that (individual) human rights of sign language users be fought for through official bodies such as the United Nations is to bestow legitimacy on those organisations to decide what constitutes a right within the Deaf world.

‘Differentiated minority group rights’ would not ditch individual rights, but they might enable the minority group to be the deciders of what constitutes a right within their community and culture.

What I hope to have written here is the basis and framework for discussion and debate on the subject of minority group rights and Deaf communities that is, in my view, long overdue.

Being an examiner of a thesis – a personal view

Two weeks ago represented by far one the busiest of my academic career.

For the first time I assessed a PhD, a very interesting experience. For the moment I am limiting my entry to the practicals of the process and not of the individual in question (since the process is not officially complete as of yet), of which there would be so much more to write!  None of what is written here is referring to the exam I have just been a part of, but a generic assessment of the process itself.

I do wonder about the British system of two or three ‘experts’ examining a thesis in great detail, identifying it’s merit and originality and then having the power to award or not.  [Of course we must never forget that supervisors play their part in steering it through in the first place and are in a position to suggest whether a student is 'ready' to submit, which in itself carries great responsibility.] I would like the examination backed up by a ‘presentation forum’, where the work is presented to a wider (selective?) audience, who would then have the possibility to question the author too.  [Something they do in the USA I believe?] In future, that is something an author will be subject to anyway ( i.e. audience scrutiny), so that can be part and parcel of the examination process.  I wouldn’t favour a presentation forum alone of course; some people do need to give the thesis a rigorous examination, having been through the system and therefore in a position to proffer relevant academically rigorous questioning.

There is another point for this: it gives the audience the opportunity to see exactly what the candidate is put through in this examining; I have obviously been through it myself and it can be a tough process.

Then again, perhaps what we have is a pressurised enough system as it is!  All that said, I did enjoy the process, and of course reading and learning from the thesis itself.

Finally there is the ‘post-colonial dynamic’ of a Deaf person being in the role of assessor, but that’s for another night!

Group Rights and Deaf Communities

I want to take the opportunity here to update where I am currently with the new research project with which I’m involved at the Centre for Deaf Studies, Bristol University.  Having revised and taught a Unit on ‘Deaf People in Politics and the Media’ at the Centre, I’m now in a position to move ahead with the research.

In a nutshell, it’s a two-year research project, part funded by the Leverhulme Trust, on the group rights of Deaf Communities.

Human Rights legislation is typically focussed on the rights of individuals, with little backing to the rights of linguistic and cultural minority groups (to self-determination, for example).  The research being undertaken, however, will explore the concept of group rights in relation to Deaf communities, something that has only been tentatively explored by scholars (such as Will Kymlicka or Jan-Kare Breivik, for example).

The research includes an empirical approach, using interviews and group and community meetings (currently being planned).  Some Human Rights laws do enable the claiming of rights as a member of a people (as opposed to an individual claiming rights as a member of a minority group), and there will be an attempt to explore the possibilities of Deaf people making claims under such laws.

Group rights are also about the protection of a minority group from harm; with fears that sign language is under threat from medical interventions such as cochlear implants and developments in genetics, the research will explore the possibility of Deaf people claiming rights as a group to ensure protection and development of Sign Language and Deaf culture.

Since education marks the point at which many deaf children come together to interact and develop their language and culture, there will be a particular focus on this field.

The research findings will be published in a suitable journal at the end of 2010.

Personally, I have high hopes that this study will also contribute to developments in Deafhood theory, and I am proud to add that one of the key project mentors is Dr Paddy Ladd, the other being Professor Rachel Murray from the Law Department at the University of Bristol.

Steve

London G20 Protests: From Peach to Tomlinson, has anything changed? (includes my eyewitness account of the protest)

The emotions I’m feeling at seeing one video after another being released in the mainstream media following the G20 protest on 1st April simply can’t be described. It’s sad and annoying that all this reporting is taking place only after an innocent guy, Ian Tomlinson, died after being struck by the police at the protest.  Had this not happened, it’s highly unlikely the media coverage would be what it is.

