In article , Richard
wrote:
"charles" wrote in message ...

In article , Steve Walker
wrote:
On 12/02/2016 08:41, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 11 February 2016 10:33:48 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
Surely they should prioritise the worst cases no mater what the
residential status of the person though.




Well, do some research & let us all know what you discover.

The trouble is (certainly here) that the NHS has to pay £500 for 3
hours of a translators time - even if only a few minutes are required
- and then per hour after that. I can understand making sure that if
one is needed, they are fed a constant stream of patients to make the
best use of their time. I'd be pretty ****ed off if I was a local
stuck behind them though.

SteveW

Why don't the NHS have interpreters on their staff?

That would be a tad expensive to cover all languages. Why not use vets
for those unable to speak the language? Vets seem to do a wonderful job
with their patients, none of which actually talk any language.

Dr Doolitle would disagree

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England