Guidance for an eager newbie - The Book-keepers Forum (UK)

MacJames · Newbie

Guidance for an eager newbie

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi James,

I'm afraid that he will hit issues as few (actually, I don't think any) professional bodies will touch anyone who has a criminal record, has been bankrupt or has been struck off as a director. (Criminal records never expire in finance).

Ignoring that elephant in the room for a moment, to find employment the general advice is to look at the AAT qualification which including exams, memberships and trainign will be approximately £4k

ICB and IAB are bookkeeping qualifications geared towards self employment and are cheaper... But not that cheap. With a good distance learning provider you would be looking at around £3500 for the full package although it is a very competitive industry so you should be able to find quality courses at around £2000.

There are lots of fly by nights offering bookkeeping courses for next to nothing (a few hundred punds) and promising the earth. Such would not find your guy employment and would not give them enough to set up self employed.

If someone is young enough and accepted onto an apprenticship program with an approved employer or meets certain other criteria then there are training grants available to cover trainning fee's.

£278 is not enough. You need to go back and get them to add a zero to that but you also need to speak with the AAT, ICB and IAB to see if you can get a dispensation for the case involved.

Note that even going down the self employed route one must either be registered with a professional body or supervised by HMRC for Money Laundering regulations and criminal checks are a part of the process of awarding MLR cover.

If this had been an option then the best option for either employment or self employment is to first be employed in the industry and the best route to that is aprrenticeship with employers / grants paying for AAT training.

As I say though, your clients history may make even attempting this a bit of a white elephant in that it will drink money (you will always find a training company willing to take your money!) potentially for no actual return.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news and I do wish your guy the very best in their efforts in another field,

kind regards,

Shaun.

MacJames · Newbie

Hi Shamus,

Thanks for getting back to us. Although the news is troubling.

We may be able to put a little more money behind it, or finding funding elsewhere. We've been doing a bit of digging and found this course: https://www.e-careers.co.uk/accountancy-bookkeeping/bookkeeping/sage-iab-computerised-accounting-for-business-level-1-2-3-2015

We're planning on speaking to the IAB about criminal convictions tomorrow. Hoping that we get the go ahead, is this course something that would be valuable?

Thanks again!

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi James,

I could be wrong but I thought that IAB were becoming a closed shop for Home Learning College? (HLC).

For the price also check out Training Link and Ideal Schools who should be able to offer the full ICB package for around the same price.

As I say though. IAB and ICB are no good for finding employment, only self employment and the criminal convinction may mean that they will not cover for MLR so ensure that you get that in writing up front before spending a substantial amount of money on training.

I emphasise the MLR as to not have it and to attempt to trade carries up to a five year jail sentence and unlimited fine (It's intended as anti terrorism legislation).

kind regards,

Shaun.

p.s. If you go with that course I think that you also need to check whether it includes Payroll as that part of the qualification doesn't get mentioned on that site (and they seem a bit too eager to try and sell you the course with pop ups from multiple sales people as soon as you access the site).

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

MacJames wrote:
Hi Shamus,

Thanks for getting back to us. Although the news is troubling.
We may be able to put a little more money behind it, or finding funding elsewhere. We've been doing a bit of digging and found this course: https://www.e-careers.co.uk/accountancy-bookkeeping/bookkeeping/sage-iab-computerised-accounting-for-business-level-1-2-3-2015
We're planning on speaking to the IAB about criminal convictions tomorrow. Hoping that we get the go ahead, is this course something that would be valuable?

Thanks again!

Hi James

This is perhaps an unfair situation, but Im afraid throwing more money at a course will not help matters in the long run. As Shaun says - the position is that this young man, for all the will in the world may spend a lot of money and hours and effort to train but then may not be able to work in the industry. Another issue that might prevent this, as well as professional bodies / HMRC re MLR are the providers of PII cover. Maybe not all, but my provider certainly asked the question. This is also true of Banking careers and a few others in the financial arena. Time and effort might be better sent looking into other careers that this eager young man can do without the problems he might face after his hard work on a course. I wish him well.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi Jo,

same in IT when working in finance. Also insurance, assurance, investments and Pensions.

The system really doesn't help rehabilitation does it! Then again, I can totally understand why the rules are there.

Trying to think what worthwhile career path there is that is not sealed off to someone with a more colourful past.... What about website design and development? Admitedly it does seem that everyone and their aunt is starting a web design company and I think it must be an area with an even worse client to provider ratio than bookkeeping but there must be something in it as every other client who approaches me seems to be a new web design business.

At least thats one thats not regulated and someone must be making some money out of it despite the amount of competition.

