| 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
|
|---|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| We'll have to wait and see | Oct 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
....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.
In that regard it will be interesting to see the Committee's final report and recommendations.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| OK so one of them read it and one of them "looked at it" | Oct 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
what Ty quoted about who had/had not read the report.
I stand (slightly) corrected. Thanks Ty
[Edited at 2012-10-22 15:35 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray 
Netherlands
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Ty and @Tom | Oct 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Q57 Chair: So you looked at this report, did you? ...
I still have the distinct impression that the "report" referred to by the Chair in this question (and by the witnesses in their answers) is the Financial Data report (see Q55), and not the NAO report.
Tom in London wrote:
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...
I have no such issues. I do believe, however, that one should not be under the wrong impression about what goes on at such meetings. The fact that the witnesses kept their cool under fire leads me to believe that they are perfectly aware of what is usual for such a meeting.
As for the accurate recording, well, I'm sure the transcript would be presented for objections to all participants involved, and I would not be surprised if they all confirm that they are happy with it. All I was saying was that reading the transcript gives an entirely different view on what had happened than what might be reported on by someone who had actually been present at that meeting. I have no qualms about the transcript -- the transcriptionist's job is, after all, to provide a record of what had been said and not to show how it was said.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 15:45 GMT]
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Member (2008)
Italian to English
| "This" report | Oct 22, 2012 |
Samuel Murray wrote:
quote]Ty Kendall wrote:
Q57 Chair: So you looked at this report, did you?
When she said "this" report, she had the NAO Report in her hand.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 15:40 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Hebrew to English
I think it's unclear (she simply says "this report"), but even if she is referring to the earlier report it is still the basis of the NAO report (or at least this part relates to) and relates to rather basic facts of the case. I'd have expected them (on their salary) to have at least read it. What are we paying them for?
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Hebrew to English
Tom in London wrote: Samuel Murray wrote:
quote]Ty Kendall wrote:
Q57 Chair: So you looked at this report, did you?
When she said "this" report, she had the NAO Report in her hand. [Edited at 2012-10-22 15:40 GMT]
That's that then!
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Ty Kendall wrote:
I'd have expected them (on their salary) to have at least read it. What are we paying them for?
Yes- especially since that document was the basis of reference for most of the meeting. I wonder whether some of those witnesses might be considering their positions? I'm sure the Committee will have something to say on this, when it comes to writing their final report.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 15:46 GMT]
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| Sorry to be nitpicking this issue (it really isn't that important), but... | Oct 22, 2012 |
Tom in London wrote:
When she said "this" report, she had the NAO Report in her hand.
Sorry, but that is not true. The Chair did not have any report in her hand during the questions leading up to this point, and during these actual questions the camera is only on the witnesses (there is a global shot some time later, but the Chair did not have a report in their hand in that shot either). The witness did finger some papers in front of her, but we have no way of knowing what those papers were.
Also, the transcript would not show whether the Chair had anything in her hands, so for anyone reading the transcript, the words "this report" would have to be interpreted in the context of the directly preceding questions.
The Chair asked if signing the contact was a good idea, and when the witness finally answered "yes", the Chair referred him to the Financial Data report, and quizzed him about that. The witness then admitted that he did not read that report, and the other witness stated the she did not read it either, but that her staff did.
I'm also confident that "this report" does not refer to the NAO report because of this:
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.
Clearly they are talking about a specific event that took place, i.e. whether a report had been read at that time or at some later time. Martin Jones said that he had read it [some time later], but that he had not read the report "at that time" (at what time? at the time he made the decision that the Chair is grilling him about).
| | |
|
|
|
Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Samuel Murray wrote:
Sorry to be nitpicking this issue (it really isn't that important), but...
You're right. It isn't. I wish we could stay focussed on the issues the Committee discussed.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Hebrew to English
I've just re-read the transcript and it's pretty clear that at the beginning of the "Examination of "Witnesses" they are referring to the NAO report - which they appear to have read - at the very least Peter Handcock and Martin Jones admit to having read it.
Then, she refers to the earlier report inside the other report: [N.B not "literally" inside, but being referred to within:]
"It appears that you ignored a report from a financial data company-this is on pa... See more I've just re-read the transcript and it's pretty clear that at the beginning of the "Examination of "Witnesses" they are referring to the NAO report - which they appear to have read - at the very least Peter Handcock and Martin Jones admit to having read it.
