RCVS apologises to the profession

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Anthony Todd — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:49:32 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]openness, honesty and "common sense" that are key to getting what few votes are cast.[/quote]

That's where vetsurgeon,dot,org comes in. At last we have a chance to vote for someone, or more than one, who does just that and I think JG W or CT might be the man, or men.

We certainly need someone with those atributes and who hasn't got an axe, personal or otherwise" to grind or wield.

And surely we can scrape together enough votes to get them elected??

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

J G Wray — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:28:38 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]But do you know what your post above really reminds me of? It reminds me of the bully in the school playground who goes around hitting the other kids, taunting them, calling them names. And then an older brother of one of the victims comes along. When confronted the bully stands quivering in the corner saying "Don't hit me, don't hit me, don't hit me, please.." [/quote]

To borrow from Mr G, "If you read what I wrote" I think I said I can take it, not that I shrink from rejection of my point of view and ask for any special treatment. Furthermore, I haven't physically abused anyone. In your chosen language of the playground - "Sticks and stones etc."

It's an interesting point being accused of bullying. At least Mr T is doing it publicly. Some, for instance RCVS councillors, do it anonymously, thereby besmirching a colleague's reputation and don't own up to it when given the opportunity. Invertebrates.

Everyone on this list left the playground a long time ago. They're over 18. Most are professional people trained and used to taking responsibility. They are not feeble and vulnerable and don't need Uncle T's protection. They can sort themselves out.

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]I'll save this post somewhere to remind myself of who's talking the next time you accuse someone of having "no backbone".[/quote]

Why bother, you'll be the only one? But when you do I'll straighten up in deference to your views. How about that?

JGW

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Colin Thomson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:57:52 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

How many times do I need to say it? I am not seeking representation and am clear I have no mandate - Jan 2012. It might be different in Feb 2012 - but who cares?

If you and the list members possess the wit and intelligence I am assuming you have then you will form your own opinion of what I have to say. If your view is that I "seem to position [myself] as the arbiter of everything that is right and wrong in the profession.." then that is your construct, not mine. These forums are filled with words including mine. Ultimately they mean nothing. There is a delete button to be used and there is an opportunity to tell me where to get off as well and if you feel strongly enough about something, do it. I am not a shrinking violet and I can really take stuff, in return. But, gently be it put, to think I'm putting myself on some high ground about issues is wrong.

Too many words -

Ref the self-promotion comment. This list is geared up to self promotion, with job adverts, adverts for services offered including referrals, all self-promotion for financial gain. That's part of the raison d'etre of this list, so giving me a hard time about self-promotion where it is not sought or expected and there is no gain financial or reputational, is a bit odd.

An ancient anecdote - Years ago I was persuaded to stand for selection to a BVA Committee. This involves a job application including submission of a cv to a group in BVA who do not reveal what criteria they are using. It's pot luck whether you fit their requirements that year - this is still their system and it is partial and weird. I did not succeed and was very politely told to **** off. I am not so stupid as to repeat the exercise. I can't change or re write my cv so I get it and I won't trouble them again. RCVS elections are also pretty weird and I'm not at all comfortable with engineering a vote and then failing to follow through on the professions of openness, honesty and "common sense" that are key to getting what few votes are cast.

[/quote]

I'll save this post somewhere to remind myself of who's talking the next time you accuse someone of having "no backbone".

But do you know what your post above really reminds me of? It reminds me of the bully in the school playground who goes around hitting the other kids, taunting them, calling them names. And then an older brother of one of the victims comes along. When confronted the bully stands quivering in the corner saying "Don't hit me, don't hit me, don't hit me, please.."

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Judith Joyce — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:52:44 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]RCVS elections are also pretty weird and I'm not at all comfortable with engineering a vote and then failing to follow through on the professions of openness, honesty and "common sense" that are key to getting what few votes are cast.[/quote]

That is what I was trying to say but JGW knows more words than me and puts them together better.

