The point of discussion is the potential for loss (of originally intended meaning) in statements taken in one language, translated into another, then re-translated.
That you don't understand the point is (largely) neither here nor there.
I understand the point perfectly.
On my blog I have - a 100% accurate transcript of Crimewatch 2013 (verbatim as seems to be the choice of some on here). This does not translate well into other languages because it uses phrases and constructs unique to English.
I also have a simplified transcript of Crimewatch 2013, designed deliberately to retain the meaning but replace the phrases and constructs unique to English with phrases and constructs that are not so restricted. I have tested this thoroughly by translating the English to Portuguese, then retranslating from Portuguese to English.
And the idea works well.
I am simply tired of those who insist on UK approaches being used in Portugal. If folks want UK approaches, stay in the UK, don't travel abroad.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews not being recorded can put up an example of such an interview being recorded in Portugal in 2007, or they are merely moaning.
Anyone who wishes to moan about the interviews being documented in Portuguese is just being plain daft.
The 'twice translated, non-verbatim' argument is childish.