RCVS results

Re: RCVS results

Malcolm Ness — Sun, 06 May 2012 10:30:05 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Messrs Johnson[/quote]

If it is the same Johnson, he has a very strong LA practitioner background though if he had engaged here, there wouldn't be any doubt.

With my skeptical hat on, I note that there are about 5 times as many vetsurgeon members as there were votes for the winning candidate so engaging with vetsurgeon members might not represent very rich pickings in terms of votes gained.

Re: RCVS results

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 06 May 2012 00:45:06 GMT

Shame Messrs Johnson and May decided not to engage with the electorate on here.

Re: RCVS results

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 05 May 2012 21:54:54 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]I think we should have as many vets with experience of working outside academia as possible[/quote]

Hi Clare,

The odd thing is that whenever given the oportunity the membership elect University Professors (I accept very able ones) to the Council. The net result of the last two year's elections is two less practitioners two more academics. We are rapidly becoming an endangered species on Council!!

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: RCVS results

Malcolm Ness — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:36:25 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"] I think we should have as many vets with experience of working outside academia as possible[/quote]

Yes.

Re: RCVS results

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Sat, 05 May 2012 18:30:28 GMT

No Wynne it's six years since you quite rightly gave me a hard time . Its a steep learning curve going onto council with no previous experience of politics in other bodies and I have learned a great deal. The lay members on disciplinary are invaluable but on council I think we should have as many vets with experience of working outside academia as possible. [quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Clare I know they say time flies when youget older-but I was getting really worried it was 3 years since I gave you a hard time for attempting to avoid answering a question about whether or not you favoured greater lay and appointed membership of Council

Wynne

[/quote]

Re: RCVS results

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 05 May 2012 09:56:26 GMT

Wynne

Re: RCVS results

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Fri, 04 May 2012 17:35:43 GMT

Congratulations to those who were successful in the elections and commiserations to those who were not. I look forward to interesting debate in the college next year. I came back to this forum to see what topics were being raised for the candidates and have enjoyed reading the robust discussions. I will hang around more when time allows this year and no , I am not up for election next year . I am just interested in what everyone has to say .

Re: RCVS results

Richard Stephenson — Fri, 04 May 2012 08:12:33 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]That should put 24/7 stuff to bed or not.[/quote]

Well that's an interesting perspective. If it were not for the GtPC requirement for provision of 24/7 care Vets Now wouldn't have a business so I guess Mrs Boag will be strongly in favour???

The Vets Now business model relies on members practices paying them a retention fee to take on their OOH obligation. Without that guide requirement its hard to see why any practice would want to pay Vets Now (or any other service provider) to take on an obligation that didn't exist.

All members of Council have to make a full declaration of interests and I'm sure that Vets Now members will do that. As the OOH sector is now a major part of the profession its probably right that their voice should be heard on Council.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: RCVS results

J G Wray — Fri, 04 May 2012 07:26:19 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]We'll never agree on OOH but good luck[/quote]

VetsNow have two Councillors now. That should put 24/7 stuff to bed or not.

Given that RCVS claim that once in these Councillors should have no constituency, I wonder if this also covers Interest. Perhaps these two Councillors should be precluded from any discussion of 24/7 or lab wrok or H&S.... On the other hand, they know the subject and how to run things, so perhaps shaping policy from those who are informed would be best.

So, how has the access to candidates on vetsurgeon.org gone? I note two did not participate, Ms Goldie and Ms Boag did a little, and Messrs Barker and Stephenson quite a lot. Pick the bones out of that.

JGW

Re: RCVS results

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 02 May 2012 12:48:37 GMT

1975 Bristol intake well represented We'll never agree on OOH but good luck

Wynne

Re: RCVS results

Chris Barker — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:41:03 GMT

Many thanks to the many of you who must have supported me. My other half has already suggested that I should archive all my previous postings so that in a year or so we can gauge just how native I have gone... But I know I can rely on JGW to keep me on the straight and narrow, or at least to keep me thinking

Re: RCVS results

James Laidlaw — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:28:02 GMT

"Turnouts for both elections continued to be disappointing, with just 3,625 veterinary surgeons (15.1%) and 743 veterinary nurses (7.5%) choosing to exercise their right to vote.

In 2011, voting figures were 3,887 (15.9%) and 723 (7.6%), respectively, so whilst 20 more VNs voted this year, there was a very slight drop in turnout in real terms."

Re: RCVS results

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 01 May 2012 18:16:57 GMT

Wow. That's some turnout...what, about a thousand or so, all up? (assuming some people voted for varying candidates)