Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:22:00 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Social media, touted as a responsible medium and a force for good can't have it both ways. Either it is a serious and influential thing or not.[/quote]

Dear Jonathan,

The role of social media is currently being debated within the RCVs and a paper was debated at the last Council at some length. There are clearly pros and cons and I don’t think any fixed view was reached. Given that the statutory role of the College is to Education, Regulate and Register one could argue that we don’t need to get into more modern communication methods. On the other side of the coin it can be argued that there is a very big good news story about the work the profession does to be put out there (perhaps the BVA role?) and that the RCVS should play its part to counter some of the negativity seen in the social media. However the point which I think you are making i.e. that the RCVs could find itself drawn into online discussions it cannot respond to and thus end up looking secretive is a point well made.

In my view we need to ensure that the costs of running the College are contained. If we can reduce costs by using modern technology (such as no longer spending £100K plus on printing a Register for every member) then it needs to be looked at. However the social media scene is fast moving and I think a cautious ‘toe in the water’ approach is sensible for an organisation with an extremely limited role. It is a balance between being the ‘stuffy old fashioned regulator’ and projecting a modern dynamic image. Our market research shows (interestingly) that not only do the MOPs not know much at all about the RCVS – when asked they don’t WANT to know anything about the RCVS. Our surveys should that what they want is simply to know that there IS an RCVS if anything goes wrong in their Vet/ Client relationship. Further it is not the role of the RCVS to go on fishing trips for complaints (we’ve enough of those without looking {light hearted aside}) it is sufficient that the public know we exist and that they can make a complaint to us.

[quote user="J G Wray"]the PI process is only secret because of tradition. There may be good reasons, but these reasons are not backed and legitimised by law. [/quote]

On the ‘secrecy’ of PI investigations – all I can say is that every other regulator of a major profession in the UK (and I think the western world - I haven’t checked every country only those who speak English) would follow the same protocol with regards to the secrecy of investigations as we do. We would rightly run into serious challenge if we started to disclose personal information gathered from investigations. Respondent veterinary surgeons are innocent unless we can prove in open court, to the criminal standard, that they are not. This is a basic, fundamental human right. Innocent people should not have their good names besmirched by a public airing of complaints made against them. This may be inconvenient, it may limit freedom of debate, it might even on occasion damage the image of the profession, it may mean that the RCVS smells of secrecy – but that simply goes with the turf. Nothing we can or should do about it because it is the right and proper way to go about preliminary investigation. Members of this site would be outraged if the RCVS publically discussed a complaint made against them or revealed any details of it at all. The RCVS goes as far as it can by publishing three times a year carefully anonymised cases as general illustrations of things that can go wrong – which is useful and all we can really do.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

[quote user="J G Wray"]extending these disciplinary protocols, without the backing of law and it is something they will regret when they realise that their premise - we can do this under the Charter powers[/quote]

P.S. The new protocols are implemented under Statutory powers NOT charter ones. Charters are great but they don't help with this kind of thing.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Malcolm Ness — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:56:22 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]In my view it is a shame that overspends in other areas have detracted from some of the really major steps forward that the RCVs has made in the disciplinary field. Everything is not perfect by any means but vigorous efforts are being made to improve the system all the time.[/quote]

I agree. It is a shame that the efforts and achievements in recent times have been over-shadowed by other events but Richard, it is missing the point completely to dismiss this as "overspends". There has been a major failure of governance characterised by an over-bearing and arrogant executive riding roughshod over the elected council often with the collusion of feckless presidents - the overspends (embarrassing as they are) are merely a symptom of the malaise, and not the entirety of the problem.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 08:09:48 GMT

Further to my earlier post with regards to the PIC and the new protocols. I forgot to mention that external legal advice from two different leading Counsels was sought before these protocols were progressed. Reading the opinions is very illuminating. They were far more emphatically supportive than the College had imagined would be the case. The fact is that Counsel’s view was not just that the RCVS had the power under the VSA 1966 to do this but that it ought to and should have done it.

