| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] > | Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK Thread poster: Trans_Interp
|
|---|
Ty Kendall 
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Hebrew to English
| Thanks Louise | Oct 22, 2012 |
Will have to tune it to that one too!
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Ty Kendall wrote: Will have to tune it to that one too!
What was really interesting to see was the reactions of the interpreters who were sitting in the row behind !
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 17:00
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| I also watched, but... | Oct 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Just watched the whole 2hrs 22 mins of it. Great viewing!
I don't want to be a wet sock, but very little new information came to light at that meeting that has not been included in the PDF file.
What makes this meeting particularly unuseful is that participants are asked specific questions but are not allowed to look up the information to ensure that they provide accurate answers, so a lot of what is being said here is potentially hazy. And perhaps being a non-native speaker means that the logic of the interviewing committee members isn't always clear to me, but my impression was that this meeting was little more than a premeditated grilling, and certainly had very little to do with fact-finding.
The big value of this committee meeting, IMO, is to show that there is a lot of aspects to this issue that we are not aware of or that aren't highlighted by the interpreters faction. Tis a pity that the committee squashed most of the witness's attempts at giving any answers that do not simply confirm the preconceived notions of the committee.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| They didn't even read it | Oct 22, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
What makes this meeting particularly unuseful is that participants are asked specific questions but are not allowed to look up the information to ensure that they provide accurate answers
In fact the witnesses from the Ministry of Justice were asked if they had read the Report and said they hadn't ! Things started going downhill from there, because it was their duty to have read it, and all the Committee members had read it.
What makes meetings like this particularly useful is that this Committee is part of the British Parliament and action can be taken. This can't happen in any other way.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 14:41 GMT]
P.S. Samuel - so you were able to watch this even though you are not in the UK? Interesting !
[Edited at 2012-10-22 14:43 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
BeaDeer (X)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
| Don't all tenders | Oct 22, 2012 |
explain the exact meaning of terms applied, precisely to avoid this type of misunderstandings?
Samuel Murray wrote:
2.20 Some staff in the Ministry said that they had initially misunderstood what ‘registered’ meant, when the term was used by Company X. Early in the preparation phase, Company X told the Ministry that it had around 2,600 interpreters registered to work with it on justice jobs. Under the old system, a registered interpreter was someone who had been checked and entered onto the NRPSI register. But in Company X’s terminology, a registered interpreter was someone who had expressed an interest in working with the company but was still to submit documentary evidence and be assessed.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 17:00
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| On accuracy of the transcript | Oct 22, 2012 |
I downloaded this transcript while listening to a section of the meeting, and I was curious to know how the speech at that very point was transcribed, so I looked for it. Here is what I found:
Transcript:
Peter Handcock: And again, I accept that is right, but getting service credits under the contract is not the only remedy. We have a range of other remedies that can be deployed.
Chair: What are they?
Ann Beasley: We have remedies. In extremis, we could terminate the contract.
Chair: Well, obviously. What else?
Ann Beasley: We could then charge Capita, if we wanted to, for the costs of providing that service through third parties.
Chair: What else? We know that; you turned that out.
Ann Beasley: Judges always have the opportunity to call Capita into court and charge them for wasted time.
Chair: No, what remedies do you have as the contractor?
Actual audio:
Peter Handcock: And again, I accept that is right, but getting service credits under the contract is not the only remedy. We have a range of other [Chair: What are they?] remedies that can be [Chair: What are they?] deployed.
Ann Beasley: We have remedies. In extremis, we could terminate the [Chair: Well, obviously.] contract.
Ann Beasley: We could then charge [Chair: What else?] Capita, if we wanted to, for the costs of providing that service through [Chair: What else?] third parties. [Chair: We know that; you turned that out.]
Ann Beasley: Judges always have the opportunity to call Capita into court and [Chair: Now, what remedies do you have as the contractor?] charge them for...
Furthermore, the transcriptionist must have had a copy of Ann Beasley's audio without the interference of the chairperson's audio, because the transcriptionist caught a lot of words (or guessed at what they were) that were drowned out by the chairperson's interruptions. I'm sure anyone reading the transcript would get an entirely different idea of what went on at that meeting than what had actually taken place.
Still, it's interesting to see justice in action, whatever the definition of justice.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 17:00
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
BeaDeer wrote:
Don't all tenders ... explain the exact meaning of terms applied, precisely to avoid this type of misunderstandings?
My impression is that these misunderstandings occurred not at the time of the tender but during informal discussions and question-and-answer sessions. In other words, Company X would have been asked "do you have the capacity for this" and they would have answered "we have this number of interpreters registered in our system" (which is a perfectly normal way of putting it, as any freelancer who has ever "registered" on an agency's system can tell you), and their answer would have been misunderstood to mean "this many of our interpreters are Registered Interpreters".
Anyway, do you ever read the definitions of a contract carefully to see if your understanding of what the terms mean is correct? I suspect the definitions section of a law or contract is typically glossed over by most people.
| | | | BeaDeer (X)
English to Slovenian
+ ...
| do you ever read the definitions | Oct 22, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
Anyway, do you ever read the definitions of a contract carefully to see if your understanding of what the terms mean is correct? I suspect the definitions section of a law or contract is typically glossed over by most people.
