Online defamation

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Sun, 25 May 2014 22:43:07 GMT

[quote user="Birte Toft"]While I appreciate the moral support, I do hope you're not hinting at some sort of strangers on a train deal.[/quote]

Definately not, :-) , the minutae is your problem. But I do hope you get some peace of mind ,sleep and satisfaction , If its not your thing write it off and concentrate on the 99.9% of nice people that come through the door , but take no notice of the letter writing public school boys in ladies undies ,they will achieve nothing worthwhile, prolong the problem so it carries on getting on your nerves , and the other side will get away with it.

Re: Online defamation

J G Wray — Sun, 25 May 2014 22:30:16 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]..... but there we go its that class thing again , private school boys like that sort of thing I gather.

you can have the last word ,you have earned it , good luck with your letters, solicitors etc.

[/quote] ....?

Re: Online defamation

Birte Toft — Sun, 25 May 2014 22:22:56 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

the scenario : someone has been totally foul ,evil and unreasonable after you had done your best and worked really hard . Probably not paid you ,and gone around bad mouthing you and your business with the aid of another MRCVS who wants the business ???

So you can tip tap away to RCVS Solicitors Editors etc ,and good luck with all that or you can remove the frustration and anger from your world and dump it back in theirs.

eg,1. Styrofoaming their exhaust (just one of many examples) will cause 300 worth of damage , most of which is under their excess ,so it costs them. (if they are insured of course ,which some of them will not be).

2, not enough damage for the police to get involved so no forensic examination ,no trail back to you .They will just put it down to a random event.

3. The kind of people we are thinking of here have accumulated lots of enemies over a considerable period of time ,and will have no idea who to point the finger at .

4. The worry and anguish that maybe this is the beginning of a campaign will annoy and bother them and give them lots of sleepless nights worrying about what else might happen in the future ,and they will also spend money bumping up their local security measures or move . They will spend hours mulling through all the people they have upset wishing they had not . Because its pitched at their level it will scare them .

5. Your no longer the bullied victim , you have just transfered the fear and anguish onto the aggressor.

:-)

[/quote]

While I appreciate the moral support, I do hope you're not hinting at some sort of strangers on a train deal.

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Sun, 25 May 2014 22:19:17 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]"I see you shiver with antici......pation!" Frank N Furter - The Rocky Horror Picture Show[/quote]

I would have prefered a very classy and skilful midfield playmaker and No 10 from Sheffield United in the same era ,rather than some effeminate actor in ladies underwear , but there we go its that class thing again , private school boys like that sort of thing I gather.

you can have the last word ,you have earned it , good luck with your letters, solicitors etc.

Re: Online defamation

J G Wray — Sun, 25 May 2014 21:36:46 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

So you can tip tap away to RCVS Solicitors Editors etc ,and good luck with all that or you can remove the frustration and anger from your world and dump it back in theirs.

2, not enough damage for the police to get involved so no forensic examination ,no trail back to you .They will just put it down to a random event.....

5. Your no longer the bullied victim , you have just transfered the fear and anguish onto the aggressor.

:-)

[/quote]

"I see you shiver with antici......pation!" Frank N Furter - The Rocky Horror Picture Show (as protrayed by a Mr Curry)

JGW

PS For younger viewers this is also a blast from the 1970s, a very long time ago

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Sun, 25 May 2014 18:53:55 GMT

So you can tip tap away to RCVS Solicitors Editors etc ,and good luck with all that or you can remove the frustration and anger from your world and dump it back in theirs.

2, not enough damage for the police to get involved so no forensic examination ,no trail back to you .They will just put it down to a random event.

3. The kind of people we are thinking of here have accumulated lots of enemies over a considerable period of time ,and will have no idea who to point the finger at .

5. Your no longer the bullied victim , you have just transfered the fear and anguish onto the aggressor.

:-)

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Sun, 25 May 2014 18:19:39 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]PS That, for our younger viewers, is Clive from Derek and Clive, which is dark comedy from the 70s and not for the faint hearted should you care to look it up[/quote]

It was not that dark , more irony and pathos I thought, as a child , and it was black and white which makes it pre 1970?. The first thing in colour I can remember was Pele and Gordon Banks.

Re: Online defamation

J G Wray — Sun, 25 May 2014 17:49:14 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]First point : Yes, it works for me, [/quote]

To quote Clive: "..Can we have a sensible discussion?.."

JGW

PS That, for our younger viewers, is Clive from Derek and Clive, which is dark comedy from the 70s and not for the faint hearted should you care to look it up.