I wasn't aware (in fact I have probably been told and forgotten) that the candidates were invited to participate in vetsurgeon. However, I still think that the successful candidates have some kind of moral obligation to their electorate. If nothing else, it is looking like the vetsurgeon candidates forum is a bit of a waste of time if it lives, flourishes and dies exclusively within the six weeks before an election and that anything that is written there can be assumed to be exclusively written for the purpose of getting the author elected.

Malcolm N

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:24:32 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]to think I'm putting myself on some high ground about issues is wrong.[/quote]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you do. Perhaps rather than saying 'the arbiter of everything that is right and wrong', it would have been more accurate to say 'most vociferous critic'.

[quote user="J G Wray"]so giving me a hard time about self-promotion [/quote]

I wasn't giving you a hard time about self-promotion JGW, really I wasn't. Just idly musing at the irony in the fact that you are probably better known than those you seemed to be having a pop at for self-promotion, regardless of motive or lack of it.

[quote user="J G Wray"]An ancient anecdote - Years ago I was persuaded to stand for selection to a BVA Committee. This involves a job application including submission of a cv to a group in BVA who do not reveal what criteria they are using. It's pot luck whether you fit their requirements that year - this is still their system and it is partial and weird. I did not succeed and was very politely told to **** off. I am not so stupid as to repeat the exercise. I can't change or re write my cv so I get it and I won't trouble them again. RCVS elections are also pretty weird and I'm not at all comfortable with engineering a vote and then failing to follow through on the professions of openness, honesty and "common sense" that are key to getting what few votes are cast.[/quote]

Very interesting insight. Thank you.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

J G Wray — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:13:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But you do seem to position yourself as the arbiter of everything that is right and wrong in the profession. [/quote]

Dear Mr G,

How many times do I need to say it? I am not seeking representation and am clear I have no mandate - Jan 2012. It might be different in Feb 2012 - but who cares?

Too many words -

Far too many words

JGW

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Sally Burnell — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:37:56 GMT

[quote user="kirsty"]

BVA Council minutes 7th Dec These are well hidden - any hints as to where to find them in the Members area? Chris B

[/quote]

Hello,

As JGW mentioned, these are for BVA members only, so you'll need to be logged in to the website to access them. A couple of places to find them:

1. in your regional forum in the BVA Community www.bva.co.uk/community - they were posted up around 21st Dec and the President posted a link from his blog on 22nd Dec.

2. direct from the Council page on the main website (scroll down to 'other information' for the latest minutes)

Our December eNews which went out on 16th December also flagged up that the minutes would be available and where to find them. If you want to sign up to receive BVA's monthly eNews you can do so here

Thanks,

Sally

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Bob Russell — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:47:52 GMT

I am a bit surprised that Bob Partridge does not get a little more involved. I suspect he would get quite a lot of support for his slightly more abrasive approach to council!

Much of the discussion would be more constructive if council members got more involved. I accept it may not always be a comfortable experience though!

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:44:01 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Richard Stephenson and Jill Nute are also prepared to debate with the profession[/quote]

Absolutely, and in fact I was going to mention that, except Malcolm was talking about councillors who were up for election last year.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:40:07 GMT

Richard Stephenson and Jill Nute are also prepared to debate with the profession

Wynne

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:08:00 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]I get the distinct impression that those councillors who were so active on vetsurgeon when they were after votes are now significantly less involved.[/quote]

True

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]I assume that Arlo will be able to cross-reference the RCVS directory to establish which councillors are vetsurgeon members. From there, it would be truly fascinating (to me at least!) to compare, say the number of posts per councillor (naming names, of course) during the month leading up to the last RCVS election and comparing it with other months - notably the month following the announcement of Ms Hern's Damascene realisation that her destiny lay outwith RCVS.[/quote]

I'm not sure it's really necessary to do this.

