Brian McVean wrote:

---

kjmcculloch83 wrote:

---

Interesting...

So that one on a public forum is not for you to comment on, but this on on a public forum is. Curious Brian, how do you make the distinction?

---

 Not sure why there is a need for me to post on both but the fact that I am a member of ICB as well as a representative of a training provider allows me to do so if I wish. Simply, in this case, I donlt think it's necessary. 

---

 It speaks volumes Brian, believe me.

Careful kris, it's a trap.... Been waiting years to do an Admiral Ackbar impersonation.

goodnight fella's. Whats say we do this all again tomorrow.

Shaun, With all due respect to the ACCA, I think their definition may be out of date! That definition may have held good as recently as the late 80's but much as the English language is alive and evolves and changes so do the tasks undertaken in any given job role!

I accept that many clients find it impossible to tell the difference between a bookkeeper and an accountant except by price but insurance companies are not so limited - my insurance clearly describes my profession as a certified bookkeeper - not an Accountant no matter how much you might prefer it to say otherwise, yet that self same insurance will not change the description as and when I extend it to cover to draft final accounts. If the accountancy bodies feel the need to classify us and limit us then perhaps it is not bookkeepers you should be telling off and setting limits on - perhaps it is the accountancy bodies who need to give way.

Anyway, back to the thread, the ICB seminar. Kris, Sharon - I will have a hunt around after school run and see if I can find the email from last year asking people to poll, not sure if I kept it.

The survey, which did include questions on the location of the summit was in Nov 2012 - didn't realise it was that long ago! Unfortunately the links to the results have become broken, no doubt due to the changes in the ICB website.

I know, certain words in the english language change through common usage but you are not simply defining a word, you are defining an industry sector.

The definition is non negotiable.

It doesn't matter how the ICB or IAB use the word to carve out an identifiable niche for their businesses. A bookkeeper as defined by the syllabuses of the ICB and IAB is an accountant.

The clue is perhaps in the name. Accountant. Someone who prepares accounts. Therefore, if you fulfil that role you are an accountant. Doesn't matter if you define yourself as a bricklayer. You are defined by what you do, not how you refer to yourself.

I do not want to get into the whole arguement about whether those with bookkeeping qualifications should be allowed to prepare accounts. The debate is in the name, which I feel is where Sarah gets confused about me having a downer on bookkeepers.

No I haven't. Never had and never will. My arguement is that you are calling yourselves the wrong thing simply because such is a convenient definition for accountants for micro businesses which has less ring to it but is what the syllabus of the ICB is really going for. Not in any small part because there simply isn't the market out there for people performing the task of bookkeeper in its true form.

As an analogy, if a doctor only performed very minor surgery do you think that they could define themselves as a nurse? No, they are still a doctor.

Now define that another way. If a nursing supervisory body added surgery to its syllabus does that redefine where the work of a doctor starts?

The ICB and IAB have taken advantage of Accountancy not being set in statute. The definition of accountancy work is not defined but if it was do you think that the government would listen to the ICB / IAB or the ACCA / ICAEW?

The worst possible thing that the ICB could do is to pursue attempting to get bookkeeping defined in statute as if they did there would be tears before bedtime... Oh, and popping champagne corks on the accountancy bodies side of the fence.

Shaun.

p.s. I remember when Gay and Pride used to be general use words. I have my own personal campaign going where I refuse to refer to children as baby goats (kids).

No need to move the discussion, its all related.

A scribe is a catch all phrase that refers to anyone who writes out books long hand. (lawyer, doctor, accountant, clerk, etc.).

Please feel free to convince me that I'm not an accountant whilst I'm convincing you that you are. lol.

MOI!.... lol

Just a wee addition... This is part of the problem we face, and one of the reasons why I don't really use the word bookkeeper. If those of us in the profession can't agree where the role starts and ends how can we expect joe public to understand. I felt that for a while I was explaining what my role was to clients and potential clients more than I thought I should, and it also led to confusion.

I had a conversation with a client last year. He's been a client of mine since I started. He was with his accountant for 20 years. Lately I was doing the bookkeeping (day to day) and VAT returns. I was answering all of his questions and the accountant was taking this and doing the final accounts and tax return. When we were speaking he had mentioned that he didn't feel his accountant was bringing much to the party, he didn't speak to him from year to year and had just increased his fees because I didn't use QuickBooks and he refused to use VT. Anyway I got round to saying why don't I just do the lot and he was shocked. He didn't realise that I could, he thought he needed an accountant too.

We need to get it clear in our heads now, and then cascade this to clients.

________________________

Work having delayed my nice little piece of water muddying..... here with the promised description of the role of Scribe!



