This blog has drawn attention before to the lamentable lack of knowledge of certain bodies, e.g. the BBC and various newspapers, to the difference between translating and interpreting.
As the screenshot below shows, these bodies have now been joined by Capita Translation & Interpreting, that arm of the Crapita empire which is busy wasting public money by failing to provide interpreters – or those of good enough quality – for courts and tribunals under a contract with the Ministry of Justice (posts passim).
This exchange came into my Twitter timeline on the same day as the Law Gazette reports that Capita T&I has never managed to reach its 98% performance target under its Framework Agreement with the Ministry of Justice in the 2 years it has held the contract and just a few days before Ursula Brennan, Permanent Secretary at the MoJ, is due to appear before the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee as they examine the interpreting contract for a second time (posts passim).
As the Crapitards in charge of the Capita T&I are clearly confused by the difference between translators and interpreters, I can only recommend they too read my illustrated guide post.
Last year Mid Devon District Council took the daft and ungrammatical decision to ban the use of apostrophes – and other punctuation – in street signs (posts passim).
Mid Devon’s decision was justified by the pathetic excuse that removing punctuation was to “avoid confusion”.
This same line is now being trotted out by Cambridge City Council, in whose hallowed halls the city’s reputation for learning and scholarship appears has lost a battle with the dead hand of bureaucracy, as the Cambridge News reported on Friday.
According to the Cambridge News
Officers said they were following national guidance which warned apostrophes could lead to mistakes, particularly for emergency services.
Hobson’s Conduit. Soon to be Hobsons Conduit courtesy of Cambridge City Council?
Needless to say, with such a high profile city, the move has been criticised by language experts.
I know some people think apostrophes are superfluous but we really need them and I think it’s the first step on a slippery slope.
If councils are getting rid of them, what kind of message does that give out to students at schools?
Dropping apostrophes is pandering to the lowest denominator and while eradicating them anywhere is dreadful, it is particularly bad to do it in Cambridge.
Quite.
One must wonder what kind of English language teaching the officers of Cambridge City Council underwent at school, particularly since according to the British Council‘s grammar reference for people learning English, the rules for the use of apostrophes are “very simple”.
Apostrophes
We use an apostrophe (‘) to show either possession or that there is a letter missing (e.g. the apostrophe in ‘she’s’ shows that there is a letter missing in ‘she is’)
We use apostrophes with people or animals to show possession.
My sister’s house.
The dog’s blanket.
For things we use ‘of’ (the front of the car, NOT the car’s front.)
The position of the apostrophe depends on whether the noun is singular or plural. look at these two examples.
My friend’s house. This is about one friend.
My friends’ house. This is about two or more friends who share a house.
If a plural noun does not end in ‘s’ (e.g. men, people, children) we use ‘s to show possession.
The children’s bedroom.
A pair of women’s sunglasses.
We also use an apostrophe in some time expressions.
two weeks’ holiday
ten years’ experience
If people are really getting confused by apostrophes, doesn’t this indicate that English language teaching – particularly that related to punctuation – needs to be improved? After all, banning something you don’t understand is the action of a philistine.
Besides its use in the agricultural context, the term ‘cowboy‘ has long been in use informally to describe a person who is an irresponsible or unscrupulous operator, as in the phrase cowboy builder.
Today’s Bristol Post carries a report where it’s uncertain as to who are the cowboys – the builders or the journalists who wrote the piece.
The report in question covers repairs and refurbishment works currently underway at the former home of Thomas Chatterton (20th November 1752 – 24th August 1770), Bristol’s renowned 18th century poet and forger of alleged medieval literary works.
With a sharp eye for inaccuracies, my attention was drawn to the following passage in paragraph 8:
Lathe and plaster is being used on the walls and re-rendering on the outside is being carried out with limestone instead of modern materials so the original stonework can “breathe”.
For anyone familiar with traditional building techniques, the 2 absolute howlers in there are immediately apparent.
For anyone unfamiliar with traditional building techniques, such as passing Bristol Post journalists in search of enlightenment, here’s an illustrated guide showing where the authors went wrong.
Here is a lathe: this one is for working metal; other types can be used for wood and other materials.
Here are some laths, minus their original plaster coating.
‘Publish and be damned’ was the the reaction in 1824 of one Arthur Wellesley (1st May 1769 – 14th September 1852) when courtesan Harriette Wilson (whose clients included the then Prince of Wales, the Lord Chancellor and four future Prime Ministers. Ed.) threatened to publish her memoirs and his letters with the possibility of his reputation being damaged. Her decision to publish was based partly on the broken promises of her lovers to provide her with an income in her later years.
However, for the Bristol Post publish and be damned would appear to be its normal modus operandi – at least as far as the online edition is concerned. The hacks down at the Temple Way Ministry of Truth are far too eager to hit the ‘publish’ button when their work is far from ready for publication, as evidenced by this morning’s screenshot of this post, which may have been rectified by the time you visit the site.
Harriette Wilson’s memoirs are still in print. How long can the Post last?
Update, 9.00 am: the piece has been pulled and now returns a 404 error page. However, this does not mean it won’t rise again vampire-like from the crypt.
The picture below showing the parking skills of Avon & Somerset Constabulary’s finest was taken at 9.30 am on 24th December in Bannerman Road in the Easton area of Bristol.
You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs.
No further comment is necessary apart from to say that Mr Plod needs either refresher classes in the Highway Code or cannot be bothered to abide by it, especially since there was plenty of room to park with consideration not 20 metres away.
Today’s Bristol Post has a report on Bristol City Council’s waste contractors May Gurney and their planning application for their recycling operation, complete with a picture – kindly inserted by the Post’s Inappropriate Pictures Dept. ( whose work complements that of the Invisible Pictures Dept. featured yesterday. Ed. – of one of their new traffic congestion-busting refuse lorries!
Below is the usual screenshot ready for when someone on Temple Way realises a mistake has been made. 🙂
One of the parts of the Bristol Post whose work is largely unseen is its Invisible Pictures Department, which spends its working day making sure photographs and other images are omitted from articles published in the paper, particularly its online version.
Update: Photographs were finally added to the post at lunchtime, i.e. some 4 hours after it was originally posted, which is no doubt indicative of how much the Post values its online readers.
The mandatory screenshot is included above as the occupants of the Temple Way Ministry of Truth may have realised or been alerted to their mistake (I’m sure they wait use your daily review of the paper’s contents as a proofreading tool. Ed.) by the time you read this.
