Showing 71–80 of 251 reviews (3 star)
More practical case studies and group based activities
• Reasonable Accommodations not made for my disability. I asked for training materials before hand and a manual was provided. The presenter also used a selection of slides. When I asked him to share them he said no. I asked again but he would not and I was not comfortable explaining why a printed copy would help my disability. • Providing some incorrect information and not willing to be politely challenged / asked about it: o For example, when explaining the Dunning Kruger principle he then explained imposter syndrome as the opposite. This is something I am quite interested in so I put my hand up and tried to explain that this principle covers imposter syndrome as well. However, before I could finish my first sentence, he cut me off and spoke over me loudly stating that I was wrong. I tried to speak again, and he did the same. o The perjury Act. He had an explanation in his slide which wasn’t entirely correct. I do not fully understand why but another delegate with a law degree explained to me that his explanation was wrong and potentially spreading legal misinformation. • Avoided answering questions he did not know the answer to. For example, I asked him what a solicitor might say in our interviews because they are civil not criminal. He responded giving criminal examples. He then asked if that answered my question and I explained that those examples did not apply to us and he agreed. He then screenshared the criminal legislation about solicitors provided in the manual and talked through that. o It would have been fine for him to say I don’t know, but he didn’t. • Did not consider that we are not criminal prosecutors / the police, for example: o Heavily referred to criminal law even when asked “how would this apply to us” o Used language such as “the suspect”, “pass it to a decision maker” (we make the initial decisions with cases”, and when you are “gathering evidence”. This would have been fine if he then gave an example relevant to us. • Training materials included some irrelevant material to us, such as No Comment interviews, and Solicitors rights. In particular we spent 20 minutes of the course explaining how to use teams for an interview which would not require an expert training session and did not feel like the best use of our time. Overall the presenter was very knowledgeable, but was not comfortable answering difficult questions (he is clearly an expert on criminal side but does not have reasonable knowledge about civil), and had a tendency to interrupt / speak over multiple delegates. The course materials were well structured and informative but included a large amount of less relevant material.
Pace was too slow. But Nick was nice and approachable.
The course was very tiresome as it was mainly slides, there was no interactive element and it was read to us with non relevant examples being given.
This was a brilliant course . Would be more useful if more time or section given actually how to write report/statement which would be more helpful for those who have not had much experience in report/statement writing . Felt like course contents and discussions was more suitable and focussed to experienced people who already have experienced on report/statement writing and was more on polishing on already known knowledge . I think contents needs more basics .
Provided critical knowledge and confidence to an expert in confirming what format and declarations an expert witness report requires to contain.
The morning was a bit scattered because of the way the zoom rooms were set up. It might have been better to see reports before having to write them. However, the afternoon was very useful
We talked about 3 hours on discrimination and harassement. From my point of view way too long, there are more important topics to talk about getting some basic knowlegde of UK employment law