The role of a scribe is one that has existed for well over a millenium but does the current definition match the original? And what current role(s) fill the definition?

Lets start with the scribes of Egypt, these were specially trained individuals who used their talents to paint a series of stylized pictures, each of which had one or more definitions dependent on the context - we would probably call that person an artist or an illustrator now.

Move forward to 4th to 6th Century AD and Viking realms, a scribe was someone who could write Ogham, his tools were a chisel and possibly a hammer and he would carve the script into stone blocks - today that person is defined as a Mason.

Forward again to the 10th to 15th Centuries, a scribe was someone who could read, write and figure - frequently they belonged to a monastic order. Their role encompassed reading and writing letters, petitions and so on for those who could not read or write and also adding numbers, toward the end of this period is when the principles of double-entry bookkeeping were formulated. Note that the basics of the job description have changed - the role is not just reading and writing but has expanded to include mathematics.

Also during this period the Worshipful company of Scriveners (another word meaning Scribe) was founded and took its membership principally from the lay population, it is now more closely associated with Law and Court Notaries.

Come forward again to the 17th to 19th Century. Scribes are becoming more closely associated with financial paperwork and less with penning script as access to education becomes more prevalent. Ledger Clerks were routinely described as scribes. As the British Empire expanded and company structure was changed and made more formulaic so the role of scribe altered again and this is when bookkeeping as supposed from scribing became a recognised profession. Bookkeepers were specialised scribes who only dealt with books of account. As the legal forms of limited company and partnership were developed and codified in law (by other specialised scribes known as lawyers) so the role of bookkeeper was expanded and further split into account entry and account management - these two descriptions lie at the heart of the current debate. So where did one stop and the other start?

Traditionally, before the Victorian compartmentalisation , all book work was done by bookkeepers from first entry to final accounts - the entire job would have been done by one person who may or may not have had help. During the later half of the 19th century various groups of experienced bookkeepers banded together and started to call themselves accountants, claiming that the work they did after all entry to the books was complete and the final accounts signed off, was essentially different from what had been done before. These groups, whose skills were in high demand, soon gained recognition and in some cases royal charters and went on to merge and become the ICAEW (Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales). While keeping their core competencies of bookkeeping to final accounts, they built their specialism on financial and management reporting. The Trading and Profit and Loss accounts and the Balance Sheet remained a bookkeeper skill and only the additional reporting defined an accountant. However at no point did the covering role of 'scribe' become redundant. Even during the Edwardian era the job description of Scribe or Clerk could mean either a bookkeeper or an accountant.

So who or what is a scribe now? Well from wikipedia we have the following:
"A scribe is a person who writes books or documents by hand as a profession and helps the city keep track of its records. The profession could involve copying books or secretarial and administrative duties, such as taking of dictation and the keeping of business, judicial and historical records."
A broad definition for a very broad job, one that has changed both in terms of the role to be filled and the manor in which the job is done but hopefully one thing is clear - no matter which way you dodge - Secretary, Bookkeeper, Accountant or Lawyer, with every letter going after your name or qualified by experience only, we are all scribes. There is, in fact, no such thing as an accountant or a bookkeeper! These descriptions are legal sophistries with no true role attached as they were only ever meant to explain part of the whole which is the worthy job of Scribe.

Have fun 

No, the complete opposite - accountants are bookkeepers - not the other way around. You are bookkeepers who offer additional services not we are accountants who fail to deliver a complete package!

And if you re-read my post you will notice the original 'division line' was final accounts - not trial balance. :)

Anyway have to bolt - we can carry on tomorrow :)

I did read it and think it verged on slanderous. I had hoped that someone would have something. Especially since the ICB made a big deal about winning the BKN award.

The guy has lost touch with reality. The only thing is that he devalues every other ICB member and makes us look like a shower of dafties with his ramblings. I thought we were getting some reasonable debate here on the issue too.

Kris

I think you may of touched a nerve when you banned Accountsforme there Shaun. If it had been the AAT forum they posted that on they would be banned by now

Maybe we should all sit round a fire eating beans and farting :)

The sad thing is that Shaun is seen as the face of the BKN, and some of those active within the ICB and the forum in particular have taken a dislike to some of the things he has said. I do believe at times he's questioned some of the things the AAT, IAB, IFA and even his beloved ACCA. None of the others have taken offence. I assume they think, like the vast majority, that it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time.

Just because an organisations way of doing things or new policy is questioned, doesn't mean it's a personal attack or vendetta against anyone. But it seems to have become something of a witch hunt now.

