<h1>Abstract</h1><p>This paper is about how recreational pedagogues need to do their work to be a good support for children who comes from families that have social problems. The paper is based on a life story method with a recreational pedagogue who has worked at a recreational center her whole career. The purpose of the paper is to contribute with knowledge about the experiences of working with socially vulnerable children as a recreational pedagogue. The investigation that took place in the home-environment of the pedagogue was then typed out and rewritten by me to a narrative story where the most relevant pieces have been pointed out. The subject of the investigation is about being a child in a family with a problem of abuse and the significance of working with the children from those families. The story also includes the duty to report and how you as a recreational pedagogue do the appraisal if the child is being treated badly in their home. The result of the interview has then been held up against the literature about the social services work, a scientific rapport in form of a quantitative investigation that shows facts of how the duty of reporting incongruity to social services is being handled in real life, other scientific research of socially vulnerable children and youth and a book made by family therapists and is about the roles of the pedagogues. The conclusions that I could show from the investigation was that there has not been much research done about the recreational centers and socially vulnerable children together. That the most important toll that a pedagogue has got to help these children is our language, our experiences and our commitment. Another conclusion I have made is that we are all individuals. Teachers, parents and pupils, we all have different needs and different basic conditions and therefore we have to have that in mind while we do our work.</p>

Abstract This paper is about how recreational pedagogues need to do their work to be a good support for children who comes from families that have social problems. The paper is based on a life story method with a recreational pedagogue who has worked at a recreational center her whole career. The purpose of the paper is to contribute with knowledge about the experiences of working with socially vulnerable children as a recreational pedagogue. The investigation that took place in the home-environment of the pedagogue was then typed out and rewritten by me to a narrative story where the most relevant pieces have been pointed out. The subject of the investigation is about being a child in a family with a problem of abuse and the significance of working with the children from those families. The story also includes the duty to report and how you as a recreational pedagogue do the appraisal if the child is being treated badly in their home. The result of the interview has then been held up against the literature about the social services work, a scientific rapport in form of a quantitative investigation that shows facts of how the duty of reporting incongruity to social services is being handled in real life, other scientific research of socially vulnerable children and youth and a book made by family therapists and is about the roles of the pedagogues. The conclusions that I could show from the investigation was that there has not been much research done about the recreational centers and socially vulnerable children together. That the most important toll that a pedagogue has got to help these children is our language, our experiences and our commitment. Another conclusion I have made is that we are all individuals. Teachers, parents and pupils, we all have different needs and different basic conditions and therefore we have to have that in mind while we do our work.

<p>Swedish accountants are, amongst other laws, controlled by a couple of so called duties. One of those is the professional secrecy, which guarantees the safety of company secrets and other important information that the accountant needs to know but shouldn’t tell anybody. Since 1999 Swedish accountants also need to follow the regulations of the reporting duty. In short, this means that in some cases of suspected crime within a company, auditors are obliged to report this to the authorities. Some auditors consider these two duties to be in conflict with one another. This specific conflict is very rarely touched upon in other media than essays.A few auditors have, in case of a suspected crime with very vague evidence, gone against the law by getting rid of their client thus not having to take the risk of being sued because of violation of the professional secrecy by reporting the crime in vain. This fact, that some auditors even break the law, is reason enough to investigate why some auditors consider the two duties to be in conflict with one another.During our study, personal interviews with four auditors and two persons of authority were carried out. None of them have experienced any negative emotions about the reporting duty, but when it comes to the auditors that in fact do consider the two duties to be in conflict with one another, the opinions start to differ. Some say that it is practically impossible to get rid of a client by the above reasons without reporting the suspected crime, while others claim the opposite. A possible explanation for the different opinions regarding the two duties could be due to the fact that the regulations surrounding the reporting duty are very differently interpreted by different people. Does the law guarantee the safety of the auditor, or does it not? Is there a conflict between the two duties or not?We are of the opinion that there is absolutely a need to thoroughly investigate this topic, possibly by deciding upon which interpretation of the law is the right one. Swedish accounting organizations need to take this case more seriously than they have so far. Or could it be that they simply don’t want to?</p> / <p>Svenska revisorer lyder bland annat under ett antal olika plikter. En av dessa är tystnadsplikten, som garanterar säkerheten för företagshemligheter och annan viktig information som revisorn måste känna till men inte får yppa för någon. Sedan år 1999 måste svenska revisorer också ta hänsyn till anmälningsplikten. Kortfattat innebär denna att revisorn, i vissa fall, själv måste anmäla misstänkta brott denne upptäckt i företaget till myndigheterna. En del revisorer upplever att dessa två plikter befinner sig i konflikt med varandra. Denna konflikt berörs ytterst sällan i annan media än uppsatser.Några revisorer har, i fall då ett misstänkt brott upptäckts men bevisningen är mycket vag, begått ett lagbrott genom att göra sig av med klienten. På så vis slipper de ta risken att anmälan inte leder någon vart och då riskera att bli stämd för att ha brutit mot tystnadsplikten. Detta, att vissa revisorer går så långt som till att bryta mot lagen, är skäl nog att utreda varför vissa revisorer upplever en konflikt mellan de två plikterna.Vi utförde under denna studie personliga samtal med fyra revisorer och två myndighetspersoner. De upplever personligen inga problem med anmälningsplikten, men har olika åsikter om de revisorer i tidigare studier som faktiskt menar sig uppleva en konflikt. Vissa menar att det är fullständigt omöjligt att göra sig av med en klient för att slippa anmäla ett misstänkt brott - andra det motsatta. En förklaring till att åsikterna om konflikten mellan plikterna varierar skulle kunna vara att tolkningen av lagtexten är föremål för många varierande tolkningar. Garanterar lagtexten revisorns säkerhet eller ej? Finns det en konflikt mellan de två plikterna?Avslutningsvis anser vi att det finns ett stort behov av att utreda detta, förslagsvis genom att bestämma vilken lagtolkning som är den korrekta. Svenska revisorsorganisationer måste ta ämnet på större allvar än hittills. Eller de kanske inte vill?</p>

