[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

£23 million may not make a Hugh diffference to the wider NHS but it would make a lot of difference to those it could help.

So the 23 million wouldn't be spread evenly across the whole NHS.

So how would you decide which specific patients this money would then benefit? And what priority do they have over the rest of the NHS?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

So let's just add non-essential interpreters to the list then. Put the emphasis of what should be a personal responsibility of those that choose to live here onto an already cash strapped NHS. Bull!

Non essential?

You do realise interpreters are used for a hell of a lot more than Mr Muhamad from Bradford who has no interest in learning English?

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Non essential?

You do realise interpreters are used for a hell of a lot more than Mr Muhamad from Bradford who has no interest in learning English?

Of course. But that workload could be reduced and therefore money saved. Again not rocket science.

Mr Mohamed from Bradford shouldn't be here if he has no interest in integrating. I therefore have no interest in him.

[UserSince2005]

Economic migrants yes, if they dont know english then they have to take ****ty jobs and live in poverty, which is not fair on them, it disgusting the driving down of wages and really unfair on the people who came here looking for a better life.

[waterhog]

Originally Posted by Adam.

I live in an area where people hardly speak English and have seen circumstances where they require a translator to talk to people who speak English.

So do you believe that migrants should be able to speak English before coming to the UK?

hi adam - with out being rude please could you put your question a different way as I am having difficulties understanding what you are asking.

if you want it to sink into my brain you can write me a poem - jingle - rhyme and I will heed as poetry is my communication.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Of course. But that workload could be reduced and therefore money saved. Again not rocket science.

Mr Mohamed from Bradford shouldn't be here if he has no interest in integrating. I therefore have no interest in him.

You clearly do since it's lazy people like him is the entire reason for this argument about wasting money on interpreters.

[joeysteele]

I think the question in the OP is a valid one.

It would be good if more or all had a good basic level of English.
I myself just would prefer it not to be made mandatory however,hence why overall I answered no at this time,to the question put.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Of course. But that workload could be reduced and therefore money saved. Again not rocket science.

Mr Mohamed from Bradford shouldn't be here if he has no interest in integrating. I therefore have no interest in him.

So, if £23 million is the entire amount spent on interpreters, and we're not getting rid of them all then it wouldn't be £23 million savings but actually a lot less now.

And, again, where are we spending this saving? Because spreading it equally across the whole of the NHS would make approximately 0 difference.

Focussing the entire saving on one area might make a difference, but which are deserves it more?

[Alf]

No, it should definitely not be mandatory, but it would be beneficial to all parties if they could.