The important point in all of this is that the BKN forum is for all. Many will forget when they took the ICB side when I went a bit too far with James. This is not a professional body, there is not a party line, and we don't all agree on everything. In my view this is healthy. Without debate nothing will change and improve. There is no point saying that everything in every organisation, including the ICB is perfect. No one is. Without highlighting potential issues, and we may disagree but thats what was done here, we all continue on oblivious and are doomed to keep making the same mistakes.

I know that it's hard to be questioned and have something you have worked hard for. Questioned, but surely thats why the ICB came to being? Because they saw tht IAB weren't getting everything right?

I think everyone needs to take a step back, get rid of the personal attacks and we can all then have a grown up debate.

Kris

oooo have I been that busy working I missed out on all the action???

I agree- at the end of the day we are all doing a similar job and all trying to earn a crust from it, I personally am on this forum, ICB and AAT- I would never slate any of the sites off they are all here to help us and discuss things !

-- Edited by Sharon Eyre on Wednesday 14th of May 2014 10:54:55 AM

It's a shame when people allow personal feelings to get in the way of professionalism - we are all guilty of it on occasion.

I'm off for a mug of tea, I can't concentrate today, no point in trying to work when I'll just have to do it over again.

Time to spend an hour or two playing the trumpet and take it all out on something that won't suffer!

Mornin Posse,

Nick.

Yep, you're in the Posse. You and Kris even get stars with Sheriff written on them.

Did you see the line from Sarah about your enquiring on here about the relationship between Liz and herself being a bit of an invasion of privacy.


Kris,

Excellent post.

quite right. I've questioned policies and/or actions of all of them in that list but as you know, it is always attempting to be constructive as unless people say that something is wrong things never change.

I've seen it in the largest businesses where decisions are made with the best intent by senior management but how such is implemented on the ground floor is out of step with such intent.

Everything said on here even where we are disagreeing with professional bodies is with the intention of attempting to improve the industry from within.

There will never be any kings new clothes approach on this site.

The one thing that I will say is that perhaps I pick up on what professional bodies are doing wrong more than emphasising what they are doing right. That said at vaious times all of the bodies mentioned including the ICB have been complimented by myself for things that they have done.


Theresa,

your right, that post over on the ICB site has put a real a damper on this thread which is a real shame as it had become a fun and constructive debate which as you say may not have ended up in agreement but was helping to bolster peoples understanding of why there are issues over role definitions, current issues in the industry and the variances in peoples perceptions when taken from differing viewpoints.

Fear not though, give it a while and we'll be back debating again as though this hiccup never happened.


Steve,

Yes, I think that the real issue is that Vip is angry from being banned from here. However the reason that he was banned (as I am sure that you remember) was that his posts here were not dissimilar to the one that he posted over on the ICB forum.

I hope that now he has vented his anger and frustration he puts this behind him and moves on.

 

Sharon,

All a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Someone that was banned from here used the ICB forum as a platform to vent their anger.

I'm a grown up so no worries about the personal attack on myself but it went a little far when it started attacking BKN and the awards and other people who use this site which is what caused the bit of an uproar late last night / this morning.

Sarah deleted the seriously ill conceived bits of the post this morning and whilst what remains is in large parts factually incorrect as far as I'm concerned I'm happy to just leave it at that.

 

Everyone else,

Doesn't matter which professional body that you are a part of or whether you are only just thinking about joining this industry. This site remains a freindly and welcoming one where people are free to respectfully (#1) discuss and debate matters that affect our profession as well as helping to make your businesses more profitable and give you more confidence in your roles by always being able to ask questions of people coming from all major professional bodies with a huge amount of combined knowledge and experience.

Never be frightened to post on this site as every member here is protected from personal attack.

As I have said before on the site. To quote Voltaire. "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

 

Hope that everyone has a good and prosperous day,

kind regards,

Shaun.

#1 That doesn't mean that you cannot argue. It just means that one should never attack others personally. For example it is fine to tell someone that they are wrong but you cannot call them an idiot.

p.s. As I've apparently got a Posse I've changed my Roger Avatar to Roy Rogers McFreely

lol.

Nice one Kris.

I think you're right Sharon.

______________________ <-- the line has been drawn. Shaun, your wee lock if you will?

-- Edited by kjmcculloch83 on Wednesday 14th of May 2014 12:08:59 PM

lol on the new avatar Nick. Been a long time since I saw DD on the TV.

Think that were' about ready... (Doc holiday is obviously Neil).

Neil, Shaun, Nick & Kris... Lets go to work. (lol).

It's only a matter of time before someone bags Officer Dibble.

It must be time for shearing, Peasie.