To be fair, candidates for council have in previous years been invited to participate specifically in an elections forum, slightly removed from these main forums. They were NOT specifically invited to come and engage in the main forums post election.
Hardly anyone who stood for election last year has posted outside that specific forum. Adi Nell, Bob Moore and R.M.B. Lonsdale have, but very infrequently.
It might seem obvious to us that participating in the most popular veterinary forum would be a good way of engaging with the electorate post election, but there are a lot of perfectly valid reasons why they might not, such as the fear of being 'flamed' and simply being uncertain as to what they can post in their capacity as councillor.
Slightly different approach to the elections this year, as far as VetSurgeon is concerned. I'll approach all candidates, and invite them to come and participate in the MAIN forums, both in the runup to the elections, and thereafter if elected. Unlike previous years, when it was positioned to candidates as 'we're doing this, it's not really a choice', this year participation will be entirely optional. However, VS will ONLY be promoting those who commit to engaging with the electorate via the forums (unlike last year, when all were given equal billing).

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:31:16 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]For the record, my words or silence are unremarkable, because I have never solicited a representative position through a mandate for instance at election time, or request for information at (self) promotion time .[/quote]

No you haven't solicited a representative position, that's right. But you do seem to position yourself as the arbiter of everything that is right and wrong in the profession. And if you don't seek to be representative, then your numerous posts (and the thought and effort that must go into the research behind them) do at least seem to come from someone who seeks influence. But it's influence without a mandate or any accountability (not that accountability seems like a particularly widespread commodity amongst the elected!)

I'm not criticising you, by the way. A healthy democracy needs JGWs. I just think that it is disingenuous to suggest that your silence is ever unremarkable because you are unelected. On the contrary!

By the way, is there some irony in your jibe about self-promotion? Accidentally or otherwise, you're probably far better known than half the people who stood for election last year.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Judith Joyce — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:29:29 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Others have, notably RCVS Councillors, whose words or silence seem unaccountable.[/quote]

I get the distinct impression that those councillors who were so active on vetsurgeon when they were after votes are now significantly less involved. Being a supporter of the concept of EBM, when I get such an impression about an aspect of medicine or surgery, I start to think of ways of testing my hypothesis. I feel a survey coming on!

I assume that Arlo will be able to cross-reference the RCVS directory to establish which councillors are vetsurgeon members. From there, it would be truly fascinating (to me at least!) to compare, say the number of posts per councillor (naming names, of course) during the month leading up to the last RCVS election and comparing it with other months - notably the month following the announcement of Ms Hern's Damascene realisation that her destiny lay outwith RCVS.

Over to you Arlo - if this is an idea with wider appeal (I can't imagine that all on council will be keen - there is nothing that politicians never like hard data) then it might be worth pursuing. What do others think?

Malcolm N

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

J G Wray — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:34:53 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]To me, one of the most remarkable things about the days after her resignation was the silence of Jonathan Wray. It was about 2 weeks before I saw any comment from you at all.[/quote]

Well, occasionally, it takes time to check stuff out. The P&RC stuff took a bit of cross checking and has been the most difficult so far, hence talking about it months after the event, because no one else would.

For the record, my words or silence are unremarkable, because I have never solicited a representative position through a mandate for instance at election time, or request for information at (self) promotion time .

Others have, notably RCVS Councillors, whose words or silence seem unaccountable. Amazing. Then there are those in consultancy and related areas who have solicited information through this list, e.g. on what frustrates most in general practice - remember that? - with the justification of a veneer of helping, but, let's face it self-interest as well. Some would call it win-win, but that's mainly those whose self-interest is served most i.e win-WIN.

JGW

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Colin Thomson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:05:17 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm more charitable than you.[/quote]

Aye - that'll be right.

You certainly appear to me to be more charitable about the ex registrar now than you were when she was in post. To me, one of the most remarkable things about the days after her resignation was the silence of Jonathan Wray. It was about 2 weeks before I saw any comment from you at all. Made me think perhaps you weren't the font of all knowledge regarding the RCVS you sometimes purport to be.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Colin Thomson — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:42:40 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]I do love being patronised[/quote]

Don't we all.

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]There is a consultation document but I have yet to see any proposals - perhaps I have missed something.[/quote]

The proposals in the consultation document. What would you call them?

