Bond Solon Reviews

Good overall course which met my objectives

Overall, the course was a good run through of what to expect on Confiscation. Points I'd like to raise are. The exercises were basic. However, I can see why this was the case because this course is clearly pitched at a level that can cater for both the experienced and inexperienced confiscator, and trying to satisfy the needs of both at the same time is difficult. Something else (unhelpful, I know) is needed to make this course more engaging. The course material as a whole felt unfinished, and to be fair to Olwen she did say it was a work in progress. On this point, I found myself wondering at times whether the manual is designed as a prompt for the trainer or a user manual for the confiscators? I don't think the format worked in this respect. I think a better format would be to take an example case, real or otherwise, break it down into component parts and get into the examination of what is required (procedure, practice, do's and don'ts, etc) at each stage. However, for those like myself who have recently completed the R&C course this will feel like repetition as this is largely how that course worked, but for those seeking a 'sandpit' to refresh and exercise I can see that this may appeal. I get the feeling that Bond Solon have been given a very broad brief and only a little time to create the course. I'm interested to know how the course material develops because something comprehensive on this subject would be very much appreciated.

I understood this to be training for strategic officers (I only attended as no police execs were spare). The content was mostly basic, probably a suitable introduction for people with little or no knowledge of the courts. The council sent junior EPO's, which the training was suitable for, but could have been done more effectively in house.

I feel that some ofthe course content was aimed at to low of levle to the people within the course and the atendiees would have already know about the subject matter. For example the difference between the internet and WWW.

There are some examples that don't follow the course. EG Pg 23 the example is not relevant to the course, it's not an acquisitive crime to discuss. Which then follows onto page 24 where D is assumed to be D in the earlier example. Another example on pg 25 attempts to demonstrate the removal of the 6 months offence period to lose Lifestyle however the underlying fraud of non payment of tax to the tune of £50k would probably hit lifestyle and lastly pg 80 the first paragraph says "Perhaps an estimate of time, such as" and then gives an example of the estimate of value of money. My last point about the document is that 2 chapters have virtually the same titles (7 & 8) and the material is almost repeated - maybe these can be merged? I loved the previous 2 Bond Solon courses, but this seemed that it wasn't quite ready to go ahead. The material is littered with spelling and punctuation errors, and I just felt the course was fleshing out the pre-read. Maybe a slideshow/PowerPoint would be a better tool for the presenter and then the students can follow in the pre-read? Also break-out rooms so that students can engage. There were a couple of students that never spoke but there wasn't even a check to see if people were "in the room" when we came back from a break. Please don't get me wrong, the presenter Olwen, was great. She had some lovely stories, which I found was the same with all the Bond Solon trainers, demonstrating their experience and skills. I just felt the material let her down. It was also nice learning that she had worked for defence which encouraged a couple of questions and opinions to obtain that point of view.

I realise this course is in its infancy, whilst I found this course interesting as a refresher to the legislation, I struggled to focus. I think its already been mentioned but the exercises could be completed in break out rooms to encourage debates and discussions. Some examples that are relevant to our role within HMRC would also be useful I think remote learning however is very difficult for the CD to manage and to gauge a participants engagement with the delivery. thankyou :)

Overall course content good and informative, would have liked more interactivity as it is a long session and I think that would keep engagement higher for the duration.

Overall it was great to get an update on the legalities surrounding DoLs however i find online courses long and hard to follow if no participation i.e. breakout groups as it is an opportunity to share practice with others and navigate subjects. The course material was long and wordy at times i found it difficult to follow. Some really helpful pointers from other practitioners who come up against issues in day to day life. The course was relevant to my role as it expands and the course leader is a wealth of knowledge i just feel that the length of the slides and interactions between participants for an online course seriously needs review.

not really sure this course was titled correctly.

I felt there is a big difference in the type of witness statement we wrote and the type we will be expected to write in our role. The type of witness statement is closer to an officer on the scene, or a civillian statement, where timings, descriptions, colours, movements and ADVOKATE are important. We will be writing statements/reports based off of large amounts of data, therefore I dont feel this statement was particularly useful. In most witness statements I have tried not to make assertations (i.e. what appeared to be the same vehicle, not "the same vehicle"), however it feels in analytical products we are actively trying to make those assertations (i.e. the device followed this route because it was being carried by the suspect). I would appreciate advice on how best to make those assertations without leaving myself open to questioning.