More DC news

Re: More DC news

Mark Holmes — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:27:06 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Katja There's a world of a difference between behaving like a normal human being, and committing a criminal offence. Criminals aren't normal...............end of.

Wynne

[/quote] Rubbish Wynne. If your children are starving and you steal them some food you commit a criminal act doing something perfectly normal. You are probably about to type something about hanging them and their children just to make an example but I suspect you have committed criminal acts in your time.

Re: More DC news

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 18:04:30 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Katja There's a world of a difference between behaving like a normal human being, and committing a criminal offence. Criminals aren't normal...............end of.

Wynne

[/quote]

Doing 80mph on a motorway is a criminal offense but is not abnormal human behaviour. Crimes range from acts of desperation to acts of pure evil. What is normal?

I am more interested in justice being done! Slapped wrist for 80mph, a sympathetic hearing for a 'mercy' killing and life containment for a vicious murder.

Justice involves thoroughly examining the facts and making the punishment fit the crime. The PC did not consider the punishment fitted the crime (nor do I!) but the DC was unable or unwilling to study the facts and punished because of a conviction.

Re: More DC news

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:11:01 GMT

Katja There's a world of a difference between behaving like a normal human being, and committing a criminal offence. Criminals aren't normal...............end of.

Wynne

Re: More DC news

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:35:15 GMT

After this drumming by the Privy Council you probably can behave like a normal. sometimes illogical, irrational human being and you may even be allowed to lose your temper on occasions.

I suspect you might even be allowed to delay a visit until you can arrange other cover!

Re: More DC news

katja wagner — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:29:12 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Jonathan I'm not a greyhound, so it's perfectly permissible for you to give me a biscuit.

Seriously, I'm very proud to be a veterinary surgeon, and I become very angry with other veterinary surgeons who behave in a way which diminishes our profession in the eyes of decent members of the public.

Assault comes under this heading.

Wynne

[/quote]

So what about my private life ,away from work? Am I not allowed to swear,make naughty hand sign,tut my car horn if another car driver on the road does something stupid or dangerous? Must I always behave in a cheerfull,professional manner when I come in contact with any members of the public even if they behave like morons? If my dog is on the lead and is attacked or bitten by another dog out of controll do I have to stay polite and give dog and owner a pad on the head? Am I ever allowed to behave like a normal human beeing who can be in a bad mood,doesn't fancy a little chit chat ,drives a bit too quick then necessary aso or do I always have to consider that I am a professional and must in all situations behave like super woman and worry that even in my time off work the RCVS might bite me in the bum?

Katja

Re: More DC news

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:20:59 GMT

Two wrongs can never, under any circumstace make a right. The answer to assaults on veterinary surgeons isn't greater leniency to those (veterinary surgeons or others) who assault. It's a campaign for increasing sentences against all who assault, or for that matter commit any other crime, until we have a totally crime free society..................... wishful thinking as the ruling elite favour criminals over the law abiding.

Wynne

Re: More DC news

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 11:30:55 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Assault comes under this heading

[/quote]

Given your stated ignorance, up until the petition, of assault on veterinary surgeons, how do you feel about the vets who have now told you of their experiences?

JGW

Re: More DC news

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:40:06 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Jonathan I'm not a greyhound, so it's perfectly permissible for you to give me a biscuit.

Assault comes under this heading.

Wynne

[/quote]

Assault ranges from jabbing a finger to half killing someone! If you shove someone you can be charged with assault. Disputes between neighbours can be very draining.

We now have a great neighbour (at work) but his predecessor was a nightmare. He threatened staff and the Police were involved. For the first time in my life it nearly came to blows! That would, presumably get me struck off?

Re: More DC news

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:34:27 GMT

I actually have far more respect for magistrates, who are ordinary law-abiding members of the community, than I have for many judges who (before appointment) have spent a great deal of their careers defending criminals,and who often have more sympathy with the criminals than with the poor innocent victims.

Wynne

Re: More DC news

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:28:40 GMT

The 'victim' received less than £100 compensation for 'injury'. This was a squabble and a spat. Worse things happen between children and there was not even a bloody nose!

The court penalised Dr Samuel for his bad behaviour. Equivalent to a few hundred pounds. The DC wanted to penalise him for (example) £35 000 in lost salary even assuming he was restored after the minimum period.

I believe the original sentence appeared harsh and magistrates are not always the wisest people in the legal system. The DC appear to have failed completely to do their job. They looked at the sentence and decided from that what the penalty should be.

I wonder if the DC should be reviewing who gives the legal advice throughout the process. This whole process has cost us a lot of money.

