Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Bob Russell — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:25:44 GMT

Nice idea but I would be struggling to understand Mr Wray much of the time and in awe of Mr Ness's clinical expertise! A jibbering, unconfident wreck in a week!

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:46:29 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"] C Wray, B Russell, and M Ness, for a start, would wreak a seismic shift in the RCVS thinking.[/quote]

ahhh.... but they're all 'grey men' (no offence intended) so couldn't possibly effect any change!

(Hence my hatred of the 'vote for her cos she's a woman' idea!!!)

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Anthony Todd — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:44:06 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Is this the new way to get action from the college [/quote]

The solution is so obvious.

A few vetsurgeon.org members on Council.

J C Wray, B Russell, and M Ness, for a start, would wreak a seismic shift in the RCVS thinking.

vetsurgeon.org peer reviews the peers, way before they become peerless and ruthlessly, don't I know!

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Bob Russell — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:15:27 GMT

I am not sure it is at all easy to get any messages through to the Royal College. Harping back to gold silver and bronze for example. Who came up with this idea? Who consulted PSS and non-PSS practices/

It may be that a consultation paper was submitted to PSS practices but if so did nobody think it worth contacting those non-PSS to see if it might encourage them to join? An email costs nothing!

I would not be happy to present a bronze 'award' as I consider it sends out signals of mediocre!

Without VetSurgeon would the bulk of the profession even know about Chikosi and the blanket? Is this the new way to get action from the college or do we need a petition about everything that has a major impact on the profession? Imagine the pressure on RCVS, BVA and BSAVA if the rather ludicrous Competition Commision farce happened today! Cascade would exist but in a much more logical and measured way IMO. Most of us were in blissful ignorance until it was a fait accomplis.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:41:52 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]You're making the mistake of believing your utterly decent and reasonable ideas have any currency or interest at RCVS.[/quote]

Now THAT I agree with!

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

J G Wray — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:21:37 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]cc.[/quote]

Uncle Tom Cobley and all...I tried that a few years ago, when Mrs Nute announced the profession had a widespread drugs problem.

No answer.

No point in repeating something err pointless.

You're making the mistake of believing your utterly decent and reasonable ideas have any currency or interest at RCVS.

JGW

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Malcolm Ness — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:17:57 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]cc. Nick Stace, Chris Barker, Robert Mugabe, Amanda Boag, Barack Obama, David Catlow, Kim Basinger, Niall Connell, Peter Sutcliffe, Sheila Crispin, Tony Blair, Jerry Davies, Gordon Ramsay, Mark Elliott, Lewis Hamilton, Chris Gray, Andy Murray, Lynne Hill, The Pope, Peter Jinman, Barry Johnson, Bill Gates, Stephen May, Brian May, Jacqui Molyneux, Robert Moore, Dudley Moore, Christine Shield, Neil Smith, his brother Will, Richard Stephenson, Robert Louis Stevenson, Christopher Sturgess, Clare Tapsfield-Wright, Chris Tufnell, Phil Tufnell, Bradley Viner, Thomas Witte. [/quote]

Remember that daft game played at school when someone said a word and you had to say the first word that came into your mind believing that it gave some insight into the psyche?

Isn"t Arlo's head a strange and interesting place?

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:07:10 GMT

.... no offence, David.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:02:50 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Did you really think about Kim Basinger straight after David Catlow?... [/quote]

Yes, I needed to.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:47:24 GMT

Did you really think about Kim Basinger straight after David Catlow?...

A petition, isn't it simpler to just do what Jo did? Start a petition, if it has got enough people behind it, it must be considered by those at the top. If a petition fail to make them change things, vote differently next elections.

I'm afraid other alternative routes will open too many doors for unhealthy lobbying.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:03:45 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Who would you send it to?[/quote]

cc. Nick Stace, Chris Barker, Robert Mugabe, Amanda Boag, Barack Obama, David Catlow, Kim Basinger, Niall Connell, Peter Sutcliffe, Sheila Crispin, Tony Blair, Jerry Davies, Gordon Ramsay, Mark Elliott, Lewis Hamilton, Chris Gray, Andy Murray, Lynne Hill, The Pope, Peter Jinman, Barry Johnson, Bill Gates, Stephen May, Brian May, Jacqui Molyneux, Robert Moore, Dudley Moore, Christine Shield, Neil Smith, his brother Will, Richard Stephenson, Robert Louis Stevenson, Christopher Sturgess, Clare Tapsfield-Wright, Chris Tufnell, Phil Tufnell, Bradley Viner, Thomas Witte.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

J G Wray — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:25:53 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]What could possibly be wrong with that?[/quote]

Nothing. Shall we start a petition for it

[/quote]

Who would you send it to?. I'm not sure the fella who ran the Gold, Silver, Bronze survey thingy at this link

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/TN8R9NL

knew what to do with it afterwards.

