To paraphrase the Duke of Edinburgh’s famous retort from 1962, the Bristol Post is a bloody awful newspaper. Every day it manages to show its ignorance of the districts of Bristol, greengrocer’s apostrophes are not unknown and the command of terminology shown by its journalists is abysmal.
As regards the latter, there was a prime example in this article about cannabis farms, as follows:
Gardeners often appear in court with a translator and cases regularly detail how electricity at the grow houses is bypassed from the mains.
In court with a translator? My heart sank. The writer has clearly not been following this blog or other sources about the interpreting fiasco in the English courts (posts passim). Moreover, he has clearly never read my early post on the BBC’s never-ending confusion of interpreters with translators.
For the benefit of passing Post journalists, I shall once again quote from that article about the difference between the two:
…here’s a brief explanation of the difference between interpreting and translation: interpreting deals with the spoken word, translation with the written word.
Simple isn’t it? So simple on would think even a Bristol Post hack would be able to understand the difference. 🙂