Re: More DC news

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 09:16:12 GMT

Jonathan I'm not a greyhound, so it's perfectly permissible for you to give me a biscuit.

Assault comes under this heading.

Wynne

Re: More DC news

J G Wray — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:40:37 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Funny indeed. If you calling me names suddenly gives me the right of behaving aggressively [/quote]

Hypothetically, if a vet were involved in a heated incident, a flare-up where no racist slur were involved and they had punched someone "A good one" and deprived them of their property in circumstances justified by claiming the victim of the punch had provoked it despite no injury or harm having come to the pugilist (who felt victimised to begin with-"..As to the “profound effect” on the victim, it wasa nasty occurrence but notone which would be expected to cause a profound effect..."). Does anyone suppose that vet is breathing more easily today, thanking the Heavens that the police didn't arrest them for common assault and theft and that they didn't face Magistrates in Cardiff? At least they will know that they would have a PC ruling that would help them with the RCVS bit that would have followed.

"..In this caseif members of the public were told that the offences occurred in the context of an angryflare-up between neighbours, in which Dr Samuel lost his self control after Ms Jacksonhad refused to delete photographs which she had been taking of him and had insultedhim witha racial epithet, they might well think that this had little bearing on his fitnessto practise as a veterinary surgeon..."

So all they would have to do is satisfy everyone thatcyclo-road-rage also has nothing to do with unfitness to practise. No problem now - phew.

JGW

Re: More DC news

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:02:19 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The DC is not there to dish out additional punishment

[/quote]

but it does, indirectly.

I reckon that a few hours of unpaid work and a record is a lot easier to deal with than register removal. At least for most vets.

[quote]

Funny that.

[/quote]

Funny indeed. If you calling me names suddenly gives me the right of behaving aggressively ... well... don't call me names then.

Re: More DC news

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:09:30 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]You shouldn't have less rights than other people for being a vet surgeon. I think the courts should deal with this issue, not the RCVS.[/quote]

The court did deal with the offences.

The DC is not there to dish out additional punishment, it is there to decide whether the offence renders the person unfit to be on the Register.

BUT: in making its decision the DC always says it "cannot go behind the decision of the court." I remember a case, before some of you were born, where they insisted on this even though the court in question was a sort of Social Services kangaroo court. Without commenting on the Dr. Samuel case in particular, I say that the DC could and should occasionally "go behind the decision of the court".

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Equally in society the racist and foreign card are overused. You shouldn't have a stronger defence because someone call you names.[/quote]

Funny that. You certainly have a weaker defence and you face a greater penalty if you call someone else names as long as they are "racist" names. Beating someone up is a more serious offence in law if you are thought to have done it even partly for "racist" reasons – I have no idea why.

Re: More DC news

J G Wray — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:03:55 GMT

I was quite taken by the reference of the Law Lords to criminologists and their views. Now as I recall Criminology. The scientific study of the causation, correction, and prevention of crime. As a subdivision of the larger field of sociology,

Oh dear, an "ology" derived from "sociology" in the same sentence as the words "scientific study". That should get some contributors to this list going.

JGW

Re: More DC news

J G Wray — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:57:42 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

i've read the Privy Council findings. ..

Quite honestly, I'm with DC on this one

[/quote]

You really take the biscuit

did you read the concluding bits from the Board

".. In all the circumstances, it is hard to conceive that the court would have considered that the offences truly passed the custodial threshold for a person of good character, if it had not had the power to suspend the sentence. The Board is therefore not greatly influenced in its assessment of the gravity of the case by the fact that the magistrates imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

Page

34.

Dr Samuel’s conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, but the Board does not consider that its gravity was such that it would be in the interests of the public now to remit the case to the Committee.

35.

As to the other points on which Dr Samuel disputed the accounts of Ms Jackson and Mr Harvey, the Committee was entitled to form the view that these did not materially affect the overall question of Dr Samuel’s fitness to practise, but it is unnecessary to discuss those matters in further detail in the light of the conclusion to which the Board has come. For the reasons given, the appeal against the finding ofunfitness to practise is allowed and the determination quashed. The Board adds that if it had upheld that decision, it would have concluded that the sanction of removing his name from the register was disproportionately severe..""

In other words the Magistrates went too far, the interests of the public are not served by a DC hearing i.e. it shouldn't have gone to DC and even if they were sacking him from the Register was too severe.Three Law Lords came to this conclusion in an Appeal argued by two QC. How much more emphatic a rejection of how DC conducted their business on this day could you possibly need? How can you possibly be "with the DC" in this display of costly ineptitude, funded in part by you remember?