A final point with regards to this thread, members should be aware that the PIC / DC procedures of the RCVs have recently been subject to forensic scrutiny by the judges of the Supreme Court when giving advice to Her Majesty in the matter of the Appeal by Mr Holmes against the findings of the RCVS DC. This appeal centred on accusations of bias and improper procedure. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal on all grounds and awarded costs to the RCVS. In their judgement they highly praised the RCVS for the ‘elaborate efforts’ it has made to ensure fair and due process. This from a court, that has been by no means slow to criticise, when in the past the College has erred.

In my view it is a shame that overspends in other areas have detracted from some of the really major steps forward that the RCVs has made in the disciplinary field. Everything is not perfect by any means but vigorous efforts are being made to improve the system all the time.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 21:28:10 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]Not my place currently to delve into the details of the Member who contacted me, sufficient to say that the Member feels the treatment received under the Health Protocol was neither compassionate nor sympathetic. [/quote]

Dear Chris,

I would just check that the health protocol was in operation at the relevant time. The whole aim is to be compassionate and sympathetic; but in dealing with some of these very complex and difficult situations it might be the case that the College isn't always as successful as we would like. The ink is hardly dry on the Health Protocol and we have had some really rewarding results - no doubt there will be failures as well. This is a learning process as it marks a major shift from considering health / addiction to be a disciplinary matter to regarding it as a problem that needs treatment. At the end of the day the three primary objectives - protecting the public, protecting animal welfare and defending the reputation of the profession must be compatible with any support given to members with health issues. Sometimes it won't be compatible and a DC case will follow - hopefully not too often.

[quote user="Chris Barker"]The RCVS has however crossed a line with the Performance Protocol. [/quote]

No there is no change in the definition of SPMC. Clinical failure when extreme has always amounted to SPMC. There have always been 'clinical cases' presented to the DC see for examples Higgott v RCVS, Holmes v RCVS, Mahon v RCVS, Segev v RCVS, Sanyal v RCVS, Basha v RCVS, Correia v RCVs (acquitted) all these revolved around gross failures clinically which in all but the last were found to amount to SPMC. However we must be very clear here. We are NOT just talking about negligence, a much higher bar has to be crossed - that of negligence so severe, usually with a persistent or repetitious nature that it crosses the threshold into SPMC territory. Obviously persisting in an inappropriate or dangerous clinical practice despite advice from the College might (and only might) cross the line.

In a sense the name of the protocol causes some unnecessary angst as it would be better styled the 'incredibly poor performance protocol' however that is clearly a mouth full. The College has no jurisdiction over what I call 'normal' negligence and indeed there is no point in it having any since it has no power to award compensation which is the usual recourse in law. Complainants who are victims of negligence are well advised to take their case through the Court system (which if they have a good claim costs them nothing) as the courts can award compensation which the RCVS will never be able to do.

[quote user="Chris Barker"]This will unavoidably result in a growing list - unofficial, unpublished, whatever - of procedures felt to be unacceptable 'by the profession'. [/quote]

There is no intention or even a thought of having a list of 'procedures felt to be unacceptable' (other I suppose than those on which the college has issued advice notes on from time to time e.g. tail docking, or false testicle implantation). That is not what the protocol is about. In summary what it is hoped can be acheived is that when the RCVS is facing a torrent of complainants about an individual VS which together amount to a case of SPMC seeking to work with the VS through increased CPD, appointment of mentors, limitations on practice (when necessary to protect the public) so that they can regain competence whilst being able to stay in practice and earn a living. We have to balance these two things. In theory it should be a win win situaton. In practice I very much suspect we will be talking about 1 or 2 cases a year at most.

Chris as you rightly and so eloquently pointed out at the efraCom enquiry the totality of complaints made against VS is miniscule when compared against the number of VS / MOP interactions every year. So although all this dealing with problem vets is very important we shouldn't allow ourselves to lose perspective of the fact that we are discussing a tiny minority. 99.99% of vets will never need to know anything about either the health or performance protocols because they are good vets in excellent health. Long may it stay that way.

[quote user="Chris Barker"]Thanks for your reply Richard - how do you find the time to provide such detailed answers?[/quote]

Thanks. At presernt by sleeping only 4 hours per day!! I'll have to stop that or I'll end up on my own health protocol

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Chris Barker — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:52:34 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

I'm almost tempted to ask 'what did I not write?'