Can anyone else think of any other suggestions that would give this guy a start in life?

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

SEO!
Trades are an obvious one I guess. But if that person isn't very 'practical' there are some good office based jobs, in many industries, where you start at the bottom but can work your way up. I would think the best thing is to actually get this person some solid work experience so he can prove he can work hard and is enthusiastic......there are decent employers who are more readily won over by evidence on the job, rather than qualifications, although I would then suggest that money is used for getting a couple of good GCSEs in say Maths and English, which they can do alongside the job, with some support if required.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

My understanding is that a criminal conviction becomes spent after a certain period, and doesn't need to be disclosed unless it's a CRB check. Is that not the case in bookkeeping/accountancy?

If the young man concerned is a serial offender, then yes, he's mucked himself up and it's justifiable that he has difficulty gaining a new career.

But, as appears here, it's a conviction that's well in the past, then I struggle to see why it should impact on his future prospects.

HellsBells · Veteran Member

Oh, I can't help thinking that the young man should be encouraged to study. We don't know all his circumstances and it could be that the act of studying something he's really interested in, by itself, could be really good for him (keeping him occupied and providing a sense of achievement).

Maybe in the future, he could get a job in admin, where it wouldn't hurt to know his way around Sage, for issuing invoices etc. Or, he might be able to do voluntary work with the charity who is helping him, and that might be enough to make him feel fantastic and that he's helping people and contributing to society.

If looking at the Sage IAB Qualification, then I believe that Reed.co.uk offer for around £320. There might be conditions though, I haven't researched it.

Best wishes to him. I genuinely hope he goes on to find a happy and fulfilled life.

Hel

Digimojo · Member

Hi James, I would recommend AAT level 2. It's a good grounding for a newbie and you wouldn't want to pay for the full course if once he starts studying he realises its not for him. This would still cost approximately Â£750 for registration, study material and exams. Although he has a criminal conviction he could still apply for a job in industry. This would then be at the employers disretion whether they took them on depending what the conviction was for. There are also a number of companies offering AAT through an apprenticeship scheme. I would recommend discussion this with AAT. Good luck.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Leger wrote:
But, as appears here, it's a conviction that's well in the past, then I struggle to see why it should impact on his future prospects.

To work in finance you must adhere to the IFAC code of ethics or your own bodies code of ethics where such is more stringent (and still covers all of the points of the IFAC code).

The code can be thought of as a code of honour to show that those involved in the industry are beyond reproach.

basically the first five are the key elements :

Integrity : you must act with honesty and openness

Objectivity : You must be free from Bias, Conflicts of interest and undue influence of Others

Professional Competence & Due care : You must act only within your area of competence

Confidentiality : You will not disclose Client information without specific authority to do so.

Professional Behaviour : Nothing you do in your business or personal life will bring the profession into disrepute

As you will appreciate, those are simplified version of the rules.

ACCA has specifically stated that someone arrested for (say) putting a cone on the head of a statue during their Uni graduation party would be fined by the profession (the standard fine used to be £800+, not sure what it is now) but not disbarred from it.

The protection is that the public must at all times perceive those within the profession as beyond reproach and as such, if one has ever been in trouble with the law beyond speeding fines and student high jinx then they will not work in this profession.

I am reminded a line from my studies that "it is not how the practitioner views themself but rather how they may be judged by a reasonably informed third party".

By reasonably informed that would be that the practitioner had been convincted of a crime.

Also, as noted yesterday. Crimes never expire in finance and to not tell one's employer that they had been convincted of a crime in the past for a protected profession is surely grounds for automatic dismissal if discovered as one is putting their own reputation, PII and professional membership at risk.

kind regards,

Shaun.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Hi Shaun.

I'm sure you're right about a criminal conviction being a bar to becoming a chartered accountant, but certainly you can become AAT qualified without the need to disclose, providing the conviction is spent.

https://www.aat.org.uk/sites/default/files/assets/Applicants%27%20guide%20to%20declarations%20and%20disclosure%3B%20full%20membership.pdf

As James was enquiring about bookkeeping, rather than accountancy, then I don't see any issues with progressing via the AAT route, and gaining qualification that way.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Hi John,

The AAT document is incorrect.

the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply to the accountancy profession and therefore you are required to disclose spent convictions if applying for a role in Accountancy.

Bookkeeping is simply a sub division of accountancy rather than a seperate profession (the ICB lies as well).