Indeed, the original reasons for the protest seem to have largely been forgotten.  Barack Obama was making his first visit abroad since becoming President of the USA.  People in UK were taking the opportunity to protest against the banks, Presidents and Prime Ministers who are presiding over a credit crisis that is leading to rapid job losses worldwide.

I was there at the G20 protests around the same time as Ian Tomlinson and saw what it was like and what was going on in the area.  I had given a presentation on ‘Citizenship’ in London that day, to an audience consisting largely of those who work with Deaf people, and when it was over I headed out to meet a friend who had been at the protest and caught in a ‘kettle’  near the Bank of England.

My problem is that what I saw from the police has been witnessed so often in my involvement in politics over the last 25 or so years.  Such experiences never diminish in their ability to shock but soon after I quickly start thinking ’seen it all before’; even the news reporting afterwards seemed to follow a typical pattern of cover up. 

Not this time.

I went to join my friend at the Bank of England protest but people were kettled in by that time. Luckily my friend managed to get out of the kettle and I met up with her; a group of us tried to go to various points outside of the kettle to see if there was any protest we could join and to see what was going on and a couple of us ended up unintentionally getting caught up in a police surge.

It’s a long story but we had gone down an alleyway to see what was going off with a group of protesters.  We’d witnessed these protestors running from the police, who seemed to be chasing them off with sheilds and batons.  There was a lull in this battle so we went to see what was happening.  Some protestors were sitting in the road and there appeared to be a stand off with the police.  Suddenly the police made a surge that blocked off the alley so we couldn’t escape down it; seated protestors were forced to stand up and move backwards by the sheer police attack, and so I found myself at the very front of it, aggressive cops shouting at us to ‘get back’  pushing at those of us in the front with their shields…only we couldn’t retreat because those behind were a stationary dense bunch of people many of whom seemed to be taking photos (!), plus individuals next to us kept pushing back at the cops.  There was also no chance of moving sideways into the crowd cos that was a far worse police onslaught. Protestors were occasionally running at the police lines with their arms up, and things like empty cans were being thrown at them, bouncing off their shields or helmets.

It’s hard to describe emotions at that stage.  For me it was not one of ‘fear’ because I was too busy thinking ’s**t, how the f**k do I get out of here’ and ‘hey hang on, I wasn’t meant to be part of this!’, and trying desperately to work out how to escape while keeping one eye at the aggressive cop in front. [As we've since learned, the police tend to hit people when they aren't looking.]  They are jabbing their shields at you, and all I can think of is trying to keep out of the way, afraid that if I get hit too much for no reason I will instinctively react, and make the situation worse for myself and those around me.

My friend managed, however, to push her way through the dense body of people, and I did too eventually, and once through we both ran as far and as fast as we could.  My biggest fear was that this was the start of a police riot, where the police chase people away, hitting out at whoever gets in their way, whether you are part of the protest or not. 

It was during this period of time that the police hit Ian Tomlinson, which leads me to believe there was a higher order going around at the time for the police to be more aggressive.

We then walked over to the climate camp protest site, which appeared to be even more tightly kettled in than the other one; it was truly very scary and as well as fearing for the people stuck inside and unable to get out, I felt utterly powerless to do anything to help them out.  I kept thinking: ‘if only there were another 10,000 people here…’

The police kettling was truly astonishing to behold, taking up huge amounts of police resources in terms not just of numbers, riot gear and shields, but of vans, horses, cars, etc; to ensure they could completely kettle people in. So that’s where the £7.5 million was going…

That experience by itself is emotional in a lot of different ways. But to see the shift in media reporting is truly unprecedented and adds to the emotional impact.  It seems clear at this stage that the rise of the use of personal video cameras is significant.  I followed the initial press releases that (wrongly it seems) reported Ian Tomlinson had died of a heart attack, and then, late on 2nd April on Indymedia I read the eyewitness accounts of Ian being attended to by protestors while police declined to assist.  These were highly significant because during these early post-protest stages of the story there were reports of police medics being hampered as they tried to revive Ian; soon the news story was being reported in a ‘balanced’ manner: a non-protestor suffering a heart attack, with the possibility that there had been contact with police so this was ‘being looked into’ (by the police), meanwhile the police report having come under attack from protestors while trying to revive Ian.

