I'm not seeing any interpretation being done here, but judge for yourself. Here is what the GDPR actually says (Art. 37 Designation of the data protection officer):

> (1) The controller and the processor shall designate a data protection officer in any case where:

> a) the processing is carried out by a public authority or body, except for courts acting in their judicial capacity;

> b) the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing operations which, by virtue of their nature, their scope and/or their purposes, require regular and systematic monitoring of data subjects on a large scale; or

> c) the core activities of the controller or the processor consist of processing on a large scale of special categories of data pursuant to Article 9 or personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences referred to in Article 10.

That's the UK's straight-forward unequivocal explanation of the rules. Where there is room for interpretation or uncertainty, the ICO is very good at pointing this out. It doesn't here.

As poisan42 points out - it echoes the words in the actual article, directly.

Bottom line, he doesn't need a DPO.

There's no "UK Interpretation", this is the whole point of the EU. The rules apply across the block.