[/quote]

Colin is quite right - it was a reference to my luddite tendencies which meant I was not aware that on this modern website I had the opportunity to edit my own writing after posting The evidence of a misplaced quote is already erased front the record - hence your confusion

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Chris Barker — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:44:49 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I just wish to add that it should be acknowledged that many members of council are working very hard to try and improve the RCVS and things like these protocols are a direct result of attempts to modernise and reform bringing ourselves into line with a modern, pastoral approach to fitness to practice. Every effort to improve the College seems to be viewed from the most negative angle - to the extent that two protocols which have been put in place specifically to assist members, avoid DC hearing, prevent members being removed from the register, protect the public & animals are projected as if they were some kind of authoritarian grab for an intrusive regulatory mechanism. That couldn't be further from the truth.[/quote]

Thanks for your reply Richard - how do you find the time to provide such detailed answers? If the protocols are applied in the way that you describe then that will be mightily reassuring to the sceptics. Not my place currently to delve into the details of the Member who contacted me, sufficient to say that the Member feels the treatment received under the Health Protocol was neither compassionate nor sympathetic.

The RCVS has however crossed a line with the Performance Protocol. This will unavoidably result in a growing list - unofficial, unpublished, whatever - of procedures felt to be unacceptable 'by the profession'. This may well prove intrusive, however well intentioned the original protocol. Some would call it a brave move, some will fear it foolhardy, but it is the first, perhaps irreversible, step towards the College involving itself in the definition of negligent professional behaviour. And towards what I fear may become a complainants charter.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Colin Thomson — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:28:56 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"][quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

I'm almost tempted to ask 'what did I not write?'

Yours,

Richard S.

[/quote]I'm struggling to think of anything. Must say, Richard, I take my hat off to you for such detailed answers, delivered with such good grace in response to what must at times be some very frustratingly negative stuff written here. I also think you deserve thanks from everyone here for the considerable amount of time you've given us (though I'm not sure you'll get any!). Vote for Stephenson, I say![/quote]

I'm pretty sure Richard was referring to the reference in CB's post above to the post above that which has since been edited to remove RS's name from the bottom of it (to stop the impression that it was RS's comment). But I might be wrong.

Colin

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

James Laidlaw — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:17:05 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

And anyway, Mr G has decided that this MOP isn't to be heard, so that's an end to that.

JGW

[/quote] I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum would be against the idea of any MOP logging in and having access to the discussions and information on here. You're a big talker about "leaky forums" and here you are seriously considering giving someone anon access? What's up with that?

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

J G Wray — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:59:39 GMT

One of the things that, in my opinion has come out of this thread is fear. It can be dressed up however you like, but there is a fear associated with the decision not to discuss elements on a social medium, even self contained elements, of RCVS complaints and disciplinary.

Social media, touted as a responsible medium and a force for good can't have it both ways. Either it is a serious and influential thing or not. RCVS are planning to use social media for a serious purpose. This is a profound mistake, because they do not understand that they will have no control over how others, MOPs will use the access and how it will all look and work. RCVS will block, as here, any discussion of serious matters, in the same way and for the same fearful reasons as here, but unlike here the MOPs will not countenance the validity of the need for secrecy. MOPs will discuss specifics of RCVS disciplinary/complaints because that is all they interact with RCVS for. The RCVS will throw up barriers to discussion, whilst holding themselves out as protectors of the public interest in accordance with Statute. It will not go well. It will look and smell of secrecy and in fact, the MOPS will be correct. The secret element of disciplinary, the PI process is only secret because of tradition. There may be good reasons, but these reasons are not backed and legitimised by law. The PI process is not secret because of the demands of Statute. It can therefore be challenged. Mr Barker, another well informed candidate ( thank God there are some) has alluded to how RCVS are extending these disciplinary protocols, without the backing of law and it is something they will regret when they realise that their premise - we can do this under the Charter powers - is not matched by legitimacy . In addition RCVS simply do not possess the wit to defend their "need for secrecy" as they walk into the light that social media interaction will bring. The limp arguments for secrecy based on "trust us we need it" will not cut it with MOPs.

This will be another exercise in RCVS ineptitude. It will all be driven by RCVS and they will be nailing themselves. The profession will not be doing it. Hang on to that.

