24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

J G Wray — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:30:00 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]But Are you right in the form? Not taking part only means that a) we don't care or b) we don't thing that the problem exists. Although these processes are far from democratic, democracy itself is far from perfect. I don't recall any democratic government that had changed because the voters themselves decided against engaging in the process (I mean, except in cases of violence or protest). So unless you propose a better alternative, what it is offered is the best we've got. I've read somewhere long time ago: don't go complaint to your boss unless you're prepared to offer a solution.[/quote]

Good point, well made.

[/quote]

I do have an alternative and that is supporting the CEO and ( most of) what he is doing.

JGW

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:44:28 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Richard is a lone voice and, I wager, regarded as a maverick rebel with weird ignorable views by many Council members within the RC.

[/quote]

I thought that was Bob Partridge?

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Anthony Todd — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:37:12 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Until we start to vote more independent thinking candidates onto the committee the profession will continue to get the standard of governance it does at present.[/quote]

+1 but I'm not sure about "independent" . We need candidates who have "been there and done that", with common veterinary sense and who are prepared to state their views and support them with argument.

The denial of the validity, nay, even the existence, of forums like this is such an easy way to manage the status quo or whatever barrow the RC is pushing.

Look at the mess they got into with the new database and everyone hear was shouting about it.

By conveniently ignoring the forums the RC is able to manipulate opinion, and their position of a head stuck deeply in the sand, by blithely saying " we are not aware of any disquiet over Chikosi", for example, and who's able, or game,, within the RC, to argue.

Richard is a lone voice and, I wager, regarded as a maverick rebel with weird ignorable views by many Council members within the RC.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:26:48 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Until we start to vote more independent thinking candidates onto the committee the profession will continue to get the standard of governance it does at present.

[/quote]

The catch 22 of course, is what happened last year - so many candidates registered, that the protest vote was hopelessly split, and nobody failed to win reelection.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Bob Russell — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:04:12 GMT

I am not kidding myself. I doubt that any notice will be taken of our views and little will change.

I have to admit I don't understand the reasoning behind the comments apparently made by the lay observers. All practices I know provide or subcontract out OOH cover so patients can access 24/7 treatment. The OOH centres cope 99.9% of the time as far as I can see.

People will get the level of cover they are willing or able to pay for.

Is this an anti-VetsNow (or other OOH centre?) driven process?

I am not sure what the lay members are expecting to change.

There has not been any acceptance by the RCVS that the DC ended up looking total twits following Chikosi. Little wisdom, little common sense, scratching for reasons to strike off.

Until we start to vote more independent thinking candidates onto the committee the profession will continue to get the standard of governance it does at present.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Bob Russell — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:32:11 GMT

Good to see you back!

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 09:14:57 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]I agree with most of what you say but Richard started his request saying the RCVS did not think there was even a problem. They were not even aware of the Chikosi furore. Not taking part allows them to maintain this illusion[/quote]

Mark just to clarify, I think it was Chris Barker's request you're referring to. And I don't think it is accurate to say that the RCVS was not aware of the Chikois furore. That was not my impression, speaking to various people there. What Chris DID say, is that the RCVS, or some elements within it, believed that the disquiet was 'limited' because it was largely voiced by a relatively small number of MsRCVS online on sites like this one.

My own feeling is that this was a flawed analysis by the RCVS.

Why?

Firstly, only a small number of people can EVER be arsed to complain about anything (still fewer to congratulate on a job well done, but that's another story).
Secondly, the Internet has fundamentally changed the way the proletariat communicates with the powers that be. When, in the past, people complained, they did so without knowing whether others had done so too. That made it even more important to complain (after all, someone must, and as far as you would have known, perhaps noone had). Now you can see online that lots of people are voicing their concerns and talking about complaining. So why should you bother? I mean, you can see enough people have already complained. What difference will your voice make?

In simple terms, I'd imagine that this would lead to less people complaining directly, and more grumbling in forums, or just reading the grumbling in forums (and dropping it there, because they no longer feel they are on their own).

The RCVS is right, it is a relatively small number of members that post in forums, particularly on political issues. However, to dismiss them as unrepresentative without evidence is, I think, dangerous. Particularly bearing in mind the increase in clicks and page views I saw on VetSurgeon.org. They were proof that, at the very least, the case was of 'interest' to most in the profession. Now, were the visitors and clickers just 'interested' or 'concerned'?