As the Indymedia eyewitness accounts make clear, however, it had been the protestors who had tried to revive Ian, the police then moved in and surrounded him. Some protestors did throw things at the police, but quickly stopped when they realised a man was lying suffering on the ground.  The heart attack story persisted though, due to the autopsy that had been carried out; but once the video showing Ian being hit by the police was released the entire story was turned on its head by the mainstream media, and the police really had very little option but to question the officer and re-do the autopsy.

It is plainly becoming clear by the day that without the various video evidence that is coming in, the original story would have persisted, with the real version kept out of mainstream news reporting.  The parallel here is the death of Blair Peach, which the media reported as ‘misadventure’…but back then there were no CCTVs, neither were there many handheld camera’s; then, as now, eyewitness accounts hold little real value in the media.

The police actions (hitting people with their batons) aren’t new (though the kettling is actually quite a recent tactic, first employed in London during the May Day demonstrations in 2001); the fact they are being shown on all the big hitting press websites (such as the BBC and the Sunday Times) is, for me, totally surreal.  I mean the airing of all these videos of police brutality as prime news just doesn’t normally get reported in this way.   Even more remarkable is the way the police are being portrayed as being well out of order here; that’s so unusual to see too.  Normally it might be the odd baton whack that gets reported or commented on, and even that will be lost under a weight of news stories of protestors burning a rubbish bin or something that makes what the police do appear justified.  And that kind of thing doesn’t happen here, not with our police force. Greece maybe, France probably, but UK?? 

It is so unbelievable to see a far more accurate depiction in the mainstream media of what really happens when you go on a demonstration in the UK that has been reported to have ‘turned violent’.

Some key questions for me are:

(a) it is right and just that the officer who hit Ian Tomlinson is charged and brought to justice, but it should not stop there.  What exactly is the role of the Territorial Support Group, the group of police officers who are organised specifically to deal with ‘violent protest’ (even though there wasn’t any on the day)? Who organised and ordered its actions on the day? 

(b) will there be an independent public enquiry into the conduct of the police, particularly their use of ‘kettling’?  It is totally absurd that the enquiry should be conducted by the police. And finally

(c) how many cover ups of police brutality have taken place over the years if, as seems likely, all that’s different about this is that the police got caught on video?

And this brings up yet further emotions, to the killing of Blair Peach, almost 30 years ago.  An innocent guy, a teacher, hit by a police truncheon on 23rd April 1979.  And all those protests I’ve attended over the years seeing people get hit and hurt by police actions, and then the next day zero news reporting about it; or, worse, all reporting heavily biased, as if the police were simply reacting to violent protests.  [Yes, to be absolutely fair, the deaths of people protesting is not high in the UK, which is how it should be anyway; and that perhaps is why this death holds particular shock value; however, the violence is very real and sometimes I have left demo's wondering how nobody got killed.]

You really had to be there to believe it was happening: the forces of the State using violence as a means to an end; the media reporting of the events being totally opposite of what you saw with your own eyes; and then day to day life going on as usual the next day, with me still boiling inside at the injustice of what had happened. It is an education about capitalist society, for sure.

After the death of Blair Peach the dub poet Linton Kwesi Johnson wrote and sang an emotionally powerful song entitled: ‘Reggae Fi Peach’: some of the lines went as follows:

“…deh Special Patrol…dem a MURDER-AH, MURDER-AH/we can’t let dem get, no furder-ah/
deh S.P.G. dem a MURDER-AH, MURDER-AH/we can’t let dem get, no furder-ah”

The SPG refers to ‘Special Patrol Group’, which was the ‘Territorial Support Group’ (TSG) all those years ago, and so all that seems to have changed are the initials; while the message of the song remains.