JGW

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

J G Wray — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 08:27:23 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I'm almost tempted to ask 'what did I not write?'[/quote]

Not much and you managed without being prolix. I stand by my previous comment about you being an effective communicator. Your contributions throw into stark contrast the shallowness of understanding and qualification of others who are seeking election. Well done.

It'll be interesting to see if the voting numbers go up this year.In my view if it does it will not be a RCVS effected change . Nor would it be the effect of social media per se - it'll be interesting to see whether those who have shown little or no interest in their electorate get in as well. The overspends have raised interest paradoxically and ease of access to Councillors and also rans could be part of any uplift, if it happens. On va voir.

JGW

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 07:41:16 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

I'm almost tempted to ask 'what did I not write?'

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:39:57 GMT

I'm almost tempted to ask 'what did I not write?'

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:34:54 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Have you any sort of data to back this up, say, satisfaction surveys, post-procedural questions, and that modish word, feedback?

[/quote]

This is probably one of the most useful thoughts to come out of this discussion. As far as I am aware (and I haven't checked) we don't monitor or survey feedback from complainants and I think a small feedback exercise would indeed be useful - I will bring this up at the next meeting.

[quote user="David Mills"]from word of mouth of people on the RCVS side of the establishment[/quote]

My opinion is based on my own experience of dealing with five RCVS complaints a week and having sat on the DC not 'word of mouth' from anyone but myself. Obviously you may take what I say with a pinch of salt if you will but I view my role as a member of Council to communicate honestly about what the College does. That is why you elect members so that hopefully you can place some reliance on what we say. We are not the establishment - far from it we are there to keep an eye them for you!

[quote user="David Mills"]Have you personal experience of these home visits, Mr Stephenson, and if so, what?[/quote]

No there is a strict separation of roles. Members of the committee no longer undertake visits themselves, they are done by specially trained ex PSS inspectors plus a legally trained member of our permanent staff. It would be wrong in principle for thse scrutinising the investigation to be undetaking it themselves.

[quote user="David Mills"]pleading to and hiding behind confidentiality[/quote]

On this issue I'm not pleading confidentiality I'm pleading some common sense. Discussion of an ongoing case by sitting members of the Dc / PIC on a public forum is not proper procedure - does that really need to be explained???? If Mr Wray is genuine in his concern I'm sure he can supply you with all his information off forum (and to anyone else he wishes) I've no problem with that.

[quote user="David Mills"]frankly, take your assertions that everything with the investigations team is alright, Jack, we don't need to listen to any feedback[/quote]

I have never said that or anything even approximating to it - where did you get that from??

What I said was that if there is EVIDENCE of misconduct by members of the College staff it should be reported to the Head of Prof Conduct / the Registrar and / or a member of Council not involved with the department. I happen to think that the idea of getting some feedback is a good one although I suspect I know what it will be!! This discussion seems heated enough without putting words into each others mouths!

[quote user="David Mills"]the cloak and dagger ridiculous pomposity over not releasing the full McKelvey report and all the pathetically immature smokescreens being thrown up to protect despicably irresponsible and arrogant, out of touch councillors[/quote]

Already discusssed at length elsewhere in this site. The fact is that I know of no member of Council who wouldn't be delighted to publish the whole report. The other fact is that we have been given absolute, categorical advice on three occasions now that we must not do so. It would seem to me the height of foolishness, arrogance and irresposibility to run the risk of costing the RCVS yet more money by embroiling it in a proplonged legal battle in such circumstances. I am very sorry that we can not publish the whole thing - although in truth its no where near as exciting as some seem to think - but that is the situation.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:09:52 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Why should the RCVS expect a complainant to keep their experience secret, [/quote]

I'm sure that the RCVS doesn't expect that and neither do I. The point I'm making is that a forum in which members of Council, the DC and PIC are actively involved is not the correct forum for that discussion. It should be blatantly obvious that should the investigation be active or reopened all the members of this group would be hopelessly compromised (possibly under the current DC / PIC arrangements meaning that a quorate committee can not be found to hear or deal with the case). That could result in a miscarriage of justice. I am really surprised you are confused by this it seems pretty basic to me.

