| Halaman dalam topik: < [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 Penyiaran jaluran : Trans_Interp
|
|---|
| Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | Post removed: This post was hidden by a moderator or staff member because it was not in line with site rule | | London Demo - 16th April | Apr 14, 2012 |
A second protest is taking place in London on Monday.
Please see below the details and feel free to join us, you will see that contrary to what some people say we are not aggressive/rude. We are just a group of interpreters fighting for our rights.
Monday, 16th April 2012
Venue 1: Outside Ministry of Justice: 14.00-15.30 - 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AH
Venue 2: Opposite House of Commons 15.45-17.30 (Old Palace Yard)
Thank you.
| | | | | Privatization of legal interpreting services in the UK | Apr 14, 2012 |
| | |
|
|
|
Parrot 
Sepanyol
Local time: 07:12
Bahasa Sepanyol hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| | You missed some | Apr 16, 2012 |
Why did you request me to edit some post mentioning the outsourcer by name (fair enough, those are the rules, everyone who cares knows who they are by now anyway), but then simply delete some others without offering me the opportunity to edit, and then leave some posts in here mentioning the same outsourcer by name to pass unmolested?
Consistency would be great.
I wonder whether this post will last, to be honest, although I like to think I'm not querying or challenging the decisions that have been made as much as I'm wondering about decisions that haven't been made
| | | | Parrot
Sepanyol
Local time: 07:12
Bahasa Sepanyol hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
Will comply.
Just a remark, though. Problems related to this topic were discussed in an EU forum and no names had to be mentioned. Let's just keep the atmosphere constructive, okay?
| | | |
Parrot wrote:
Will comply.
Just a remark, though. Problems related to this topic were discussed in an EU forum and no names had to be mentioned. Let's just keep the atmosphere constructive, okay?
So if you undelete the deleted ones I'll be only to happy to take the name out.
As I said to Jenny a few days back, I just assumed we got away with it in this one 'cos you would have to be living under a really big and well-sound proofed rock NOT to know who this thread is about
But I'm down with complying with the rules, naturally. So whack 'em back to life and I'll get weaving. You can undelete them, can't you... 'cos I've linked to this thread from several places to avoid repeating myself & I'll be ever so slightly annoyed if vast swathes of my outpourings have been consigned to a perma-dustbin.
| | |
|
|
|
Hege Jakobsen Lepri
Norway
Local time: 07:12
Ahli (2002)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Norway
+ ...
| My post was deleted without ever mentioning names | Apr 16, 2012 |
Not that is was in any way an important contribution to the discussion, but still
| | | | Parrot
Sepanyol
Local time: 07:12
Bahasa Sepanyol hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
| I've amended it | Apr 16, 2012 |
I hit the wrong button.
| | | | Giles Watson
Itali
Local time: 07:12
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
Untuk memperingati
Your post was deleted because you referred to my earlier post, which mentioned by name the company that sparked off the discussion.
Thank you, though, for this opportunity to point out again that the appropriate UK minister has confirmed that the same enterprise - no names, no pack drill - has won another important contract.
The issue is not, of course, the company concerned, or even the privatisation of formerly state-run services. It is the creation of a de facto mon... See more Your post was deleted because you referred to my earlier post, which mentioned by name the company that sparked off the discussion.
Thank you, though, for this opportunity to point out again that the appropriate UK minister has confirmed that the same enterprise - no names, no pack drill - has won another important contract.
The issue is not, of course, the company concerned, or even the privatisation of formerly state-run services. It is the creation of a de facto monopsony by placing all responsibility for both vetting linguists and purchasing language services in the hands of a single, and in practice unmonitored, operator. The conflict of interest is glaring and problems are inevitable. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Hege Jakobsen Lepri
Norway
Local time: 07:12
Ahli (2002)
Bahasa Inggeris hingga Bahasa Norway
+ ...
| This is indeed the core of the matter | Apr 16, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
The issue is not, of course, the company concerned, or even the privatisation of formerly state-run services. It is the creation of a de facto monopsony by placing all responsibility for both vetting linguists and purchasing language services in the hands of a single, and in practice unmonitored, operator. The conflict of interest is glaring and problems are inevitable.
| | |
|
|
|
Rachel Fell
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:12
Bahasa Perancis hingga Bahasa Inggeris
+ ...
Giles Watson wrote:
Thank you, though, for this opportunity to point out again that the appropriate UK minister has confirmed that the same enterprise - no names, no pack drill - has won another important contract.
For the same service, despite the fiasco?
| | | | Giles Watson
Itali
Local time: 07:12
Bahasa Itali hingga Bahasa Inggeris
Untuk memperingati
Rachel Fell wrote:
Giles Watson wrote:
the same enterprise - no names, no pack drill - has won another important contract.
For the same service, despite the fiasco?
No and yes.
| | | | | Double bubble | Apr 16, 2012 |
Giles Watson wrote:
It is the creation of a de facto monopsony by placing all responsibility for both vetting linguists and purchasing language services in the hands of a single, and in practice unmonitored, operator. The conflict of interest is glaring and problems are inevitable.
You're right, of course, but in a way, that's only half the story. I think I referred some time ago (may be hidden at this precise moment while Parrot tries to get us to edit those three little letters out!) to the creation of the quasi monopoly, and that was only half the story too. This deal, it seems to me, is actually attempting both monopoly and monopsony at the same time: there are any number of "customers" (people in court & their legal reps) and any number of "suppliers" (interpreters) but the idea is (it seems) that all transactions between them pass via one private firm, making a monopoly in one direction and a monopsony in the other.
Where this role is played by the state, history shows sub-optimum outcomes.
In the hands of private operators.... well, we're seeing what can happen.
| | | | | Halaman dalam topik: < [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 | Protemos translation business management system |
|---|
Create your account in minutes, and start working! 3-month trial for agencies, and free for freelancers!
The system lets you keep client/vendor database, with contacts and rates, manage projects and assign jobs to vendors, issue invoices, track payments, store and manage project files, generate business reports on turnover profit per client/manager etc.
More info » |
| | Pastey |
|---|
Your smart companion app
Pastey is an innovative desktop application that bridges the gap between human expertise and artificial intelligence. With intuitive keyboard shortcuts, Pastey transforms your source text into AI-powered draft translations.
Find out more » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