JGW

Re: More DC news

Richard Carter — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:41:27 GMT

Nobody minds a fair trial but there have been one too many occasions where the feeling from the sidelines has been of a DC lynch mob laying into someone who can't fight back and then 'padding' the reasons for their decision (thinking blankets and biscuits here)

Then the decision goes to appeal, then it loses. So who is accountable now for the costs of the original DC hearing and then the overturned appeal - anyone on DC going to pay it back to the members out of their own pocket for coming to a decision that couldn't stand up? We (as the members of the RCVS) do apparently employ fully trained legal advisers to guide us.

Re: More DC news

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:40:21 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Quite honestly, I'm with DC on this one

[/quote]

I'm not. Because I don't agree with the form, nothing to do with the content.

I haven't read the whole thing but enough to understand that facing a piece of wood with a nail on it and having threatening words used against you is not a pleasant situation for anybody to be in. I consider Dr. Samuel behaviour to be very serious. Regardless of words of racism against him.

But I take Dr. Samuel hadn't been plotting a terrorist attack on London Bridge, he hadn't committed mass murder and he's not planning to associate with the Taliban.

He had a rant with the neighbor didn't he?

Whether he's guilty or not of this case,

You shouldn't have less rights than other people for being a vet surgeon. I think the courts should deal with this issue, not the RCVS.

Equally in society the racist and foreign card are overused. You shouldn't have a stronger defence because someone call you names.

- Remember, it is the bl**dy foreigner the guy writing this post -

Re: More DC news

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:15:36 GMT

I've read the Privy Council findings. There's 2 things I find bewildering.

Firstly, the magistrates ( who had been presented with all the original evidence ) must have considered the offence serious, else they wouldn't have imposed 140 hours community service.

Secondly, the neighbours say Dr Samuel's builders trespassed in their garden. He says they didn't. If they didn't, I can't see why the objection to the photograph.

Quite honestly, I'm with DC on this one

Wynne

Re: More DC news

Bob Russell — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:01:37 GMT

Something tells me that a certain Mr Chikosi might have found a similarly sympathetic ear had he chosen to appeal to the Privy Council!

Re: More DC news

Bob Russell — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:46:34 GMT

I struggle to be sympathetic towards anyone that chooses to describe a neighbour as a 'black bas*ard' so my sympathies are with Dr Samuel even more than they were before. What on earth was the magistrate thinking about when the case came to court?

Having read the Privy Council findings I feel ashamed that the DC could have been so short sighted and feeble! Clearly nobody has come out of this well except the Privy Council!

Interestingly:

"27. Ms Foster accepted that the way in which the Committee expressed itself could

have been improved, but she submitted that the proper way of reading its decision was

that in approaching the question of his fitness to practise the Committee accepted that

he was provoked by racial abuse in the way that he described. "

I seem to remember another case where the committee could have improved the way it expressed things - something about a blanket springs to mind.

Re: More DC news

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:38:44 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I don't see it prominently announced yet[/quote]

Crikey - hang on. It was only announced 4.5 seconds ago!

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2014/04/16/112823.aspx

[/quote]

I wasn't commenting upon the speed of announcement, merely drawing it to people's attention. (I'm told it was on "Twitter" (so very aptly named) on Monday.)

Re: More DC news

Stephen Courtney — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 17:34:38 GMT

It seems to me that if you fall foul of the DC and they decide you have been naughty, they WILL strike you off because they CAN, so THERE.

They seem to like to exercise their muscles while tirelessly protecting the public and their pets from the Membership.

Perhaps the cause is their limited box of options to punish us. If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Re: More DC news

J G Wray — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:48:58 GMT

[Sigh] anyone remember this as well?

[quote user="Emma Cooper"]

I was astounded to recieve the RCVS charge list last week relating to Gary Samuel's case - relating to a biscuit left a near greyhound called "Strangely Black" prior to a race. As a GBGB vet, Dr Samuel was apparently responsible for either causing or "failing to prevent" the presence of "said biscuit" near the dog. I couldn't stop laughing reading about the placement of "said biscuit".

I haven't seen the decision process behing this case - so am ignorant of the ins and outs - but it seems there's no way of proving Dr Samuel's guilt...

www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/disciplinary-committee-dismisses-case-against-notts-vet/

It certainly takes the biscuit - especially when you work out that (potentially) the RCVS has just spent £30k plus deliberating about a biscuit.

And it can't have been a very tasty one anyway....

[/quote]

How has the RCVS come out of all this?

JGW

Re: More DC news

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:40:44 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]I don't see it prominently announced yet[/quote]

Crikey - hang on. It was only announced 4.5 seconds ago!

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/blogs/veterinary_news/archive/2014/04/16/112823.aspx