Do you see any irony in RCVS' efforts to get more candidates to stand with the inevitable broadening of discussion and yet they've no method of increasing engagement? Ms Boag's efforts to get more women especially in the mix has borne fruit, but they're being recruited to an unreconstructed edifice. In some respects their options to exercise their motives for standing once in RCVS are reduced, with the hardening of attitudes in respect of their Councillor code, redaction of minutes, compartmentalisation of roles and new understanding of what is possible in terms of justifying definitions of openness and transparency? There's a possibility that the RCVS will trumpet the increased numbers of candidates and possibly even larger numbers of voters, but to what end? It may just be tokenism and self justification.

They sure don't like to offer up trust to RFPs, yet demand it in return, as a matter of right. The moral compass at RCVS is pointing somewhere unhealthy if they say one thing and demonstrate another, in my view..................which as I've pointed out before is worth the square root of **** all.

JGW

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 15:56:11 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Fair enough, but who would receive this and what process would it go through subsequently?[/quote]

Not for me to say, but ...

[quote user="J G Wray"]I would like to see an opportunity to petition advocates at RCVS through a RCVS run system , where an idea that has merit or support receives advocacy in Committee as the quid pro quo[/quote]

that's what I kind of had in mind.

[quote user="J G Wray"]What could possibly be wrong with that?[/quote]

Nothing. Shall we start a petition for it?

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

J G Wray — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 14:37:43 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What I mean is that it costs money for the RCVS to consider ideas, so there has to be a way of filtering them, surely. [/quote]

Well, there's a mighty effective filter in operation at the moment.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I mean you don't want the Council to have to sit down and consider the suggestion that all animals must be fed RMB and treated with homeopathy alone (I guarantee you someone would propose that)[/quote]

I was thinking more of Committee time, rather as it is now, having first persuaded an advocate or ambassador of the merits of the case. That's a filter by the way. Rejection after failure to persuade or consideration in Committee would be rejection, but that's democracy and it's a shed load more recognition than that available now. At the mo' personal agendas drive new ideas. Where do you think the Gold/Silver/Bronze thingy came from?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]So to me, the fairest way of dealing with suggestions would seem to me to be signature/vote/petition based. Only those that get significant, measurable support from others in the profession are put forward.[/quote]

No objection to that from me, but there's the small matter of the Associations. As you may know SPVS and onwards to RCVS (Molyneux) or BVA and on to RCVS (Jinman, Catlow) or BSAVA and on to RCVS (Thompson) is a well recognised route to High Office. The relationship's a cosy one. Mr Catlow for instance referred to this

[quote user="David Catlow"]There was considerable mood within a significant number of Council Members at RCVS at time of Defra Select Committee review of new VSA a few years ago who would have sought to include this within a new VSA at the time. I'm not aware where or if that was published. Just within my personal knowledge at the time[/quote]

This was 2008 before Mr Catlow was at RCVS, but he was in BVA. How could he know what a significant number of Councillors at RCVS were thinking? He sure didn't share it until this election campaign. Incidentally, Mr Barker was there at EFRACOM so we could always check with him

My point is, that entrenched relationships would be threatened by petitioning. BVA, SPVS, BSAVA would say they represents thousands more than any petitioner and their point of view, their concept, their idea should take precendence. This may yet happen in the 24/7 consult where BVA and BSAVA responses are anodyne to the point of being soporific.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That [SGM] probably belongs to an era when one had to get into a horse-drawn carriage with the petition document and collect signatures in person. [/quote]

Nope 1966, Beatles, Vietnam War, Syrian military coup under Hafiz al-Assad (there's a legacy to this day there), Tom Jones wins a Grammy (theres a legacy to this day there as well) etc.

The principle of having access to a SGM was to act as a check in extremis and should I believe only be used in extremis The fact it was put there by those drafting the Act and Charter of the time recognises that there should be a Member driven oppportunity to pull up Council. The number 50 should stay. It shouldn't need to be resorted to, because reason and an alternative system should be put in place.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]and replace with this online suggestion system, which needs more votes for a suggestion to be 'carried'[/quote]

Fair enough, but who would receive this and what process would it go through subsequently? I would like to see an opportunity to petition advocates at RCVS through a RCVS run system , where an idea that has merit or support receives advocacy in Committee as the quid pro quo

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:15:41 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Did Mrs Dyer approach RCVS last year with her concerns, pre petition?[/quote]

I don't know.

[quote user="J G Wray"]If she did then what happened?[/quote]

Hopefully, nothing!

No disrespect to Jo. What I mean is that it costs money for the RCVS to consider ideas, so there has to be a way of filtering them, surely.

