To much text being translated?

bbc
The amount of official material being translated by bodies such as councils should be cut to encourage immigrants to learn English, Ruth Kelly has said.
The communities secretary said there were cases - such as in a casualty ward - where translation was necessary.

But, she told the BBC's Politics Show, translation had been "used too frequently and without thought".

Ms Kelly said that learning and using the English language was "key" to helping migrants to integrate.

Ms Kelly has asked for translations of text to be scrapped/reduced in areas so people learn English.
I see where she is coming from as it would mean more people would have to take the effort and learn English then have it the easy way and have it translated for them.

but on the downside it would mean most services would be out the reach of people as they wouldn’t understand what most things means (as in instruction manuals ect)

so its kind of like a double edged sword one hand its beneficial as people will have to learn and on the other those who cant will be cut off



[edit on 10-6-2007 by bodrul]

I think we covered some of this in www.abovepolitics.com...

If you come to my country you learn to read and speak my language. It's English. Why should my taxes be wasted on translating any document from English?

There are more pressing demands for funds yet we continue to waste money on translation documents.

How much money is spent by local and national government on translation services?

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I think we covered some of this in www.abovepolitics.com...

If you come to my country you learn to read and speak my language. It's English. Why should my taxes be wasted on translating any document from English?

There are more pressing demands for funds yet we continue to waste money on translation documents.

How much money is spent by local and national government on translation services?

Totally agree with you there. We should stop wasting tax payers money on all this translating rubbish, and make it that if an individual wants to move to this country from overseas, they should have an understanding of the English language.

I agree Freedom ERP too.
bodrul If people can’t access public services (like welfare payments) because they can’t speak the language then that’s they’re fault for not having already learnt it. Likewise they are responsible if they can’t get a job because they haven’t learnt it.

Besides learning a language is hardly rocket science for most people; and for those it is? Well most ghettos have at least someone who knows at least a bit of English!!
What I think is terrible (and thankfully rare) is when kids grow up in the U.K barley being able to speak English (ok it’s common on most English Chav council estates too, but that’s another matter!!!).

The problem is, if you can’t speak English then how wide are you’re employment prospects? It’s not just a case of not wanting to spend money, it’s primarily a case of not wanting the taxpayer to subsidise a socially destructive situation.

Just Fancy That…
If only our government was a little bit more democratic, and not so disproportionately full with these “authoritarian liberal-left types”; then we’d never have goten into this situation in the first place because most people will always reject to the idea of effectively subsidising social isolation.

I recall the recent 'Is it cos I is black' BBC TV show
(where an Asian Muslim guy went around attempting to expose the supposedly crazy present day world where 'PC has gone mad'......and it in fact ended up on the big substantive point just showing that the Asian Muslim and the wheelchair-bound disabled guy got far less job interviews despite having the same qualifications & experience as the able-bodied and obviously white non-ethnic Brit).

They interviewed the communications head of the east London Tower Hamlets council.
TH is a council with a really unusual mix of high inner city deprivation, a high density of various ethnic groups - east London being a classic 1st stop for many immigrant groups into the UK since the 17th century if not earlier -

At the time of the 2001 census 58% of the population in Tower Hamlets belonged to an ethnic group other than White British. A third or 33% of the population were Bangladeshi, 7% came from African/Caribbean backgrounds and the total White British population was 42%.

www.towerhamlets.gov.uk...

The economic centre that is Canary Wharf etc is also within the TH 'patch'.

Tower Hamlets also used to have the 'loony-left' title and is a favourite for British tabloids wishing to depict our councils (particularly Labour or LibDem ones) as 'PC mad'.

He said that TH spends £200,000p.a. on translation services.

You can check it out & find the budget (in full) here

£200,000 out of a total council spending budget of approx £280million.

Now I don't know about you but 1/10th of 1% of the budget for one of the highest spending councils on this translation stuff does not seem to me to be wildly excessive.