Good point, well made.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

J G Wray — Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:36:35 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Some of us (me for one ) took the trouble to reply, and stated that I thought a further dilution in the necessity for practices to make arrangements for 24/7 cover, or to remove the requirement to make home visits when clinically necessary would have a deleterious effect on animal welfare. I expect Royal College to give as much weight to our opinion as to that of the "Whining Willies, and Moaning Millies."[/quote]

Well, this is very noble of you, but your expectations may not be matched by RCVS behaviour. I've already pointed out that, to use your turn of phrase "Whining Willies, and Moaning Millies" from the public will have the same and more opportunities to influence this process. Are you confortable with that, especially given that you are paying? Furthermore, the Select Committee element, a new and expensive undertaking, is not going to be allowed to pass without a substantial effect. Then there's the time and personal agenda influence all acting on your contribution even before it gets rubbished by those on Council who revile any input from RFPs as the ravings of a vocal minority and by the way they don't make distinctions in pov there so as not to appear biased, .

JGW

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 17:35:14 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]Stand for council[/quote]

Would any poster, however sensible, rational and with umpteen 5 star posts,on any forum here, ever get elected?

The vast majority of members of any group in any walk of life, just moan and do nothing.

[/quote]

Sensible and rational, us?

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:04:13 GMT

Some of us (me for one ) took the trouble to reply, and stated that I thought a further dilution in the necessity for practices to make arrangements for 24/7 cover, or to remove the requirement to make home visits when clinically necessary would have a deleterious effect on animal welfare. I expect Royal College to give as much weight to our opinion as to that of the "Whining Willies, and Moaning Millies."

Wynne

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

J G Wray — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 15:54:29 GMT

Ah well, it just depends who you choose to believe. If you recall, the shortly to be highly influential Chair of Standards wrote in her covering letter to the enticement to contribute as follows:

"..Over the past two years, lay people1 working with the RCVS have raised questions about the veterinary profession’s ability to provide 24/7 to the extent required by the Code, and said there is a disconnect between the public’s expectations and the profession’s capacity to meet those
expectations. In addition, in June 2013, an RCVS Disciplinary Committee Inquiry raised a number of issues on home visits by veterinary surgeons (see attached background document and annexes).

Why we’d like to hear from you
Whether you are a veterinary professional, or a member of the animal-owning public, we are keen to hear about your experiences of, and views on, the veterinary provision of 24/7 (particularly out of hours) to help us understand how best to meet the expectations of all involved. We will also include
questions on 24/7 in the RCVS Survey of the Professions 2014 and listen to the views of animal owners through focus group research.."

SO according to Mr S RCVS have been ignorant of 24/7 concerns and according to Mrs T-W concerns have been raised for at least two years. It's really quite difficult to know who and what to believe coming from RCVS.

As for the 24/7 consultation process, well as you can see from this excerpt, vets will not be given the same opportunities to contribute as Members of the Public. You will recall how limited the format of the RCVS Survey of the Professions are, certainly compared with the other methods of research we will be paying for and all for what?

JGW

PS One of the things I'd also quite like to know would be the cost of this medicine when a decision is finally made in Council c2015 or even 2016. RCVS are great at spending RFP's cash without their agreement.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

David Mills — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 14:19:50 GMT

Who'd have thought JGW would ride in on his trusty steed as the Russell Brand of the disaffected veterinary masses?

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Anthony Todd — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 13:13:36 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]Stand for council[/quote]

Would any poster, however sensible, rational and with umpteen 5 star posts,on any forum here, ever get elected?

The vast majority of members of any group in any walk of life, just moan and do nothing.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Neil Wheadon — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:39:59 GMT

Decrease the dilution - Stand for council There's your strap line for election Welcome back Neil

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Mark Holmes — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:27:13 GMT

I agree with most of what you say but Richard started his request saying the RCVS did not think there was even a problem. They were not even aware of the Chikosi furore. Not taking part allows them to maintain this illusion

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:31:20 GMT

Nice post Jonathan. And I admit: you aren't wrong in the content. But Are you right in the form? Not taking part only means that a) we don't care or b) we don't thing that the problem exists. Although these processes are far from democratic, democracy itself is far from perfect. I don't recall any democratic government that had changed because the voters themselves decided against engaging in the process (I mean, except in cases of violence or protest). So unless you propose a better alternative, what it is offered is the best we've got. I've read somewhere long time ago: don't go complaint to your boss unless you're prepared to offer a solution.

Re: 24/7 consultation - what it takes to believe

Michael Woodhouse — Sun, 12 Jan 2014 00:15:48 GMT

JGW - good to see you back.

I'm quite happy with things as they are so a lot of inactivity from RCVS suits me just fine.

Happy New Year