Swedish accountants are, amongst other laws, controlled by a couple of so called duties. One of those is the professional secrecy, which guarantees the safety of company secrets and other important information that the accountant needs to know but shouldn’t tell anybody. Since 1999 Swedish accountants also need to follow the regulations of the reporting duty. In short, this means that in some cases of suspected crime within a company, auditors are obliged to report this to the authorities. Some auditors consider these two duties to be in conflict with one another. This specific conflict is very rarely touched upon in other media than essays.A few auditors have, in case of a suspected crime with very vague evidence, gone against the law by getting rid of their client thus not having to take the risk of being sued because of violation of the professional secrecy by reporting the crime in vain. This fact, that some auditors even break the law, is reason enough to investigate why some auditors consider the two duties to be in conflict with one another.During our study, personal interviews with four auditors and two persons of authority were carried out. None of them have experienced any negative emotions about the reporting duty, but when it comes to the auditors that in fact do consider the two duties to be in conflict with one another, the opinions start to differ. Some say that it is practically impossible to get rid of a client by the above reasons without reporting the suspected crime, while others claim the opposite. A possible explanation for the different opinions regarding the two duties could be due to the fact that the regulations surrounding the reporting duty are very differently interpreted by different people. Does the law guarantee the safety of the auditor, or does it not? Is there a conflict between the two duties or not?We are of the opinion that there is absolutely a need to thoroughly investigate this topic, possibly by deciding upon which interpretation of the law is the right one. Swedish accounting organizations need to take this case more seriously than they have so far. Or could it be that they simply don’t want to? / Svenska revisorer lyder bland annat under ett antal olika plikter. En av dessa är tystnadsplikten, som garanterar säkerheten för företagshemligheter och annan viktig information som revisorn måste känna till men inte får yppa för någon. Sedan år 1999 måste svenska revisorer också ta hänsyn till anmälningsplikten. Kortfattat innebär denna att revisorn, i vissa fall, själv måste anmäla misstänkta brott denne upptäckt i företaget till myndigheterna. En del revisorer upplever att dessa två plikter befinner sig i konflikt med varandra. Denna konflikt berörs ytterst sällan i annan media än uppsatser.Några revisorer har, i fall då ett misstänkt brott upptäckts men bevisningen är mycket vag, begått ett lagbrott genom att göra sig av med klienten. På så vis slipper de ta risken att anmälan inte leder någon vart och då riskera att bli stämd för att ha brutit mot tystnadsplikten. Detta, att vissa revisorer går så långt som till att bryta mot lagen, är skäl nog att utreda varför vissa revisorer upplever en konflikt mellan de två plikterna.Vi utförde under denna studie personliga samtal med fyra revisorer och två myndighetspersoner. De upplever personligen inga problem med anmälningsplikten, men har olika åsikter om de revisorer i tidigare studier som faktiskt menar sig uppleva en konflikt. Vissa menar att det är fullständigt omöjligt att göra sig av med en klient för att slippa anmäla ett misstänkt brott - andra det motsatta. En förklaring till att åsikterna om konflikten mellan plikterna varierar skulle kunna vara att tolkningen av lagtexten är föremål för många varierande tolkningar. Garanterar lagtexten revisorns säkerhet eller ej? Finns det en konflikt mellan de två plikterna?Avslutningsvis anser vi att det finns ett stort behov av att utreda detta, förslagsvis genom att bestämma vilken lagtolkning som är den korrekta. Svenska revisorsorganisationer måste ta ämnet på större allvar än hittills. Eller de kanske inte vill?