My recent application for a role here revealed a significant and concerning lack of clarity in the true job requirements. I possess all the professional registrations, related qualifications, and years of relevant experience as outlined in the job description. Furthermore, as an orally deaf individual, I bring valuable lived experience, and I was actively learning BSL to Level 2, which the advertisement explicitly stated was a sufficient level of commitment to BSL. Despite meeting all the advertised criteria, the application process was prolonged, taking over a month for a response, and I ultimately had to chase for an update. While the eventual feedback acknowledged my application as strong, it was made clear that immediate, pre-existing BSL fluency was an unstated and overriding prerequisite, contrary to what was advertised. This profound lack of transparency meant I didn't even progress to an interview, which is particularly concerning. One would reasonably expect a Deaf organisation to have access to interpreters until one becomes flluent. Such a discrepancy between advertised and actual requirements, especially when it creates a barrier for other disabled applicants, raises serious questions about compliance with equality legislation. I would be surprised if the successful applicant had the qualifications and experience I do, but no doubt they will have BSL.