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

I've just quickly checked the IFAC site John and AAT is definitely an IFAC member :

Here's the full UK contingent of IFAC bodies :

Association of Accounting Technicians (AAT)
Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA)
Institute of Financial Accountants (IFA)
The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA)
The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS)

Interesting that ICAI comes under Ireland rather than UK.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Leger wrote:
My understanding is that a criminal conviction becomes spent after a certain period, and doesn't need to be disclosed unless it's a CRB check. Is that not the case in bookkeeping/accountancy?
If the young man concerned is a serial offender, then yes, he's mucked himself up and it's justifiable that he has difficulty gaining a new career.
But, as appears here, it's a conviction that's well in the past, then I struggle to see why it should impact on his future prospects.

There are actually quite a lot more exceptions to the 'spent' rule than you probably realise. So whilst it can impact of future prospects in certain areas, there are clear reasons why this should be the case. It shouldnt close the door in all cases - it just means that this person has to look at other options. I would say Chefing is one were they dont seem to mind certain past criminal records, although with the horrendous hours (worse than Accountancy) I woudnt recommend it!

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Thanks Joanne. I was trying to get a definitive list of the exceptions. I found websites that mentioned accountants, but I'm surprised that the exceptions cover more junior roles.

Shaun, interesting that you say the AAT information is inaccurate. It would appear that someone could quite innocently become AAT qualified, then be barred from getting a job which they've qualified for.

I may be a liberal wet, but I think if someone's made a mistake in the past, and learnt from it, they should be given the chance.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Leger wrote:
Thanks Joanne. I was trying to get a definitive list of the exceptions. I found websites that mentioned accountants, but I'm surprised that the exceptions cover more junior roles.
Shaun, interesting that you say the AAT information is inaccurate. It would appear that someone could quite innocently become AAT qualified, then be barred from getting a job which they've qualified for.
I may be a liberal wet, but I think if someone's made a mistake in the past, and learnt from it, they should be given the chance.

I agree, give people a chance, it's just that certain options are closed to them , but that still leaves hundreds more.

hers is a list, not exhaustive.....

Regulated activity with children and other activities which involve working closely with children such as caring for, training, supervising or being solely in charge of children under 18 (including adoption, fostering, day care and childminding)
Regulated activity and other activities which involve caring for, training, supervising or being solely in charge of other people in vulnerable circumstances (including social work and advocacy services)
Employment in healthcare professions (including medical practitioners, dentists, nurses, midwives, optometrists, registered pharmacists and osteopaths)
Employment concerned with national security (including the provision of air traffic services and employment by the UK Atomic Energy Authority)
Employment in the legal profession (including barristers, solicitors, legal executives, the Crown Prosecution Service and judicial appointments)
Offices and positions in HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Office (including Justices and sheriffs, court and tribunal security officers and contractors with unsupervised access to court-houses, tribunal buildings, offices and other accommodation used in relation to the court or tribunal)
Employment in law enforcement (including police constables and cadets, the naval, military and air force police, traffic wardens and employment in the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA)
Offices responsible for the enforcement of warrants and writs (including Court officers who execute county court warrants, High Court enforcement officers, sheriffs and Civilian enforcement officers)
Employment in the Prison and Probation Services (including prison and probation officers, members of boards of visitors etc.
Employment in the financial sector (including chartered and certified accountants, actuaries and all positions for which the Financial Conduct Authority or the competent authority for listings are entitled to ask exempted questions to fulfil their obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000)
For licensing purposes (including the National Lottery, gambling, firearms and drugs licensing purposes, Security Industry Authority licences, and licensing hackney carriages or private hire vehicle drivers)

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Cheshire wrote:
Leger wrote:
Thanks Joanne. I was trying to get a definitive list of the exceptions. I found websites that mentioned accountants, but I'm surprised that the exceptions cover more junior roles.
Shaun, interesting that you say the AAT information is inaccurate. It would appear that someone could quite innocently become AAT qualified, then be barred from getting a job which they've qualified for.
I may be a liberal wet, but I think if someone's made a mistake in the past, and learnt from it, they should be given the chance.

I agree, give people a chance, it's just that certain options are closed to them , but that still leaves hundreds more.
hers is a list, not exhaustive..... Employment in the financial sector (including chartered and certified accountants, actuaries and all positions for which the Financial Conduct Authority or the competent authority for listings are entitled to ask exempted questions to fulfil their obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000)

Cheers, that's the one I was looking for.

Once you've passed the AAT qualifications, are you then a certified accountant? If so, then I agree with Shaun that any spent convictions should be declared when applying for membership, as it seems daft to give someone false hope then find they have to declare previous convictions when applying for jobs.