This is one of the reasons why I so strongly support the LRO to reform the DC and PIC. I think it ridiculous that the only people who can not involve themselves in such discussions are members of Council - but that is the situation under the curent act and it does call for some restraint by Council members.

Yours,

Richard.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:59:00 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]We should not retreat into generalities, nor use generalities as a defence. We must deal in specifics, and in this case there will be specific reasons why the complainant feels so poorly served.[/quote]

Yes I'm happy to agree with that - we need to find out what (if anything) went wrong in this specific case. But that does not mean that it serves as an exemplar of how all cases are handled anymore than suggesting that because the last lame horse I treated is still lame means that I'm no good as a vet.

[quote user="Chris Barker"]At this point may I broaden the discussion. [/quote]

Thank heavens for some common sense! The issues you raise are very good discussion points.

[quote user="Chris Barker"]As a candidate in the current election, my ‘elevated’ profile has meant that I have already received a letter from someone who has been through this alternative ‘disciplinary’ route and is aggrieved by aspects of the process! [/quote]

There must be some confusion here - the new performance protocol was only approved at the Feb 2012 Council and I don't think I'm breaking any confidences if I tell you that there have been NO cases placed into the performance protocol as yet. There are a number of VS in the Health Protocol - and as far as I am aware they are progressing as well as they can be expected to with the support of the various professionals in the field that are now helping them. At least one member has already been released from the scheme having made a complete recovery.

[quote user="Chris Barker"]but it will be important that any ‘sanctions’ applied in the course of such ‘protocol’ process[/quote]

I think it is mistaken to see the health and performance protocols in terms of 'sanctions' - there are no sanctions involved in either. The whole point of the protocol is for the VS who is receiving help from the College to enter into a program of remedial action; be it in terms of drug addiction or poor performance. For example an alcoholic who can no longer function safely as a VS might be assisted by giving an undertaking to the RCVs to join AA and submit regular blood samples. A colleague who is having clinical problems which render him / her unsafe to practice might give undertakings to do increased CPD, spend one day a month in another practice or whatever is needed to get them back up to speed. There is NO PUNNITIVE element in either protocol they are designed to protect the public & animal welfare, preserve the good standing of the profession whilst where possible permitting the member concerned to remain in practice and earn a living. The problem with the past approach of waiting until something went seriously wrong and then striking them off - even although the pattern of behaviour was well known and long established helps no one. Once removed from the register it becomes increasingly difficult for that VS to maintain clinical skills and ultimately impossible for them to resume a career.

If you view the protocols as a back door means of applying 'sanctions' then of course you will be dubious about them. But this really misses the point, the protocols are specifically designed to prevent members appearing before the DC and potentially being removed (which would be a highly likely outcome) whilst protecting the public and animal welfare at the same time. No doubt for some this will be a last opportunity to pull themselves around which they will grasp enthusiastically - others will fail - but the idea is to adopt a pastoral approach rather than to wave big sticks at people. The public also frequently don't like their vet being stuck off. Even bad vets seem to have a large fan base and some of the worst DC cases are often followed by outraged clients who want their vet back! Removal should be seen as the last option and the new protocols help with that by giving alternate routes for cases that would otherwise result in disciplinary action.

In introducing this new approach I would be very surprised if we don't meet some pitfalls and have a few failures on the way. But is that a good reason not to try and reform the system? Should we always fear change and just keep things the same in case a new way doesn't work?

[quote user="Chris Barker"]But I doubt I am alone in being concerned that anyone employed to conduct interviews on behalf of the RCVS could ever be described as ‘one of the most gratuitously offensive people I've ever met during my 30 years in this profession’ [/quote]

Oddly I have to say to you that a very high proportion of complaints to the RCVS use almost those exact same words to describe the veterinary surgeon they are complaining about! I am probably a little jaiundiced by my experience but I take such comments with a large pinch of salt. I don't think that the whole profession is full of gratuitously offensive people (in fact all the ones I meet seem very pleasant to me!) and neither do I believe it of the College staff. Whilst I accept that not every ihuman interaction is as good as we would have liked it. I know some people think I am very rude - others that I am excessively polite!