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]I think we might have to disagree on this one - how common is common? I do believe that there is an increasing risk of this aspect of our regulation moving from the College to the criminal courts unless RCVS changes its attitude to veterinary specialisation and comes up with something that looks to the interests of the clients and their animals rather than the most vociferous within the profession. The recent Animal Welfare Act implies fairly swinging duties of care which could apply to vets and similarly, contract law and "informed consent" could, I am told, be used to from the basis of a suit. It is essential IMO that we retain the right and the freedom as vets to refer to whomsoever we think appropriate, but if even a small minority of our number encourage or allow clients to be misled, then we will all suffer.[/quote]

I don't disagree with that at all. I disagree with the suggested method of preventing it.

Colin

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

J G Wray — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:26:33 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]For somebody whose online persona is built around highlighting little 2 and 2 pieces of half information and then insinuating 5, that's rich. Of course they jumped, but its not difficult to imagine there might have been a whole lot of pushing going on as well. [/quote]

I'm more charitable than you. I think those who left were sincere in their aspirations and their involvement in the overspends coincidental.I'm also waiting to see if any of the elected Councillors with oversight responsibilities find pressing reasons, personal, health, business or otherwise to step aside.

There is an irony in all this. The past president who found nowt wrong with governance in 2010 doesn't even feel embarassed, but at least they, through their absence of findings were only going to cost us the overspend. Now we've had McKelvey we're going to pay the overspend and more for the RCVS to run stuff outside the remit of regulation, education and maintenance of the register. If the past presidents are consistent they'll keep it cheap.

JGW

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Judith Joyce — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:13:53 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]Let me try to help you out[/quote]

I do love being patronised.[quote user="Colin Thomson"]Firstly in the online discussions regarding this proposal[/quote]

There is a consultation document but I have yet to see any proposals - perhaps I have missed something.

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]Prof Lowe's report dealt only with food production animals.[/quote]

Some common ground here - Lowe is a sociologist/rural economist and his report started from that angle. However, the relevant part of his report in the context of this discussion was his comments related to the lack of specialist vets to be accessed by the rural economy and from that his musing on the difficulty a livestock owner has in identifying a specialist vet. I agree that this has grown wings and flown further than anyone predicted and probably further than many would want but much of this was down to Lowe whose interest in this subject has grown to the extent that he is doing collaborative research with several in the veterinary world. Because of his credentials and history, Lowe has the ear of people in high places and it appears that the one thing the College couldn't do was to ignore him - whether their reaction was proportionate and appropriate is a matter for debate.

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]IMO, in first opinion practice, clients being misled as to the level of expertise of whoever their animal is referred to is a very rare problem. [/quote]

I think we might have to disagree on this one - how common is common? I do believe that there is an increasing risk of this aspect of our regulation moving from the College to the criminal courts unless RCVS changes its attitude to veterinary specialisation and comes up with something that looks to the interests of the clients and their animals rather than the most vociferous within the profession. The recent Animal Welfare Act implies fairly swinging duties of care which could apply to vets and similarly, contract law and "informed consent" could, I am told, be used to from the basis of a suit. It is essential IMO that we retain the right and the freedom as vets to refer to whomsoever we think appropriate, but if even a small minority of our number encourage or allow clients to be misled, then we will all suffer.

Malcolm N

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Colin Thomson — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 16:30:45 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]Struggling to see your logic let alone follow it.[/quote]

Let me try to help you out

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]No "way forward" has been proposed and neither will it be until the report is written. I know of no collective voice of specialists (whether RCVS specialist, European Specialists, specialists by reputation or specialists by default) so I am intrigued to know where your knowledge of their preferences comes from.[/quote]

From 3 sources, one direct and two circumstantial. Firstly in the online discussions regarding this proposal, I haven't heard one specialist disagree with it, and plenty who say it would be a good thing. Secondly it came in the committees discussion document. The committee's composition is so heavily biased towards specialist and those promoting specialism that nothing that the specialists disagreed with was coming to be in that document, IMO. Thirdly almost every first opinion practitioner whose opinion I've seen or heard has said (broadly) that this proposal is put forward as a way of solving a problem specialists have but first opinion practices rarely see. Some go a lot further, saying that it's an attempted land grab by the specialists, to try to force more referrals to them, rather than merely informing the client.