Whether it is desirable that immigrants learn to speak English or not some of those non-English speaking people will be tax payers and council tax payers right now and I do not think 0.1% of the council budget is a lot to ask when it comes to it.

TBH I think Ruth Kelly has (like Margaret Hodge before her) played the populist card here when a more useful exercise might have been to talk about the actual figures.

The UK unlike so many countries has a long & proud tradition of welcoming people fleeing oppressive regimes, we also had a history of barging in & exploiting other people's countries (and in the process making this country incredibly rich).

I don't think petty penny-pinching in this area would either do a lot for anyone else and could only really add just a little more to the world (and our) problems, not help any.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by sminkeypinkey]

sminkey, as even you are a font of information.

And one can argue about the percentage of a councils spend on translation services but £200k is still £200k that could have be spent on frontline services.

what's the spend for Manchester council? Or Birmingham? Are we as electors happy that this much is being taken from frontline services?

Trouble is, so many of us are terribly good at complaining about the amount of money wasted by local authorities and then drop litter or chewing gum in the street, allow our dogs to foul parks and footpaths, park on yellow lines or sneak an extra 20 minutes on the meter and commit a host of other mundane little misdemeanours.

Little irritants that cost our local authorities significant sums of money to deal with.

It's illegal parking that gets me. Councils are obliged to employ staff to patrol the streets and car parks because selfish people refuse to leave their cars where they should or fail to pay the going rate for the privilege. If no traffic wardens were employed we could translate Government leaflets into every language under the Sun and still have enough money left over to buy everyone a bag of chips on a Saturday night but it's just a lot easier to carry on in our old ways and moan about the cost of trying to improve access to essential social benefits to someone who struggles to read English.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by timeless test]

So Sminkey…
You don’t think people not speaking English is a problem then? As far as I'm concerned that’s the primary reason for less translation.

timeless-test you forget that peoples fines pay for those traffic wardens. In fact I believe most council’s (although private contractors are often used) receive a hefty profit.
What I would agree with is sending all the profit of to ether central government, or better still putting it in a fund that can only be spent on meeting car parking problems. I can think this would help prevent some councils being too greedy-ambitious in the money they collect. When it’s used like that it’s just a very expensive way of collecting tax’s which also hits poorer people hardest.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
timeless-test you forget that peoples fines pay for those traffic wardens. In fact I believe most council’s (although private contractors are often used) receive a hefty profit.

That's a fair point, but it's soon spent on something else.

For instance, back to the chewing gum that timeless test mentioned - pieces of gum stuck on the street floor apparently costs between 45p-£1.50 per square metre to remove it (Depending which method is used... some are more effective than others). According to a Parliamentary report it cost £8,500 to have Trafalgar Square cleaned in London... Trafalgar Square isn't especially huge (your average high street would probably work out at more square metres than Trafalgar Square, and a council in London can probably afford it because more people live there than in northern areas of England and in Scotland too). It's going to add up to a lot of money, all for the sake of someone dropping a piece of gum that they could wrap up and put in a bin.

Now, you think how much that's going to add up to in a local high street let alone an entire borough/district. Added to that you have the disruption and the mess caused by removing the gum.

Originally posted by Liberal1984

So Sminkey…
You don’t think people not speaking English is a problem then? As far as I'm concerned that’s the primary reason for less translation.

- I am far from convinced that it is the enormous problem some want to depict it as.

No-one seems to want to take on board that many of those unable to speak English are tax-payers too (with the tory shift in the balance of UK taxation towards indirect taxation hardly anyone can avoid being a tax payer here).

I don't see it as the huge problem some want to claim it to be and I do not believe it adds up to the enormous cost burden some say they see it as - like I showed in one of the largest inner (London) city council boroughs with some of the largest and most diverse ethnic populations the cost is less than 1/10th of 1% of their budget.

No-one is saying immigrant people shouldn't be helped to learn English but denying them access to translated documents strikes me as pretty unnecessary, petty and mean.