Then, she refers to the earlier report inside the other report: [N.B not "literally" inside, but being referred to within:]
"It appears that you ignored a report from a financial data company-this is on page 12 of the NAO Report at paragraph 1.13-that advised that you should not enter into a contract worth more than £1 million with this company, yet you entered into a contract worth up to £42 million a year. What on earth were you thinking about, Mr Jones?"
The bit that follows is the bit I quoted before where they are now (presumably) referring to the earlier report and they say they haven't really read it and the other weasel (Beasley) pretty much admits having not read it at all (she says she "looked" at it, and then backtracks and claims her lackeys read it).
Shockingly, the self-confessed person in charge of procurement (Ann Beasley) is the only one who seems to have read neither report (which is beyond unforgivable).
So, all in all, they would have all had ample opportunity to read all the relevant data and reports and turn up to that meeting prepared to answer at least basic questions (certain questions are more than foreseeable: how much are the average daily wasted court costs if an interpreter doesn't turn up, for example).
...but, like an ill-prepared jobseeker attending an interview, the results were just cringeworthy, especially when you could see them fumbling over their own incompetence and plucking figures out of thin air (unashamedly - at least when the interpreters did it they apologized and admitted it up front, even though it isn't THEIR job to know!)
[Edited at 2012-10-22 17:19 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| C'mon, Ty, CFOs don't read everything | Oct 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Even if she is referring to the earlier report... I'd have expected them (on their salary) to have at least read it. What are we paying them for?
CFOs typically don't read every single scrap of paper that is generated in during the processes under their command. The staff read the reports and prepare summaries of it. The CFO's decision is then based on that. This is nothing new. In fact, Ann Beasley says so herself, later on: Ann Beasley: The Ministry of Justice lets thousands of contracts. I am in charge, overall, of a spend on procurement of something like £3.5 billion a year. I do not read the credit checks....
I wish we had access to that report, because Ann Beasley said that the Chair's interpretation of the report is incorrect, but the Chair did not allow Ann Beasley to elaborate on that.
Reading the transcript again shows that the committee plays good-cop-bad-cop with the witnesses. The Chair is responsible for the pre-grill, and then the other commitee members ask more reasonable questions about the same topic. One could say that the Chair's position in all of this is the same as that of the Fool in ancient courts, namely to say whatever pleases her, in the hope to elicit something interesting from the witnesses, after which the other committee members do the real interviewing.
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Hebrew to English
| It would have helped.... | Oct 22, 2012 |
...If she had at least read them after the fact though. I don't think that's unreasonable. Turning up to that meeting being ignorant of both reports' contents just did her no favours at all.
I don't doubt she has other projects/duties, but this is surely the most high profile / high stakes. Does she really need to be told to dot the i's and cross the t's? Common sense, no?
She's not any CFO and this isn't any procurement process. It's been under int... See more ...If she had at least read them after the fact though. I don't think that's unreasonable. Turning up to that meeting being ignorant of both reports' contents just did her no favours at all.
I don't doubt she has other projects/duties, but this is surely the most high profile / high stakes. Does she really need to be told to dot the i's and cross the t's? Common sense, no?
She's not any CFO and this isn't any procurement process. It's been under intense scrutiny (by interpreters, the media etc) since its inception. The "oh, how am I supposed to remember these details, I have so much going on in the office" excuse just doesn't fly.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 16:51 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Louise Gough
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
German to English
+ ...
| Responsibility | Oct 22, 2012 |
However many staff Anne B has working for her, the buck stops with her and she is ultimately responsible. The fact that she chose not to read a report commissioned by her own department recommending that she shouldn't give a contract worth more than one million to a certain company and then proceeded to award them one worth over 40 million would suggest that she is either unable to assimilate very basic facts (as presumably whichever of her minions was tasked with reading the report would have i... See more However many staff Anne B has working for her, the buck stops with her and she is ultimately responsible. The fact that she chose not to read a report commissioned by her own department recommending that she shouldn't give a contract worth more than one million to a certain company and then proceeded to award them one worth over 40 million would suggest that she is either unable to assimilate very basic facts (as presumably whichever of her minions was tasked with reading the report would have identified this rather salient point and drawn it to her attention) or didn't think it mattered. She is now reaping the rewards of that decision. Another possibility is that she didn't think a relatively small contract for professional interpreting was something worth wasting valuable time on.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 16:52 GMT] ▲ Collapse
| | | | Samuel Murray
Netherlands
Local time: 14:28
Member (2006)
English to Afrikaans
+ ...