Perhaps you'd care to find me a specialist who thinks this proposal is a bad idea?

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]As I pointed out before, this all arises from part of a report written by Prof Phillip Lowe at the behest of DEFRA. The eminent prof was, and remains, quite convinced that there is a problem and that view appears to be shared by Prof Calman and all the majority of RCVS councillors who voted in favour of asking Calman to investigate.[/quote]

Prof Lowe's report dealt only with food production animals. His idea was that rural vets could become viable if farmers and other vets knew where the specialists were. Encouraging specialism was his way of saving rural practice. To say that this idea is considered flawed by many would be an understatement. I've not met a single large animal vet who agrees with it, and I've come across a few who think its totally bonkers. It was really surprising to me that it was accepted by the RCVS with such little adverse comment, perhaps that was deference to DEFRA, I don't know. Your own logic falls down when you suggest that by setting up the Calman committee the RVCS councillors were accepting there was a major problem. The committee was set up to investigate this area, and it scope was greatly wider than Lowe's access to farm animal specialists. That isn't acceptance that there is a major problem.

IMO, in first opinion practice, clients being misled as to the level of expertise of whoever their animal is referred to is a very rare problem.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:48:44 GMT

Prof Calman says he has struggled to understand the system despite receiving repeated explanations. From his failure to understand, starting with the premise that there has to be an organised system (an assumption that still awaits justification) he jumps to the conclusion that we need a new system.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

kirsty — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:43:07 GMT

BVA Council minutes 7th Dec These are well hidden - any hints as to where to find them in the Members area? Chris B

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:42:28 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Malcolm At one time the practice web-site for a past president's practice boasted that the practice had a dermatology specialist-she was actually a certificate holder

Wynne

[/quote]

That doesn't mean she wasn't a specialist.

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Judith Joyce — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:10:36 GMT

Struggling to see your logic let alone follow it.

[quote user="Colin Thomson"] baised towards the preferred way forward for the specialists.[/quote]

No "way forward" has been proposed and neither will it be until the report is written. I know of no collective voice of specialists (whether RCVS specialist, European Specialists, specialists by reputation or specialists by default) so I am intrigued to know where your knowledge of their preferences comes from.

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]but its not a major problem to me. In fact, I've not come across it in 30 years in practice.[/quote]

As I pointed out before, this all arises from part of a report written by Prof Phillip Lowe at the behest of DEFRA. The eminent prof was, and remains, quite convinced that there is a problem and that view appears to be shared by Prof Calman and all the majority of RCVS councillors who voted in favour of asking Calman to investigate.

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]This is a report on specialisation written[/quote]

The report may have been written but to the best of my knowledge,it hasn't yet been published.

Malcolm N

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Colin Thomson — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:32:39 GMT

Jonathan

[quote user="J G Wray"]Weeeeeeelll, technically, there were two resignations, not ejections from post.[/quote]

For somebody whose online persona is built around highlighting little 2 and 2 pieces of half information and then insinuating 5, that's rich. Of course they jumped, but its not difficult to imagine there might have been a whole lot of pushing going on as well.

[quote user="J G Wray"]Furthermore, the willingness to change has been invested in past presidents+2 others. The past presidents did nowt to change when there[/quote]

And here was me thinking it was a past president that initiated the review of governance back in 2010.

Colin

Re: RCVS apologises to the profession

Colin Thomson — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:43:55 GMT

[quote user="Judith Joyce"]The major problem,[/quote]

There's your trouble. It may be a problem that riles the specialists, but its not a major problem to me. In fact, I've not come across it in 30 years in practice.

This is a report on specialisation written by a committe top heavy with specialists and with no full time first opinion small animal vets on it at all - (only one first opinion practitioner, as I recall). Its not surprising it came out with a consultation document heavily baised towards the preferred way forward for the specialists.