22nd Sep 2019 at 6:22 pm #72049
22nd Sep 2019 at 7:02 pm #72050Kevin NkomoParticipant
22nd Sep 2019 at 7:54 pm #72051
Thank you Kevin. I appreciate your support.
To date, my vetting has consisted of keeping out: international spam artists, sellers of substances – chemical/medical/natural, and people seeking relationships of various forms and duration.
To “vet” material developers would be something entirely different. We are not a quality council.
And there is a Constitutional right for people to have freedom to choose & engage in economic activity of their own choice.
YOu are aware that we have deleted and blocked members, when specific activities have been brought to our attention.
How do you suggest fool-proof vetting would work – or should we simply stop accepting any material developers?
- This reply was modified 8 months ago by sylvia hammond.
22nd Sep 2019 at 8:24 pm #72053
I received this comment via email:
“Would like to know why schools do not teach learners about money.
Costs money to be born, costs money to die. In between we are not taught how make and use money effectively so that w are able to add value to our lives and reduce the daily risks of preventable risks”
We have not covered schools so far – only skills development at workplaces – should we be including education more generally?
23rd Sep 2019 at 12:34 pm #72066Enrico The-KishoParticipant
I think the platform could be organised if facilitators, assessors , moderators are categorized and perhaps if “potential employers” could be able to search for the service it might require. For example ETDPSETA assessors/moderators/facilitators to appear under a tab which might be further divided to the SAQA IDs and -/or unit standards approved to assess/facilitate/ moderate. And further more perhaps region/area/town.
I might say this under correction , but it seems that the platform is misused by emerging training providers to obtain CVs and statements of results from the vulnerable who are looking to explore opportunities.
23rd Sep 2019 at 12:58 pm #72067
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response.
On the first point, that might be better done on one of our sister sites – I will discuss with our CEO.
On the second point, you are correct that it was a problem, but I had thought it had stopped/reduced after a change we made. I will take that on board.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.