[quote user="Chris Barker"]but it will be important that any ‘sanctions’ applied in the course of such ‘protocol’ process should be entirely defensible and absolutely equivalent to those that might have been enforced through a full disciplinary hearing.[/quote]

There are no sanctions involved in the protocols. It is the other way around - the respondent offers 'undertakings' related to their problem. There is no equivalence to a DC hearing as that can result in suspension or removal from the register. That is what we are trying to avoid by use of the protocols. Of course it may be the case that if someone has a serious health problem such as drug addiction then they might give an undertaking to only work in supervised or limited practice. The key is that any undertaking must protect the public and animal welfare. The only 'stick' in the process is that a member giving an undertaking to the RCVS is entering into a serious agreement and breaking it might result in disciplinary action. Experience so far with the health protocol seems to indicate that members embrace the process, and keep to their undertakings.

I just wish to add that it should be acknowledged that many members of council are working very hard to try and improve the RCVS and things like these protocols are a direct result of attempts to modernise and reform bringing ourselves into line with a modern, pastoral approach to fitness to practice. Every effort to improve the College seems to be viewed from the most negative angle - to the extent that two protocols which have been pput in place specifically to assist members, avoid DC hearing, prevent members being removed from the register, protect the public & animals are projected as if they were some kind of authoritarian grab for an intrusive regulatory mechanism. That couldn't be further from the truth.

Yours,

Richard stephenson.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

James Laidlaw — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:33:25 GMT

You could have just got them to write their story, give it to you, then post it.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

J G Wray — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 20:16:22 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The Heather Mills case was a concluded DC case. DC cases are by definition heard in public. [/quote]

Dear Mr S,

Quite so but the commentary in the RCVS news was also about the process, which was not held in public.

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]What you are purporting to expose is a potentially ongoing PIC investigation. You are comparing chaulk with cheese and I find it hard to believe your comments are made without realising that or perhaps your memory has become VERY selective. I'll just stick with the facts if you don't mind.[/quote]

I think the metaphor should have something to do with cake as in RCVS 'aving their cake and eating it. The case I have access to didn't go to DC, ergo not held in public. But, the RCVS have closed the case on an incomplete investigation i.e stuff left open. Why should the RCVS expect a complainant to keep their experience secret, or the details of the case secret, or the details of the handling of the case secret, just because it didn't reach DC? The RCVS certainly doesn't regulate MOPs and there's no legally enforceable gagging facility open to them, so why should PI secrecy be preserved for all time by a complainant, particualrly one who isn't vindictive, aggressive or seeking financial gain?

The OP was about whether to invite a MOP to give their experience of a RCVS visitation. It would have been up to one and all to see if the account given matched yours or Heather Mills for instance and form an opinion at election time. You have extrapolated to it being about a mishandling of the case. I'm not sure how, but there it is.

And anyway, Mr G has decided that this MOP isn't to be heard, so that's an end to that.

JGW

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:27:49 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]

‘Even if there is a member of the public with a genuine complaint about how her complaint was investigated it tells the members of this site absolutely nothing about how complaints are generally handled’

We should not retreat into generalities, nor use generalities as a defence. We must deal in specifics, and in this case there will be specific reasons why the complainant feels so poorly served. I recognise that the RCVS representatives in question cannot answer for themselves on this site, even less when the accusations made are as yet unclear. But I doubt I am alone in being concerned that anyone employed to conduct interviews on behalf of the RCVS could ever be described as ‘one of the most gratuitously offensive people I've ever met during my 30 years in this profession’

[/quote]

I agree. But I don't think an internet forum is a suitable place to conduct an enquiry into the alleged mishandling of a complaint.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:18:59 GMT

[quote user="Colin Thomson"]Can you not edit your post to correct this?[/quote]

Don't worry - done it for you

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Colin Thomson — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 19:00:11 GMT

[quote user="Chris Barker"]No. R Stevenson did not write the above posting - some gremlin in the ether has removed his name from the quote mid post and dumped it at the bottom!! [/quote]

Can you not edit your post to correct this?

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Chris Barker — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:41:09 GMT

No. R Stevenson did not write the above posting - some gremlin in the ether has removed his name from the quote mid post and dumped it at the bottom!!