Right, I'll get off my soapbox and dream of cakes lol.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

It says including chartered and certified accountants. Such is not restricted to those although such are emphasised.

Financial services also covers those working in banking, insurance, assurance, pensions, investments, etc.

Anyone who completes a financial report in a professional capacity may be judged to be creating the backdrop for which investment and lending decisions are made (per Financial Services and Markets Act 2000).

Considering the revelation of the AAT's dubious guidance it would seem to me that acccountants need to do proper checks on staff before employing them or working with them as an accountant is an extension of their practice and if such practice includes individuals who would cause the accountant to be disbarred from membership of their professional body then they need to act unpon that.

And as a catch all, imagine the headline of your local newspaper saying "local accountancy firm employs ex offenders".

What do you think that would do to th image and reputation of the firm.

If the firm was not immediately disbarred from practice by their supervisory body, what does that say about an industry that depends upon its reputation for unbending honesty?

I go back to the five key elements of the IFAC code.... In fact, we don't even need to look past the first one (section 110)... You cannot have integrity and also have a criminal record.

So, AAT as a signed up member of IFAC is both saying in that provided link that ex offenders are welcome whilst at the same time as an IFAC member are saying that they are not.

30 all, your serve John.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Hi
You have to look at the definitions for each area, as Shaun has pointed out eg - Financial services also covers those working in banking etc. Banks complete CRB checks on existing staff on a regular basis and will get rid if anyone who has acquired a conviction since the previous check. I worked with a Director in Corporate Banking years ago who was stopped on the motorway for keeping his fog lights on his car quite a way after he cleared the fog bound area - he was given a ticket for it. You might think - genuine easily made mistake - police view - driving without due care. He had a fight on to keep his job!! Some jobs are just excluded for good reason. I was married to a guy in HM Forces and ended up working at the MOD - my family were all checked out (immediate, Aunts, Unlces, cousins and one generation back) - if anyone had committed a criminal act he wouldnt have got the MOD job......I know it sounds 'unfair' but these rules have a genuinely clear set of reasons.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Shamus wrote:

I go back to the five key elements of the IFAC code.... In fact, we don't even need to look past the first one (section 110)... You cannot have integrity and also have a criminal record.

So, AAT as a signed up member of IFAC is both saying in that provided link that ex offenders are welcome whilst at the same time as an IFAC member are saying that they are not.

30 all, your serve John.

I strongly disagree on your first paragraph Shaun, If a person does something really stupid and quite rightly gets a prison sentence, but sees the error of their ways, then are we to say that that person now has no integrity, ever?

People change, some criminals change their lives and move away from crime, and become law abiding citizens. Some do something reckless, but out of character , is their integrity lost forever. I don't think so, integrity can be lost or gained imo, but YMMV.

I was reading yesterday, whilst looking into this, about a guy who was working as an auditor, but got convicted of supplying a class A drug. When he came out of prison the employer kept him on, once he had been cleared to continue working by his supervising body. Top marks to both of them imo. However his job became redundant, and no one would touch him with a bargepole, that is so very wrong imo. ww.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/question/my-career-over

Does that guy have integrity now, I would say yes.

Can't disagree with your second paragraph.

PS In no way do I condone drug taking or the supply of drugs.

-- Edited by Leger on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 06:14:26 PM

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Cheshire wrote:
Hi
You have to look at the definitions for each area, as Shaun has pointed out eg - Financial services also covers those working in banking etc. Banks complete CRB checks on existing staff on a regular basis and will get rid if anyone who has acquired a conviction since the previous check. I worked with a Director in Corporate Banking years ago who was stopped on the motorway for keeping his fog lights on his car quite a way after he cleared the fog bound area - he was given a ticket for it. You might think - genuine easily made mistake - police view - driving without due care. He had a fight on to keep his job!! Some jobs are just excluded for good reason. I was married to a guy in HM Forces and ended up working at the MOD - my family were all checked out (immediate, Aunts, Unlces, cousins and one generation back) - if anyone had committed a criminal act he wouldnt have got the MOD job......I know it sounds 'unfair' but these rules have a genuinely clear set of reasons.

Hi Joanne, that was taking it a bit far on the motoring offence imo, but yes, as regards MOD, I understand that and have no beef with it. I also understand and accept that accountants, banks and other financial institutions regulated by the FCA be excempt form the ROA Act.

If a 17 year old youth nicks a car and goes joy riding, and ends up with a prison sentence, but realises he is an idiot and never so much as gets a parking ticket after that, then why the need to disclose it say 10 years later because he wants to become an accounts assistant?