| @Ty... inside?? | Oct 22, 2012 |
Ty Kendall wrote:
Then, she refers to the earlier report inside the other report: "It appears that you ignored a report from a financial data company -- this is on page 12 of the NAO Report at paragraph 1.13 -- that advised that..."
If I understand correctly (and I'm sure I am), the "NAO report" that is relevant to this meeting is this one. I'm sure of it because the page numbers and paragraph numbers mentioned by the committee is the same as in that PDF file. If you have't read it yet, please read it.
There is no other report "inside" that report. The Chair's words "a report from a financial data company -- this is on page 12 of the NAO Report" means that the NAO report mentions the financial data report on page 12. She didn't mean that the financial report was inside the NAO report. You can see it when you read page 12 of the PDF file.
In case anyone here is not interested in downloading the PDF, here is what the NAO report says on page 12:
1.13 In early 2011, the Ministry carried out due diligence on ALS and its bid, a standard process that allows prospective customers to check companies’ credentials and claims. ...
• ALS was a small company and the volume of work the Ministry wanted to give to it was large. A report the Ministry commissioned from a financial data company indicated that ALS was suitable to do business with but only advised giving it contracts worth up to £1 million. The Ministry and its procurement partners wanted to give the company work worth up to £42 million a year. The Ministry considered the financial report but did not see it as a barrier to the award of the contract. It told us that this was because it considered ALS to be only a managing agent for interpreters, who themselves remained freelance sole traders.
...and they say they haven't really read it and [Beasley] pretty much admits having not read it at all (she says she "looked" at it, and then backtracks and claims her [staff] read it).
This is a rather odd interpretation of what was said. In my view of questions 57 to 62, both Beasley and Jones said that they had not read the report initially (and Beasley said that her staff had read it), but that they had both [eventually] read it. Whether Handcock had read the report later is not clear, because by the time he answered the question, the interrogation had already moved to whether the report was read initially, and Handcock's answer that he had not read it could be interpreted to mean that he had not read it initially.
Shockingly, [Ann Beasley] is the only one who seems to have read neither report...
and in a later post:
It would have helped ... If she had at least read them after the fact though. I don't think that's unreasonable. Turning up to that meeting being ignorant of both reports' contents just did her no favours at all.
If by "neither" and "both" you mean the Financial Data report and the NOA report, well, Beasley said at question 58 that she had read the former, and her answer at question 198 implies that she had read the latter as well. There is no indication in the transcript that the three MoJ witnesses were unfamiliar with the content of the NOA report, and ample indication that they were.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 17:00 GMT]
[Edited at 2012-10-22 17:39 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 13:28
Hebrew to English
Samuel Murray wrote:
If by "neither" and "both" you mean the Financial Data report and the NOA report, well, Beasley said at question 58 that she had read the former, and her answer at question 198 implies that she had read the latter as well. There is no indication in the transcript that the three MoJ witnesses were unfamiliar with the content of the NOA report, and ample indication that they were.
Actually at Q58 she only admits to having "looked" at it, which is a far cry from reading it and Q198 only vaguely implies that she may have read it but in what kind of depth or length isn't encouraging by what she then says: "I think the NAO report accepts...." -i.e. she doesn't sound too sure!
*And you're being ultra-literal, when I said "inside" I meant that the earlier report was being referred to in the NAO report, not that the earlier report was literally "inside" it.
[Edited at 2012-10-22 17:16 GMT]
| | | | | 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 | TM-Town | Manage your TMs and Terms ... and boost your translation business
Are you ready for something fresh in the industry? TM-Town is a unique new site for you -- the freelance translator -- to store, manage and share translation memories (TMs) and glossaries...and potentially meet new clients on the basis of your prior work.
More info » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