Peace.

Voices from El Sayed screening at Bristol’s Watershed: BSL explanation of background to the film screening

Just a quick blog posting, following the one by grumpyoldeafies today,  about the film ‘Voices from El Sayed’, showing at Bristol’s Watershed cinema, on Saturday 9th May, 3pm.

Click here for more info in BSL, including some background as to why the film is being shown at the Watershed cinema in collaboration with the Centre for Deaf Studies.

I am really proud that CDS have collaborated with Watershed to ensure this film can be seen in the UK.

If you are in UK nearby do try to come along as the film will not be shown anywhere else in the country.  It is also, I should add, an opportunity for a public discussion about the important issue of cochlear implants and the Deaf community.

Steve

Research Project report: mental health needs of Deaf BME community in Glasgow

Last Tuesday I attended the launch of the report into the mental health needs of Deaf people from the Glasgow BME community. I gave a brief presentation of the research I undertook.

The project was a pilot to investigate if further research was necessary in this field.  You can see the full report here.

The work was undertaken last year while I was working at Heriot-Watt University and was in collaboration with Deaf Connections.  I worked closely with the Development Worker with the BME Deaf Community, and also the Asian Deaf Community in Glasgow during the research project.

The launch was under the name ‘Ishara’, a new word coined by the Asian Deaf Club , taken from the Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi languages, and means to make signs or gestures with the hands.

For more information about Ishara go here.

Celebrating Dot Miles at the BDA…some reflections on ‘the Vision’

Back fresh from the British Deaf Association (BDA) conference; my initial reaction is …. interesting!

Good to see a conference brimming with energy and enthusiasm, a full hall of people celebrating the memory of poet Dot Miles; and people getting involved in workshop discussions.

There is a new BDA Chair now, but I’d like to see some credit go to Francis Murphy (and all those involved in behind the scenes work) for keeping the ship going through rocky waters

Thanks are due to the BDA for allowing Deaf academics in the UK the use of a room to initiate a meeting: we are hoping to run a conference for Deaf academics as soon as we can secure funding for it.  In the meantime there is a new website that is accessible to the public and for the use of Deaf academics working within universities in the UK: www.deafacademicsintheuk.org.

Some things struck me from the BDA Membership workshops.

Far too many of the ideas coming out were focussed on short term work.  What happens short term can work well if it’s part of a long term vision or strategy.

Things people raised struck a chord and would be ideal for developing a longer term vision that could help focus short term work:

A. Building the bridges with the younger generation of Deaf people.

This came up repeatedly (and it wasn’t helped that there was a glaring lack of young presence) but short term solutions seemed hard to shake off.

Mainstreaming is now the norm, the cochlear implant generation will surely be entering citizenship in larger numbers in the coming years.  How can the BDA encourage and welcome a generation who have probably not been able to access sign language, or Deaf culture?  How can the BDA assist in developing Deafhood?

I have no easy answers to this issue, but suggest some kind of strategy is necessary to encourage whom Paddy Ladd called ‘Deaf street people’ to participate in keeping sign language and Deafhood alive for future generations.

Unfortunately there were not enough Deaf young people present to help take that debate forward so it might be time to think of how the BDA can actively go to where the young people are and learn from them in their own geographical spaces.

B. Networking politically.

A guy brought this up at the workshop session and that point he made was hugely valid.

I’m thinking particularly of the genetics campaign; sure, the clause that was campaigned against wasn’t overturned, but there were rich political networks that activists were able to tap into and have an effect and influence thanks to hearing political allies who shared the concerns of Deaf people over the HFE Bill.

The point isn’t necessarily winning the battles you fight; if it means losing a few to learn new skills to help to win a longer term war, those losses will have been worthwhile.  If you don’t fight you never have any chance of winning anyway.