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Leger wrote:
Shamus wrote:

I go back to the five key elements of the IFAC code.... In fact, we don't even need to look past the first one (section 110)... You cannot have integrity and also have a criminal record.

So, AAT as a signed up member of IFAC is both saying in that provided link that ex offenders are welcome whilst at the same time as an IFAC member are saying that they are not.

30 all, your serve John.

I strongly disagree on your first paragraph Shaun, If a person does something really stupid and quite rightly gets a prison sentence, but sees the error of their ways, then are we to say that that person now has no integrity, ever?
People change, some criminals change their lives and move away from crime, and become law abiding citizens. Some do something reckless, but out of character , is their integrity lost forever. I don't think so, integrity can be lost or gained imo, but YMMV.
I was reading yesterday, whilst looking into this, about a guy who was working as an auditor, but got convicted of supplying a class A drug. When he came out of prison the employer kept him on, once he had been cleared to continue working by his supervising body. Top marks to both of them imo. However his job became redundant, and no one would touch him with a bargepole, that is so very wrong imo. ww.accountingweb.co.uk/anyanswers/question/my-career-over
Does that guy have integrity now, I would say yes.
Can't disagree with your second paragraph.

PS In no way do I condone drug taking or the supply of drugs.

-- Edited by Leger on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 06:14:26 PM

The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning whole or complete. Therefore, by definition - you cannot have (complete) intregity and also have a criminal record.

That, of course, doesnt mean people cant see the error of their ways and reform - of course not, but surely there are 'protected'/'excluded' professions for a good reason. I cannot open the link (might be my PC!) but Im surprised that a supervising body would allow someone who was convicted of supply (not using) of drugs back into the fold. He cannot be discriminated against from any employer, except those on the exclusions list. But it does happen. A question for you John - would you really be happy for such an offender as the ex auditor you describe to be looking after your credit card details or your grandchildren?

To be honest - I cannot see the big deal here - if you have such a background - you cant do certain jobs, but there are a thousand and one others you can do.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Leger wrote:
Cheshire wrote:
Hi
You have to look at the definitions for each area, as Shaun has pointed out eg - Financial services also covers those working in banking etc. Banks complete CRB checks on existing staff on a regular basis and will get rid if anyone who has acquired a conviction since the previous check. I worked with a Director in Corporate Banking years ago who was stopped on the motorway for keeping his fog lights on his car quite a way after he cleared the fog bound area - he was given a ticket for it. You might think - genuine easily made mistake - police view - driving without due care. He had a fight on to keep his job!! Some jobs are just excluded for good reason. I was married to a guy in HM Forces and ended up working at the MOD - my family were all checked out (immediate, Aunts, Unlces, cousins and one generation back) - if anyone had committed a criminal act he wouldnt have got the MOD job......I know it sounds 'unfair' but these rules have a genuinely clear set of reasons.
Hi Joanne, that was taking it a bit far on the motoring offence imo, but yes, as regards MOD, I understand that and have no beef with it. I also understand and accept that accountants, banks and other financial institutions regulated by the FCA be excempt form the ROA Act.
If a 17 year old youth nicks a car and goes joy riding, and ends up with a prison sentence, but realises he is an idiot and never so much as gets a parking ticket after that, then why the need to disclose it say 10 years later because he wants to become an accounts assistant?

Simply because by non disclosure he is opening himself/herself up to its misuse by others, in the form of blackmail/bribery by others - just one that comes to mind and frankly one Ive seen put into action! Never mind the rest that Shaun mentions.

You could extend the analagy to ever more serious offences - where does it end/who decides?

-- Edited by Cheshire on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 06:44:51 PM

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Joanne wrote
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A question for you John - would you really be happy for such an offender as the ex auditor you describe to be looking after your credit card details or your grandchildren?

The grandchild issue is moving away from the subject, which is about employment, but to answer your question (hypothetically as I don't have any grandchildren) I would judge the case on it's merits. I would particularly be swayed by the actions of the governing body and the ex employer. Providing that the facts are as stated, then the answer is yes, I would.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

The grandchild issue is NOT moving away from the subject. People working with children are on the exclusions list, which is why I used the example. Not sure how you can say provided the facts are stated -as by your theory the record is spent therefore doesnt need to be mentioned, therefore you wouldnt be able to make an informed decision. The MOD was one example you seem comfortable with, which might be at one extreme end of the spectrum but there can be no fuzzy blurring of the lines, which is the reason why the record can not be 'spent' for excluded professions, because if it was spent, you wouldnt ever get to know about it.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Surely someone with a criminal record cannot under any circumstances be employed as an auditor.

