Now who's going to blow the whistle on those responsible for RCVS oversight

Re: Now who's going to blow the whistle on those responsible for RCVS oversight

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:30:35 GMT

I assume all those on RCVS council have seen the report? I assume it's in an electronic form? Why can't someone accidentally email it to vet times or Arlo? Could be a random, untraceable internet based email account.

So simple.

Re: Now who's going to blow the whistle on those responsible for RCVS oversight

Bob Russell — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:22:52 GMT

I am in the quite enviable position of living in a very Thai household with two very good cooks. if you need any advice on making a better curry I am sure they would be more than happy to help.

As far as the overspend in concerned one of the small chili peppers (dynamite) placed somewhere delicate would be guaranteed to get answers! Tiger balm in the same place perhaps a slightly more humane option!

Re: Now who's going to blow the whistle on those responsible for RCVS oversight

J G Wray — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 07:42:21 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]But who cooked the curry, JGW? Who? Are you somehow disincentivised to reveal the details, for fear of eating leftovers, alone in the porch?[/quote]

I cooked the curry and eat with my wife who's always game, as it were.

[quote user="james herriot lied"]

To whom should the canary sing?

To us? That wouldn't be whistleblowing, but gossip, with the very real threat of a defamation action; such is the parlous state of civil law in general and defamation in particular in this country, few would put the family home on spilling the beans to a baying crowd.

[/quote]

Us - the profession. The RCVS spent our money and are reorganising themselves at our expense and the new structure doesn't look cheaper or more efficient to me and it still has the same amateurs in there and no real training structure or means of communicating disquiet from us.

There's a big ask here from those in place and those coming in that they can set their house in order, spend out money more wisely, particularly as they extend their regulatory reach under the Charter. There is no sign of moderation or of a determination to reduce regulation. They are assuming trust exists even with the overspend. They know they cannot function without carrying the profession or they cease to be as an effective regulator, so the target of any whistle blowing is the profession.

If someone whistle blows then there is Mr G and Ms Lockett's favourite, the social media as a tool, a communication channel. The message would be directed to the profession. If it is true there is no defamation.

This would be cathartic, proper and frankly, decent and right. Except for those who have declared their candidacy for office has anyone noted any humility on this subject from say next year's President for example?

I hope that there is no need for a whistle blower, but a discussion about how the profession and RCVS would treat one could open up the RCVS to behave as they demand we do.

JGW

Re: Now who's going to blow the whistle on those responsible for RCVS oversight

Anthony Todd — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:31:59 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"]But who cooked the curry, JGW? Who? Are you somehow disincentivised to reveal the details, for fear of eating leftovers, alone in the porch?[/quote]

See what might happen to whistleblowers!! Why not just try to make a better curry in future?

If the analogy fits, wear it.

Re: Now who's going to blow the whistle on those responsible for RCVS oversight

james herriot lied — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 23:40:08 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

That give me a sour taste, a bit like an undercooked pea aubergine - reference to a not v successful Thai green curry cooked this evening

[/quote]

But who cooked the curry, JGW? Who? Are you somehow disincentivised to reveal the details, for fear of eating leftovers, alone in the porch?

I'm intrigued by your notion of whistleblowing. To whom should the canary sing?

To a correctly-designated prescribed person, under the protection of PIDA? Leaving out the fact that protection would only be given to an employee, exactly which body or authority would that prescribed person represent? Is there fraud here? Not as far as we know. Is there incompetence? Damn jiggy. But that in itself isn't a crime.

Then onto the identity of the whistleblower(s). Individuals on the council are unlikely to comment, based on the above; the RCVS itself isn't going to be issuing a press statement any time soon: it would be naive to expect the turkeys to clamour for Christmas; employees of the College might well have technical protection, but since any employment tribunal losses wouldn't come out of individual pockets, I'd suggest that those employees might find PIDA to be helpful in spirit, but not in ensuring that the mortgage continues to be paid. Seen it done, with a comprehensively silenced whistle, a financial drain on the organisation and not an ounce of punishment visited on the wrongdoers.

The only ways we're going to get hold of all of this are if the new lot vote to release the report - possibly with some redactions, which would be irritating but not catastrophic - in which case, I can see a pretty good campaign pledge right there; if those in the wrong 'fess up, which doesn't seem likely to happen soon; or else keep banging on with the FOI requests, which will probably keep getting batted back on technicalities of scope of the Act, in which case the ICO may or may not pull its finger out, although - and this is based on personal experience - if the RCVS lie to the commissioner to get out of it, his office has no power to exact or effect a penalty, unless it suspects criminality, in which case it might (but probably won't) pass details to the police. I kid you not.

I feel the way forwards is to extract the information, not to expect it to come to us. But don't expect anybody to be punished: if the perpetrators keep it quiet, they'll keep their positions; if not, they'll just go on with their lives - their businesses will not be harmed one jot, and one would suspect that they're all sufficiently advanced that reputations won't suffer in practical terms either. So there's no harm in trying to hush it all up......