Search results

The purpose of the paper is to discuss how adult support and protection (ASP) work might support or further damage an adult's strengths, skills and sense of self. There is a particular focus on adults who require some support with decision‐making.

Forum theatre and other creative techniques were used to discuss ASP with 42 people who access support. A range of advice for practitioners was generated, a portion of which is reported here. The research design was participatory, with ten people who access support being members of the research team.

ASP work can support or undermine an adult's strengths, skills and sense of self, depending on the way it is performed. Three inter‐locking themes are presented to illustrate this finding. First, participants thought it might be intimidating to be “singled out”, and wished to be understood in the context of their relationships. Second, ASP was thought likely to be experienced as a judgement on the person and their problem‐solving skills. Third, people wanted to be “really listened to” and acknowledged as a person with preferences and strengths.

It is important for practitioners to be mindful of the process of ASP work, as well as of its outcomes. Ways must be found to keep the person central, and to maintain and develop their strengths and sense of self.

The perspectives of adults actually or potentially affected by ASP have been under‐researched. This study adds substantially to the available evidence.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the current context of social work as a profession and some of the major transition factors that are affecting social workers and social work organisations.

The paper first explores what social work is, and how it has developed as a profession. It reflects on social work academia and the place of social work educators and researchers. It then goes on to consider three factors that are having a major influence on social work as a profession: concepts of risk; personalisation; and the multi‐disciplinary environment.

The implications of these factors and the kind of transitions they are driving are discussed in the context of some of the potential implications for professional learning.

The paper does not aim to provide a comprehensive overview of all the factors that are affecting contemporary social work – the aim is to offer contextual information to help the reader consider some of the forces at play in social work. The paper does not introduce new empirical evidence, rather it identifies gaps in the existing evidence about these key influential factors.

The implications of social work in transition for society are that efficacy may be impeded if the profession is too inward looking.

This paper draws from the empirical and conceptual work of others – here the aim is to provide a broad overall context within which to consider the more detailed implications set out in further papers in the present issue.

This article outlines the findings and general implications of Mental Health Foundation research into the needs of older Asians with dementia and their carers. The project was carried out in an area with an Asian majority population in North West Kent. The focus is on the identification of need and on factors which block access to care and support. There are recommendations for practitioners and commissioners about raising awareness, service development and training.

Older people currently do not view websites as a preferred source of information. This may not be a view held in the future. An exploration of local authority websites suggests room for improvement and collaboration with others to shape a future in which websites are joined up and informative for older people.

ARNOLD BENNETT was a man of two worlds. In the terms of Max Beerbohm's cartoon “Old Self” was plump, wealthy, self‐assured, a landmark of the London scene, a familiar of press magnates, the owner of a yacht; “Young Self” was thin, ambitious, far‐sighted, industrious, secretly terribly anxious to justify himself to himself and decidedly provincial.

The purpose of this paper is two fold: educate investors about hedge fund managers' activities prior to the fraud recognition by the authorities and to help investors and other stakeholders in the hedge fund industry identify red flags before fraud is actually committed.

The paper investigates fraud committed by the Bayou Funds, Beacon Hill Asset Management, Lancer Management Group (LMG), Lipper & Company and Maricopa investment fund. The fraud activities took place during 2000 and 2005.

The five cases alone cost the hedge fund investors more than $1.5 billion. Investors may have had a good opportunity for avoiding the irrecoverable costs of the fraud had they carefully vetted the backgrounds of the hedge fund managers and/or continuously monitored the funds activities, especially during turbulent market environments.

This is the first research paper to identify and extensively investigate fraud committed by hedge funds. In spite of the size of the hedge fund industry and relatively substantial level and inevitably recurring fraud, academic journals are to yet address this issue. The paper is of great value to hedge funds and their individual and institutional investors, asset managers, financial advisers and regulators.