Did that persons employers skip all of the ethics classes during their studies?

An auditor must be beyond reproach. How can you be that and also have a criminal record related to class A drugs?

The guy in your link (link didn't work but it was easy to find) did not hold an audit practice certificate themself but was rather an accountant working in a firm of auditors (so working on audits rather than being an auditor if that makes sense)

1) they would not have been awarded a practice certificate with a criminal record

2) if the professional body knew of his criminal activity he would have been removed from membership

3) the firm employing him would have been subject to disciplinary action by their supervisory body if :

3.1) they did not report him

3.2) they reemployed him in anything other than a menial capacity on release from prison (and even then such would need to be done under advisement).

3.3) the ex offender did anything other than the menial work that they were employed for (i.e. no finding a filing clerk heading an audit)

I appreciate your views on integrity and indeed there are instances where one makes a mistake where professional bodies can be forgiving (eventually) but criminal activity not least that resulting in imprisonment would bring disrepute on the industry if such offenders were allowed to continue working in their former capacity.

You would not expect a lawyer to have a criminal record.

The same moral and ethical code applies to finance.

Just as an aside on integrity. It is not how you view your own integrity, it is how a reasonably informed third party would view it.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Cheshire wrote:
The grandchild issue is NOT moving away from the subject. People working with children are on the exclusions list, which is why I used the example. Not sure how you can say provided the facts are stated -as by your theory the record is spent therefore doesnt need to be mentioned, therefore you wouldnt be able to make an informed decision. The MOD was one example you seem comfortable with, which might be at one extreme end of the spectrum but there can be no fuzzy blurring of the lines, which is the reason why the record can not be 'spent' for excluded professions, because if it was spent, you wouldnt ever get to know about it.

Hi Joanne, my last post on the topic because I appreciate I am out of kilter here, and I don''t want to be falling out with you and Shaun. Are we discussing someone in the finance sector, or someone working with children or vulnerable adults? Two different exclusions.

You asked me a specific question of whether I would be happy to allow this particular employee to be in contact with my credit card info or my grandchildren. I failed to see a connection as we were discussing finance.

Hi Shaun, I've read your post and can see your points.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Hi John
Oh we are not falling out, just a bit of lively debate! I was trying to give examples of why the Law is in place, across all the sectors. As you have seen the list I posted earlier is the exclusions list from the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which states that a record is not 'spent' in those sectors - which covers the children angle as well as the financial sector angle. So no - not two different exclusions, just two different sectors on the same exclusions list. Then add to the mix the regulatory bodes which bring in ethics and integrity etc.

You mentioned that you '' understand and accept that accountants, banks and other financial institutions ................ etc But then seem to indicate that you do not consider an 'accounts assistant'' be included in that list. I dont understand that TBH. An accounts assistant is the same profession as an accountant, just different levels, but surely those working in that profession should be beyond reproach and abide by the same ethical standards laid down, as well as the Law. If a person doesnt need to reveal a spent conviction' who is controlling/monitoring that person to make sure they never progress further than a certain level of 'accounts assistant' or eg never has access to clients funds or deals with such similar scenarios. Who then decides what that level of Accounts Assistant is where the rule changes back to - oh your conviction isnt classed as 'spent' now youve been promoted?

Have to say - I was gobsmacked by some of the comments on AWeb to that guy who lost his job for dealing drugs. Some of them were encouraging him to lie about his past - clearly not heard of ethical standards.

-- Edited by Cheshire on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 07:56:39 PM

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Cheshire wrote:
Hi John
Oh we are not falling out, just a bit of lively debate!
Phew! I've been on forums that can soon get heated, and I didn't want to stoke the fires in that respect. Have to say though I've not seen that happen here, I just didn't want to be the first to start a flame war lol.
I was trying to give examples of why the Law is in place, across all the sectors. As you have seen the list I posted earlier is the exclusions list from the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which states that a record is not 'spent' in those sectors - which covers the children angle as well as the financial sector angle. So no - not two different exclusions, just two different sectors on the same exclusions list. Then add to the mix the regulatory bodes which bring in ethics and integrity etc.
Fair dinkum, but until you get to accountant level, there is no regulatory body involved.