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Chris Barker — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 18:38:23 GMT

I note all that Richard Stevenson has said, and must reluctantly agree that whatever the merits of the complaint, should discussion of this MOP’s evidence drive RCVS Councillors from this forum then that would be completely counterproductive. But that does not mean that the matter should be ignored – a forum for its consideration must be found – for there is a very real issue here of ‘who polices the police…?’

Given that any such complaint could rapidly degenerate into ‘he said – she said’, I am bound to ask what records of conversation are kept when investigators interview people on behalf of the RCVS? Are tape recordings made of the interview? And what independent supervision of the process is (or could be) used? There is little prospect of investigating what was said during the course of an interview if nothing beyond basic notes are recorded. And if it is the tone of the interviewer that is held to be the cause of the complaint, it is difficult to see how this would ever be reflected in the interviewer’s notes of the interview.

At this point may I broaden the discussion. These interviews take place at the behest of PIC once a complaint has been received and after it has been judged to be worthy of deeper consideration. A protocol for such an investigation clearly exists, though we are not yet party to the records kept. But by being part of the formal disciplinary process, established under the terms of the VSA, protocols must surely exist and ‘rules’ established to be respected by all those involved.

But the profession now has another alternative sequence of 'disciplinary' action, established subsequent to the introduction of the ‘health protocol’ and its new-born sister, the ‘performance protocol’. Alongside these protocols have been established novel procedures which ‘sideline’ cases, feeding them into a mechanism which may not follow the protocol established for the disciplinary process. I have some misgivings about the justice of this process, which entices ‘miscreants’ to declare their guilt without the involvement of either trial or jury, and requires them to submit themselves to demands made by (?) PIC, with the threatened sanction of full disciplinary proceedings if undertakings are not met. One would sincerely hope that equivalent protocols are in place for such process, with similar rules of behaviour and standards of recording. But these processes are new, almost entirely hidden from view, and I have yet to hear any detail regarding their application.

As a candidate in the current election, my ‘elevated’ profile has meant that I have already received a letter from someone who has been through this alternative ‘disciplinary’ route and is aggrieved by aspects of the process! Clearly I am currently in no position to investigate or evaluate these claims, but I would be concerned should the rigours of process required by the full disciplinary process not be being followed in these parallel ‘protocol’ routes. Those better placed than I may be able to offer reassurance regarding due process and recording of that process, but it will be important that any ‘sanctions’ applied in the course of such ‘protocol’ process should be entirely defensible and absolutely equivalent to those that might have been enforced through a full disciplinary hearing.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:39:48 GMT

Jonathan DC hearings are like criminalcourt cases Decisions are supposed to be made on the bsis of formal evidence given before DC and subject to cross examination-and only that evidence That's why RCVS make such an effort to seperate PIC and DC DC members are not supposed to know anything at all about a case until the evidence is formally presented to them

If the evidence is aired in this forum,then even if DC members refrain from commenting-it will be totally impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not read postings,and therefore pre-judge the case-so whatever the final decision there will be grounds for appeal

I'm not a member of DC but I have given a lot of evidence as an expert witness on behalf of the RSPCA so do understand court procedure-and the necessity for these rules

Wynne

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 17:24:24 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Who said "..And how about I cancel your membership" to me? As for Mr S threat to withdraw all RCVS councillors, I was just saying, I don't feel bullied by this threat, veiled or otherwise, either. [/quote]

JGW, I was merely highlighting the consequences of allowing someone access to the site who is not entitled to use the anon login. You call that a threat. I call it advice.

As to Mr. S's post, I am really amazed that you call that one a threat. As you well know, Mr. S has no authority to 'withdraw all RCVS councillors', and therefore cannot (and did not) make that threat. He, like me, pointed out a possible consequence of your actions.

As regards the member of the public question. The answer is currently no.

Re: Who would like to hear from a member of the public?

Richard Stephenson — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:55:55 GMT

Dear Jonathan The Heather Mills case was a concluded DC case. DC cases are by definition heard in public. What you are purporting to expose is a potentially ongoing PIC investigation. You are comparing chaulk with cheese and I find it hard to believe your comments are made without realising that or perhaps your memory has become VERY selective. I'll just stick with the facts if you don't mind.