I do, always. When I am not entirely clear on the meaning of something, I ask for clarification in such a way that I do know what it covers and what it does not cover. That's what the initial stage of the tendering process is for.
I understand what you are saying. But in this specific context, both the DoJ rep. and the agency must have known the meaning of "registered", imo.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 15:11 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Hebrew to English
| Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| This was discussed | Oct 22, 2012 |
BeaDeer wrote:
I understand what you are saying. But in this specific context, both the DoJ rep. and the agency must have known the meaning of "registered", imo.
Yes - in fact the precise meaning of "registered" was discussed at considerable length during both sessions of the meeting.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 17:00
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
BeaDeer wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
Anyway, do you ever read the definitions of a contract carefully to see if your understanding of what the terms mean is correct? I suspect the definitions section of a law or contract is typically glossed over by most people. I do, always. When I am not entirely clear on the meaning of something, I ask for clarification...
And what do you do when you are entirely clear on the meaning of something?
But in this specific context, both the DoJ rep. and the agency must have known the meaning of "registered", IMO.
Well, I think that both sides have a legitimate claim to the word. In the agency world, the word "registered" is commonly used in the sense that Company X used it. In the court world, the word "registered" is commonly used in the sense that the DoJ officials used it. The DoJ officials had no reason to know that "a registered interpreter" is not the same as "an interpreter registered". And I think the NAO should be congratulated for discovering this particular gem.
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 17:00
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
Tom in London wrote:
In fact the witnesses from the Ministry of Justice were asked if they had read the Report and said they hadn't ! Things started going downhill from there, because it was their duty to have read it, and all the Committee members had read it.
Are you sure? The MoJ witnesses did state that they did not read the Financial Data report, but that report was not read by the Committee members either. From the responses of the MoJ witnesses I did not get the impression that they had not read the NAO report (which is the PDF linked in a recent post here). Can you point to the position in the transcript that leads you to believe what you wrote?
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Hebrew to English
| Accountability | Oct 22, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
What makes this meeting particularly unuseful is that participants are asked specific questions but are not allowed to look up the information to ensure that they provide accurate answers, so a lot of what is being said here is potentially hazy. And perhaps being a non-native speaker means that the logic of the interviewing committee members isn't always clear to me, but my impression was that this meeting was little more than a premeditated grilling, and certainly had very little to do with fact-finding.
They shouldn't have to look it up though. It's their job to know the basic facts, yet they couldn't even invoke these, accurately or otherwise.
They even had Aileen Murphie from the National Audit Office there on hand to jump in with the facts and figures when needed.
What I found particularly revealing was their abject refusal/denial to admit the error of their ways (on aspects which are pretty universally agreed as shambolic) and to hold their hands up to bad decisions taken by them. They were simply unable, or unwilling to accept the slightest bit of responsibility, which doesn't bode well for the future of the endeavour or the prospects of even attempting to salvage the contract (even though I agree with Geoffrey Buckingham in his assessment that the contract - regardless of any help/corrective action - is unsalvageable.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| They didn't read it | Oct 22, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
.....From the responses of the MoJ witnesses I did not get the impression that they had not read the NAO report (which is the PDF linked in a recent post here). Can you point to the position in the transcript that leads you to believe what you wrote?
Very near the beginning of the discussion the Chair (Mrs Hodge) asked them each, one by one, if they had actually read the NAO report and they tried to avoid answering. Mrs HOdge insisted and in the end they confessed that none of them had read it although Ann Beasley rather pathetically said that "people working for her" would have read it !
Unfortunately I can't give you the exact point at which this part of the discussion took place. I don't "believe" this discussion took place; I know it did.
I found it shocking that these highly paid public servants would turn up for a crucial meeting without even having read the reference document.
Samuel, if you have issues about the reliability of the proceedings of Select Committees of the British House of Commons, or if you believe these proceedings are not being accurately recorded, you would do us all a service by writing to Mrs Hodge. There is an email link on the Committee website.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 15:35 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 16:00
Hebrew to English
Martin Jones, as the senior responsible officer, I think that this is probably your question. This Report makes grim reading about a botched up procurement process. Now that you have seen the evidence in the Report, do you agree that you should not have signed this contract with ALS?
Q57 Chair: So you looked at this report, did you?
Ann Beasley: Staff working for me looked at this report and made a judgment about what it was saying.
Q58 Nick Smith: Did ei... See more Martin Jones, as the senior responsible officer, I think that this is probably your question. This Report makes grim reading about a botched up procurement process. Now that you have seen the evidence in the Report, do you agree that you should not have signed this contract with ALS?
Q57 Chair: So you looked at this report, did you?
Ann Beasley: Staff working for me looked at this report and made a judgment about what it was saying.
Q58 Nick Smith: Did either of you look at the report?
Ann Beasley: I have looked at the report, yes.
Q59 Nick Smith: At the time, did either of you look at the report?
Martin Jones: I have certainly read the report.
Q60 Nick Smith: At that time?
Martin Jones: I didn’t read the report at that time.
Q61 Nick Smith: Ann Beasley, did you read that report at that time?
Ann Beasley: No, but staff working for me did.
Q62 Chair: Mr Handcock, did you?
Peter Handcock: No, I didn’t. ▲ Collapse
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