I mean you don't want the Council to have to sit down and consider the suggestion that all animals must be fed RMB and treated with homeopathy alone (I guarantee you someone would propose that).

So to me, the fairest way of dealing with suggestions would seem to me to be signature/vote/petition based. Only those that get significant, measurable support from others in the profession are put forward.

[quote user="J G Wray"]this is mighty cumbersome[/quote]

Naah. Very straightforward.

[quote user="J G Wray"]only 50 signatories are required for a SGM[/quote]

That probably belongs to an era when one had to get into a horse-drawn carriage with the petition document and collect signatures in person.

Given the ease with which far greater numbers of signatures can be solicited these days, and the more democratic that makes things, I'd remove the 50 vote SGM thing and replace with this online suggestion system, which needs more votes for a suggestion to be 'carried'.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

J G Wray — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 12:09:12 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Not sure I agree.

Jo Dyer had an idea.

We all know that her idea has been received by everyone at the RCVS who needed to receive it, and probably a few more besides.

[/quote]

Did Mrs Dyer approach RCVS last year with her concerns, pre petition? If she did then what happened?

As far as petitions go, this is mighty cumbersome when only 50 signatories are required for a SGM. Furthermore, her petition has been slotted into a cyclical pre existing consultation. That is a mighty and expensive undertaking for RCVS. What scope should there be for ideas which are more low key and crop up, not according to RCVS timetables and need a light hand to handle not the crushing blow of a SGM Motion to Council?

Then there's the point made time and again by Mr Catlow for instance, that Council really rubber stamps Committee work. How do you approach Committees with ideas with any likelihood of adoption in their timetables, inclusion for their consideration?

No system exists for adoption of ideas or concerns. In Parliament a system where voters elect representatives, MPs can be persuaded to adopt stuff. No such system has, up to now existed at RCVS. Would it be beyond the wit and willingness of those soliciting votes to adopt ideas and see them through the Committee system? This wouldn't be representation as such, which is apparently not what Councillors are there for, because these are concepts, ideas and concerns, not interest groups or individuals.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:01:14 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"][JGW] No further offer of systematic consideration was/is available.

I had been hoping for this, even if the idea is shite.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]How refreshing to see a constructive post that actually suggests something useful, rather than the more normal constant stream of dissection and criticism [/quote]

Mr G, when interacting with RCVS, if you can find a way and get a response you receive little from them. Ideas (shite or meritorious) don't even get a consideration, because there is no system for receiving them.[/quote]

Not sure I agree.

Jo Dyer had an idea.

We all know that her idea has been received by everyone at the RCVS who needed to receive it, and probably a few more besides. We know that her idea has been considered, both because she reported so herself after being invited to present her idea to the committee and because Clare Tapsfield-Wright told us so.

Now I grant you that this was an unprecedented step by Jo, but I think that's kind of the point. It sets a precedent. Clearly ideas do get heard if they are shouted about loudly enough, by enough people.

My view is that there is something slightly combative in the very nature of a petition. You're fighting for something. I think it would be good if, rather than waiting for the next spontaneous petition, the RCVS implemented a system not unlike the Govt e-petition initiative which means something has to be considered if it achieves a certain number of votes in a given time frame.

I wouldn't call it a e-petition. I'd call it something which sounds and is more collaborative in nature. "Suggestions for the College - get over 1000 signatures behind your suggestion, and it will be considered by the RCVS Council".

Obviously the number of signatures and timeframe can be set at a level to keep things manageable.

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

J G Wray — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 21:44:43 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]but the requirement has surely got to be a little bit more than just failing to die![/quote]

I agree. What I put to RCVS was back of a fag packet stuff, no detail, no explanation. Why waste energy with any more?

JGW

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Malcolm Ness — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:04:30 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]It's a stupid idea to have a measure of how much anyone has contributed in general practice [/quote]

I don't think it is, but the requirement has surely got to be a little bit more than just failing to die!

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

J G Wray — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:17:07 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]One of the greatest misconceptions is that age brings wisdom.[/quote]

I like Mark Twain on this subject

"..When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

It's a stupid idea to have a measure of how much anyone has contributed in general practice to animal welfare, their clients or the good standing of the profession, or to put it another way cliincal resolution, client satisfaction, financial resolution and team ethic. I think that should be left to elitists, specialists and good ol' boys.

JGW

Re: Personal Standards Scheme (PeStS)

Malcolm Ness — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 13:41:04 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Bronze 10 years experience as GP, Silver 20years, Gold 30 years[/quote]

One of the greatest misconceptions is that age brings wisdom. Stupid people get old too.

The other is that democracy is a good way to make decisions - it is merely accepted as being the least unfair way.