A long term strategy to build up long term relationships in the field of politics, so that anything to do with Sign Language and Deaf education becomes a BDA issue, and not an RNID or UKCod one will take a few years.  You need a longer term vision in the first place though.

Central and crucial to this is political networking involving some kind of strategy for engaging with parents; which again I’m not an expert on, but some kind of debate needs to take place with how that might be achieved.

People are still getting up at these conferences and talking about the need for action; there were some complaints the BSL marches of the past were ‘too passive’.  It’s an important debate to have but political action takes active people doing active things; it involves risk taking, boldness and being prepared to confront.   I never remember the Wolvie Six telling people they needed to block the roads, they went out and did it!

The BDA is not a direct action political organisation though, it can’t be expected to do everything; and in any case historically any kind of activism has traditionally come from outside the ranks of the BDA.  That doesn’t mean the BDA members cannot lend support to action that does take place.  The BDA itself could run workshops on the issue, perhaps.

One final question related to the conference: why weren’t hearing people allowed into the Interpreting workshop?

Finally a real highlight of the weekend was the train journey home to Bristol.  The journey was such a brilliant communicative event that it hardly mattered how many times we had to change seats not knowing they were reserved, and never before was I so un-bothered by a crowded train.

Two other projects to mention…and an update on the genetics research project

In addition to research on attitudes to genetics there are two other projects currently being worked on at Heriot Watt.

The first is subtitling; there has been very little done into how deaf and hard of hearing people read subtitles, what they think of it, and what styles and types they prefer.  A guy at Heriot-Watt, Pablo Romero, is doing his PhD on this subject; they are collecting views of Deaf and hard of hearing people in three different European countries, and I’m working with him advising and assisting with setting up groups etc.  It is hoped that the findings of the project will help in the running of courses for translators who want to work in subtitling, so it does have a practical application.

The second is research on the mental health needs of Deaf Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people in Glasgow.  This is a pilot research project spread over 5 months and involves me working with the Deaf BME Officer in the Glasgow Deaf community to evidence whether there is any need for a larger project (or what might be necessary that would support the community there in Glasgow).

Two very different projects, therefore, and along with the genetics research are keeping me busy!

Incidentally the collection of data in the Deaf community for the genetics project is now complete and I will begin working on analysis of the data.  Information from hard of hearing people has yet to be collected but will start very shortly.  Results of the findings will be published in journals and presentations given to conferences in the future.

Apologies if that is a very dry rendering of where my life is with work in progress; but I just wanted to give a brief information update for now

Steve

BSL DVD of PhD complete!

The BSL translation of my PhD is complete, less than one year after the confirmation of the award!

It is now in editing stage. I’m immensely proud to have got it done, and very well pleased with Tessa Padden who has worked hard on it.

Questions might be asked as to why I did not do it myself? The fact is, I know if I left it to be translated in BSL when I got the time myself, it simply would never have got done, not least because I’m not really confident on camera. In anticipation of that, money was set aside to pay for Tessa to do it.

Sure I make an appearance, doing most of the beginning, and the start of each chapter.

Once editing is complete the DVD will be sent to a number of higher educational institutions, where it can be watched or ordered by anyone who wants to.

There has been no real grand launch of my PhD precisely because I have been waiting to get the BSL version complete. Now that is nearly done I can start going ‘on the road’ with the findings of the research.

It’ll make up 19-20 DVD’s though, so will probably be good for insomnia (joking).

What is this blog for?

I have set up this blog to record my involvement and engagement with academic and political work. It is impossible to separate the two.

It’ll be personal: stuff I write and anything that is published (links will be given where at all possible) and my views and rants on things happening either to me or in the academic/political world.  There will also be links to other campaigns, work, in fact anything that’s relevant.

It won’t include personal and private things I get up to. I’ve been holding this up for far too long, waiting to get my own website/webpage set up, but so much has happened and accumulated in that time.

The things written here are meant for public access, comment, discussion, etc. Not sure whether the aim will be achieved, but one can only try. Vlog will be posted from time to time.