You mentioned that you '' understand and accept that accountants, banks and other financial institutions ................ etc But then seem to indicate that you do not consider an 'accounts assistant'' be included in that list. I dont understand that TBH. An accounts assistant is the same profession as an accountant, just different levels, but surely those working in that profession should be beyond reproach and abide by the same ethical standards laid down, as well as the Law. If a person doesnt need to reveal a spent conviction' who is controlling/monitoring that person to make sure they never progress further than a certain level of 'accounts assistant' or eg never has access to clients funds or deals with such similar scenarios. Who then decides what that level of Accounts Assistant is where the rule changes back to - oh your conviction isnt classed as 'spent' now you've been promoted?
I guess the way I see it is as follows:
Say I'm female and in my younger days I was a prostitute, with convictions for soliciting. I manage to pull myself out of the gutter and discover I'm a whiz with figures. My convictions are spent so I decide to become an accounts assistant or similar. The form asks if I have any convictions so I have to say yes. Yet if I apply to be, say a secretary with the same firm I don't need to. I'm acutely embarrassed about being a prostitute and it's no one elses concern but mine. Why should I be penalised for something that has no impact on the job I want to do? And why is it ok for me to be a secretary which I am not too fussed about, but not an accounts assistant, which I would love to do.
Have to say - I was gobsmacked by some of the comments on AWeb to that guy who lost his job for dealing drugs. Some of them were encouraging him to lie about his past - clearly not heard of ethical standards.
On that I do agree, I think those comments were quickly jumped on from memory.

-- Edited by Cheshire on Wednesday 3rd of June 2015 07:56:39 PM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Leger wrote:

Have to say though I've not seen that happen here

http://www.book-keepers.org.uk/t50147109/positioning-for-bookkeepers/?w_r=1343157071

Don't mention sheep video's!!!!

VinceH · Expert

John:

TBH, while I (have no choice but to) accept that the rules are the rules, and we have to abide by them, on the whole I agree with you. The missing factor is relevance - there are things for which one can be convicted which have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the field, so really shouldn't have a bearing - but, sadly, do.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Leger wrote:

Say I'm female and in my younger days I was a prostitute, with convictions for soliciting. I manage to pull myself out of the gutter and discover I'm a whiz with figures. My convictions are spent so I decide to become an accounts assistant or similar. The form asks if I have any convictions so I have to say yes. Yet if I apply to be, say a secretary with the same firm I don't need to. I'm acutely embarrassed about being a prostitute and it's no one elses concern but mine. Why should I be penalised for something that has no impact on the job I want to do? And why is it ok for me to be a secretary which I am not too fussed about, but not an accounts assistant, which I would love to do.

I fear that you are looking at it from a different angle John.

You are looking at it from the perspective of the individual concerned. You are empathising with the person so you can see how the system is unfair to them.

Thats good and shows you to be a nice human being

However...

This is not about the individual this is about business and specifically the risk to the image and reputation of the business caused by having staff with unsuitable backgrounds for the roles that they are required to perform

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Shamus wrote:
Leger wrote:

Say I'm female and in my younger days I was a prostitute, with convictions for soliciting. I manage to pull myself out of the gutter and discover I'm a whiz with figures. My convictions are spent so I decide to become an accounts assistant or similar. The form asks if I have any convictions so I have to say yes. Yet if I apply to be, say a secretary with the same firm I don't need to. I'm acutely embarrassed about being a prostitute and it's no one elses concern but mine. Why should I be penalised for something that has no impact on the job I want to do? And why is it ok for me to be a secretary which I am not too fussed about, but not an accounts assistant, which I would love to do.

I fear that you are looking at it from a different angle John.
You are looking at it from the perspective of the individual concerned. You are empathising with the person so you can see how the system is unfair to them.
Thats good and shows you to be a nice human being
However...
This is not about the individual this is about business and specifically the risk to the image and reputation of the business caused by having staff with unsuitable backgrounds for the roles that they are required to perform

Fair enough Shaun, I struggle to understand why a persons past, if they've turned away from it, should have any bearing on what they do in the future. I understand what you and Joanne are saying though, and I guess for some professions you have to accept you can't begin a career there. I'm just disappointed for the lad who this thread was originally about.

Thanks Vince, I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. However, I do accept rules are rules, and tbh this opened my eyes a bit, as I wasn't aware that exemption from the ROA Act applied below accountant status.

Leger · Master Book-keeper

Shamus wrote:
Leger wrote:

Have to say though I've not seen that happen here

http://www.book-keepers.org.uk/t50147109/positioning-for-bookkeepers/?w_r=1343157071
Don't mention sheep video's!!!!

I will have a good read of it when I get chance, it looks quite lively. But this really made me chuckle

------------------------------------------------

Mum Shaun said Bllcks

------------------------------------------------

its my friend's favourite word when she gets stressed, and we always laugh about it.

