Part I
Psychotherapists recognise that the law is generally in place to uphold client-therapist
confidentiality. However, there are situations that may occur where the therapist is under obligation
to break that confidence. This obligation can vary depending upon where the therapist is practising
and it may occur as a result of their employment contract or of the law. Where such an issue does
occur, the therapist is expected to firstly try and discuss the presenting issue with their client;
however, in situations where the factors under consideration are particularly urgent, it is accepted
that this cannot always be the case.
Legitimate breaches of confidentiality relate to circumstances where the information the client has
shared relates to acts of terrorism; information of this nature must be reported. There are other
circumstances where breaching confidentiality may be considered legitimate, for example, in the
case of serious crime or suspected child abuse. Individual employers and independent therapists
have their own boundaries but must agree this contractually with their client at the outset of the
therapeutic relationship.
Question 1:
Being obliged to break confidentiality in a therapeutic relationship is always a direct result of the
law.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 2:
When a client reports their involvement in an act of terrorism, their therapist is legally obliged to
report this.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 3:
Therapists have some flexibility regarding what they deem serious enough to lead them to breach
confidentiality.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 4:
Most therapists agree with the conditions the law places on them relating to breaching client
confidentiality.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 5:
If a therapist breaches confidentiality about a serious issue without first informing their client of
their intentions, they are breaking the law.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Part II
Engineering research centres (ERCs) were first established in this country in the middle of the 1980s
with the direct intention of fostering improved Research and Development collaboration between
universities, industry and the government. Unlike similar engineering research initiatives that
preceded ERCs, they were introduced with a broad remit; their focus was on changing the conduct
of academic engineering research and education as well as precompetitive generic research. The key
focus was on innovation in next-generation technology advances at the intersection of disciplines. It
was recognised that universities were often the only places that had sufficient engineering
knowledge to be able to deliver the level of research that was required to support such objectives.
The results of the research were intended to be useful to industry but with a longer-term view than
other research. Another direct outcome of the ERCs was that university graduates would, in theory
be better prepared to commence work in an engineering environment.
As time went on the next generation of ERCs went one step further and encouraged collaboration
across universities and had a direct focus on the younger generation of students with a leaning
towards engineering - not just those who were already studying at the universities in question. The
third generation of ERCs were implemented from 2008 and were created to cope with an
increasingly global economy and also a reduction in student interest in sciences and engineering.
Question 1:
It has long been recognised that industry leads the way in furthering innovative engineering
research.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 2:
ERCs have been used to try and advance technology across multiple disciplines.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 3:
ERCs have failed to recognise that universities could work more collaboratively with one another.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 4:
The global economy has had a significant positive impact on the success we have seen in engineering
research.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 5:
During the 1980s students were becoming less interested in science and engineering.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Part III
A recent survey of its members conducted by a large insurance company produced some interesting
results. The survey was designed to gather information from its members regarding what their main
criteria were for choosing to invest in residential property. The vast majority rated the 'Returns
profile as their main priority, closely followed by 'Development potential' and 'Stability of income'. It
came as no surprise to find out that 'Portfolio legacy' was ranked at the bottom of the list by
contributors.
It was also interesting to note that respondents this year were less likely to have residential holdings
that formed part of mixed-use assets, i.e. as an add on to commercial investment. One might assume
from this that more investors are proactively investing in residential real estate rather than having
an incidental exposure via existing business investments.
Uncovering longer term intentions was also part of the survey remit and it transpired that
approximately one third of contributors expected their residential investment exposure to remain
stable over the next 12 months. The vast majority intend to increase their investment in the same
period with only a few stating that they intended to reduce it in the same period.
Question 1:
Business owners who have commercial premises often tend to have a residential property as part of
their portfolio.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 2:
Looking at why people choose to invest in residential property was the sole objective of the survey.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 3:
The survey respondents were reflective of the wider population of people who invest in property.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 4:
Survey respondents were most likely to invest in residential property because of the financial
proceeds it offers.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
Question 5:
The survey suggests that property investment seems to be on the increase.
TRUE
FALSE
CANNOT TELL