Food and Drug cases are notorious for their capacity for providing Courts of Justice with knotty points. An interesting specimen of such a point is disclosed in Query No. 8341 in the issue of “The Sanitary Record” of January 23rd. Section 17 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, 1875, provides that if an Inspector applies to purchase an article of food exposed for sale, “and shall tender the price for the quantity which he shall require for the purpose of analysis,” and the person exposing the article for sale refuses to sell to the Inspector, such person is liable to a penalty. According to the full and first‐rate report of the case in question in the “Middleton Guardian” of December 18th last, the following appears to have happened:—The defendant was delivering milk at customers' houses from a horse‐drawn cart. The Inspector went up to him and told him that he was an Inspector under the Act, and that he wanted two pints of milk as samples, one from the can in the cart and the other from the can in the defendant's hand. The defendant said, “I refuse to supply you.” The Inspector then offered him a shilling, and said, “I want two pints of milk.” The defendant again refused to supply the samples, giving no reason for his refusal, and at once drove away. On proceedings being taken for the penalty imposed by the above section, the defendant's solicitor took the point that there had been no “legal tender” under the section, the price of the milk being 9d. and the tender being that of a coin of greater value, thus necessitating the giving of change. The Justices dismissed the summons on this ground. Apparently the only answers which occurred to the Clerk to the prosecuting Local Authority were that the Inspector “might not have known what the milk would cost,” and that the case cited by the defendant's solicitor was decided as long ago as 1815. As the Clerk to the Justices observed, people have only too good a reason for bearing in mind the present price of milk, and it is absurd to suggest that an Inspector of Food dues not know the current price of two pints of this commodity. The mere age of a case is also a feeble retort. We are therefore not surprised at the result of the proceedings. The querist also raises an equally untenable argument in support of his prosecution. He says that it is “the custom of ordinary purchasers to tender larger amounts than cover the value of the article purchased,” and that Inspectors “as far as possible act as ordinary purchasers.” The obvious reply to this is that such a custom cannot override the law, and here the law requires “legal tender.” Now a tender, to be legally valid, must be either “for the specific amount,” or “for more than the precise amount without a demand for change,” or “if the creditor; can select his portion without giving change” (Lord Halsbury's “Laws of England,” Vol. 6, at page 462). One of the authorities cited for this proposition is Wade's Case (5 Co. Rep. 114 a). This decision was given in 1601, and is therefore more than 200 years older than the authority to the antiquity of which the Clerk objected. This authority was no doubt that of Robinson v. Cook (1815, 6 Taunt. 336), where the Court held that tender of a larger amount with a demand for change was bad. It appears to us that the Clerk's answer to this technical defence should, in ordinary times, have been that, though there was a tender of more than the 9d., there was no “demand for change,” for the Inspector did not ask for his 3d. Moreover, the defendant drove away without giving the Inspector any opportunity of saying that he might keep the 3d. It does not appear to be necessary, however, for the purchaser to state expressly that he does not demand any change, and if he has no reasonable opportunity for considering whether such a demand shall be made or not, we are of opinion that the tender of more than the sum due is valid. It certainly is not usual for Inspectors to give money away when making their purchases, but if an Inspector does not happen to have upon him the exact sum required, and he has reason to suspect the quality of milk that is in course of delivery, we regard it as his duty to sacrifice any small sum like 3d. in order that he may perform his duty to consumers. But for D.O.R.A., the querist would, in our opinion, have been perfectly justified, in the circumstances of the case to which he has called our attention, in foregoing his change, and there was nothing to show that this may not have been his intention if the defendant had not been in such a hurry to escape from his clutches. The meaning of our reference to “ordinary times” and to D.O.R.A. is this: At the time in question it was illegal for the milkman to sell, and for the Inspector to purchase, milk at a price higher than the maximum fixed by the Regulations. Courts will not presume that persons intend to commit a breach of the law. In this case, therefore, if our point had been taken in, the Justices would have been justified, as there was no direct evidence of any such intention, in refusing to presume that the Inspector intended to pay more than 9d. for the two samples. Furthermore, if in fact the Inspector had said definitely “I do not want any change,” we think that the tender would still not have been legal, because the milkman would have been entitled to reply “D.O.R.A. won't let me sell you two pints for more than 9d., and therefore change is necessary.” We, like the Justices, regret the result of their ruling, and hope that this article may serve as a hint to officers who may find themselves placed in a similar situation when D.O.R.A. has disappeared.— The Sanitary Record.

A case can be made that, to some extent at least, the marketing discipline has not kept pace with the practice of international marketing. Recognizing that internationalization is a dynamic process that may vary across the business of marketing, the development of marketing thought, the direction of marketing education, and the marketing research process, this paper explores that premise. Then, given the current emphasis on the integration of business activities on a worldwide basis, it suggests an interdisciplinary approach, grounded in the concept of market imperfections and internalization theory, to deal with the major challenges that now confront international marketing scholars.

The purpose of this paper is to offer case studies of hedge fund fraud, solutions that could mitigate hedge fund fraud risk, and a proposal for the industry to establish a hedge fund information depository (HFID) where participants/stakeholders could provide information on any hedge fund on regular basis.

Four major hedge fund fraud cases, Bayou Funds, Lipper Holdings, Manhattan Investment Fund and Maricopa Investment Corporation are used as examples of the complete absence of independent oversight and the application of HFID.

The paper finds that investors in the four funds lost more than $1.3 billion. In all four fraud cases, independent oversight and compliance function were conspicuously missing. In each fraud case there was at least one serious alert (warning) that took place at least 14 months prior to SEC first filing against the fund.

Some hedge fund industry stakeholders may reluctantly join HFID due to concern over possibly disclosing information deemed crucial for their own competitive advantage.

Had third parties become aware of the alerts, they could have made a different investment or business decision. Most importantly, this depository would allow all hedge fund industry stakeholders (accountants, administrators, auditors, investors, marketers, prime brokers, custodians and regulators) to communicate with one another regularly.

The paper makes two proposals: the founding of a hedge fund information depository; and outsourcing of the compliance function for hedge funds where it is more cost effective.