HendyPhilhendy · Guru

MacJames - where is he based? I will be more than happy to chat to either yourself or this guy and see if there is anything that can be done to help.

I actually think there are people that need support to get back on the right track. The conviction is probably for some Stupidity whilst younger and should not necessarily hinder a future career. As it is a drugs offence and not fraud etc. I think that he should be ok to do ICB or something similar.

Feel free to give me a call.

Cheshire · Master Book-keeper

Hi Phil
Thought I should just clarify - there has never been ANY indication on here that this individual has committed any kind of drugs offence. In fact the details of his offence have not been published at all - only the fact that he has spent some time in prison. The drugs offence was someone not connected to this individual, nor James, but was used as an example of what has happened to someone else within this profession.

My worry with this one is that if you say its ok perhaps for the ICB then they could be viewed as not being strong on their ethics code etc, which is something perhaps they wouldnt be happy with, neither would potential and existing clients. Plus as has been said on this forum many times, they are viewed as moving into the realms of Accountancy.

My other worry is that this chap given the right advice and guidance down the MANY MANY alternative routes that remain available to him, could have a glowing career in anything else (ie that isnt on the exclusion list) but by encouraging him down certain routes, ie, this one you are putting a glass ceiling in place, which if he is truly a reformed character is more unfair than not being able to do something more worthwhile. He currently has a lack of qualifications now but that in itself is no barrier as they can be gained easily enough, but by encouraging him into a profession where he can only go so far I think is unfair and wrong.

Just to be clear about my stance - Ive seen people enter start a job not having ANY idea how far they can go in that role/job/organisation/career because they dont know their own strengths/what they are capable of/what is available and what is actually done in the 'upper echelons' but once they start on something they have a passion for there are a lot that can be encouraged to the top, regardless of a past life. As a girl who started just such a job, who went on to break the glass ceiling in a very male dominated arena when it was unheard of, having then mentored and trained other such people, I think its great to be able to help others - sometimes part of that help has to be honesty, followed by encouragement to find the correct route to gainful employment and self improvement via study etc.

Edit - for last paragraph.

-- Edited by Cheshire on Thursday 4th of June 2015 10:37:48 AM

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Is that sentence not devaluing the ICB qualification Phil?

It's like saying if nobody else will have you there is always the ICB.

What is the point in ethics if people are able to circumvent them.

I'm going to surprise everyone and defend the ICB here.

I vaguelly recollect James (before he changed his name to Anna (see any post made by James on thee site)) mentioning a few times scenario's where the ICB had excluded people for various offences which undermined the ICB's ethical code. (which I think is internal rather than adhering to IFAC per se).

I like to think that now that James has moved on the other projects that the ICB is still pushing ahead with improving the ethical standing of its members (that argument is totally seperate to the debate over where bookkeeping ends and accountancy begins).

Personal view is that I feel that the subject of this thread would be better off looking at A levels (suggested above by Jo) possibly leading to a career in information technology rather than finance but thats just my view.

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

Morning Jo.

just read your post and feel that I need to emphasise, when I mention James in my reply I am talking about ICB James, not the James who started this thread.

HendyPhilhendy · Guru

Apologies, I thought I had read the drugs offence in the OP's reply. It was a long thread

I still think I would like to speak to them and see what can be done to help someone out. I didn't deliberately intend to single out the ICB but, depending on the nature of the offence, rather than completely ruling out the barriers of entry I think it may be useful to speak to the people concerned, off forum for confidentiality and see if there is some help to be had. I would not want them to completely disregard what they want to do based on a few forum posters here. Only with the full facts can advice be given. And that advice may well be to say 'no'!

Shamus · Forum Moderator & Expert

HendyPhilhendy wrote:
I would not want them to completely disregard what they want to do based on a few forum posters here.

If they do not want to take offered advice then they are free not to however, I just want to emphasise that right and wrong are not denoted by a show of hands.

One or two people can be right and a thousand wrong. It is not the number of posts but rather their content.

So, if a hundred people tell you that crossing the Motorway at five o clock in the evening wearing a blindfold is a good idea and just one tells you that you are going to end up as a splat mark I think that you should listen to the one.

In the same manner if a hundred people say that lifes unfair and to go for it regardless but one person says that your peeing your money down the drain... Well, I would need to be awfully certain that the one person was wrong before I frittered away my funds on a qualification that may prove useless.

HendyPhilhendy · Guru

Shamus, your analogy of the motorway is actually very good. However, all I am saying is it would be good to know all the facts before being able to give advice. I am happy to speak to the individuals concerned to see if there is a way forward. If there is not then I am happy to be blunt and say this is not the profession.