Forums

2. What do you think? By Roser
I find that the language policy of the director -Mr. Shapcott- is quite hard, although I understand their position, it seems to me a little bit too much intolerant. In the first place I think that its language policy is very inflexible, he could be a little more comprehensive if he puted himself in the place of its employees trying to dialogue with them. Then, they could easily come to an agreement: if the employees accept to speak English at work hours, as they all know this language, Mr. Shapcott would let them free to speak their native languages during the break time. For me his attitude is very rude threating to sack the workers and with a separate lunchroom for those employees who speak their native tongues during its break time.
On the contrary, I simpathize with all the workers, because they are in their right talking their languages, why should they have to be punished if in the break time they like to communicate with the tongues of different countries? Is this a delict? Is it a reasonable argument that the tone of the languages don't like the director?
Finally and consequently I have to accept that the best and more wise proposal is the one exposed by the honorary consul, Mr. Ataur Rahman. In my opinion, his arguments are logically peacefuls and could do possible an agreement among both parts. I think that his arguments appealing to common sense and humanity will be the most intelligent, effective and efficient language policy for the staff.

I agree with you Roser. A very arrogant and intolerant boss, I certainly wouldn't like to work for him. Can I help with something?
if he puted himself in the place of its employees= .. if he put himself in the place of his employees
trying to dialogue with them= trying to reason with them? speak to them? Dialogue as a verb doesn't really work in English.
Is this a delict?= Is this a crime?
that the tone of the languages don't like the director? = The word order is not correct: .. that the director doesn't like the tone of the language?
could do possible an agreement among both parts= could facilitate an agreement between...
See you,
Pieter

This topic leads me to think about Spain during the Franco dictatorship (1939-1945). That time was very hard in many aspects, but all these aspects had a common denominator: the lack of freedom. This lack of freedom was shown in political system, cultural policy and, in fact, in the people’s personal life. In this sense there is a very known situation that I want to remember here: the catalan language was forbidden. It was a hard sign of the censorship.
On the same termes, Mr. Shapcot is also a dictator and his attitude is inadmissible.