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Sat, 24 May 2014 15:02:49 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]1.Do you really believe that's clear thinking? 2.You've talked about " middle class professionals", well are there any other sort of "professionals"? And anyway, you're one as well now aren't you, errr, whoever you are? 3.Surely you knew that being a vet would lead to this, irrespective of background? JGW PS 4.You're not a Scot by any chance, are ye?[/quote]

First point : Yes, it works for me,

Second point : Yes there are a few

Third point: No not at all , do not see how that follows ,its possible to work and get along and do well , without turning your self into a stereotype.

Fourth point: No , but interesting that you think so.

Re: Online defamation

Birte Toft — Sat, 24 May 2014 11:52:10 GMT

The slanderous blog post has now been amended. Our name is not mentioned in the main blog post, but it is still there in a comment written by the dog owner. There is no longer a direct accusation of neglect on anyone's part.

We may leave it at that, we may not. We'll speak to our legal advisors again next week.

Lesson learned, though. At least we know where we stand with our competitor.

Re: Online defamation

Bob Russell — Sat, 24 May 2014 11:09:59 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

The other thing you can do to protect yourself is to be extremely wary of whinging 2nd Opinions , I have no problem at all with scanning a History and saying your problem is still a problem because you do not follow instructions ,miss appointments ,argue with the vet , do not pay people , yo-yo therapy,refuse surgery when its advised ,refuse referrals, so to be frank I do not want to do business with you either ,close the door on your way out !!. The odd twat will of course not tell you then have been elsewhere ,but they soon blurt it out when you start poking into the history.

[/quote]

I'm not quite so negative about 'whinging' second opinions. The clients are often just confused and need a bit of time running through the history and a bit of an explanation about what has been done, why and what has been found. If they don't understand many are embarrassed and rather than risk looking foolish prefer to go for a second opinion.

A few are complete tw*ts of course!

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Sat, 24 May 2014 09:42:13 GMT

Re: Online defamation

J G Wray — Fri, 23 May 2014 23:33:43 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"],or you can deal with it in a different way . Simple really . Clients like these get the better of vets because they think they are all mild mannered , weak dull slightly feeble middle class professionals who exist in a behavioural straight jacket . Unfortunately they are largely right . They do not expect you to be able to deal with them in other ways. Some of us never went to private or public school , growing up poor in a council estate gives you a much better insight into how not to let shite get the better of you.

[/quote] Just how many chips are you carrying around, brother? You've mentioned vandalism and made vague references, without prompting, of darker methods of retribution. Do you really believe that's clear thinking? You've talked about " middle class professionals", well are there any other sort of "professionals"? And anyway, you're one as well now aren't you, errr, whoever you are? Surely you knew that being a vet would lead to this, irrespective of background? JGW PS You're not a Scot by any chance, are ye?

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Fri, 23 May 2014 23:26:19 GMT

Sometimes its just down to personalities ,plain and simple , your trying to rationalise and reason with the unreasonable . Its probably just a personal thing . jealousy , I have seen clients refuse to see people and swap practice purely because they took a dislike to a vets appearance personality or accent , add that to a bill ,and plant a seed of suspect competency , mix in a sprinkling of OCD bunny boiler ,and you have a shit storm . Your either going to have to weather it out ,or find someone to blow their car up , but if you do ,make sure your somewhere far and away at the time .

Re: Online defamation

Birte Toft — Fri, 23 May 2014 22:27:25 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]What's your advice again?[/quote]

You can write letters to Solicitors/Editors / RCVS, and good luck with that, ignore it ,or you can deal with it in a different way . Simple really . Clients like these get the better of vets because they think they are all mild mannered , weak dull slightly feeble middle class professionals who exist in a behavioural straight jacket . Unfortunately they are largely right . They do not expect you to be able to deal with them in other ways. Some of us never went to private or public school , growing up poor in a council estate gives you a much better insight into how not to let shite get the better of you.

[/quote]

At this point, the client's spittle-spraying rants have become a minor inconvenience. We are much more concerned with what is increasingly looking like a targeted slander campaign against our practice. I'm baffled as to why.

Re: Online defamation

grumpyoldman — Fri, 23 May 2014 22:08:14 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]What's your advice again?[/quote]

Re: Online defamation

Francisco Gomez — Fri, 23 May 2014 20:46:29 GMT

[quote user="Birte Toft"]

Come to think of it; could an overseas practising member still be disciplined by the RCVS for anything that happens outside the UK?

[/quote]

I would think that YES, THEY CAN. But the extend of the disciplinary action would only get as far as removing this overseas vet from the UK register, it might not stop him/her from working in that particular country. (However I'm sure no overseas RCVS will want that on their CV!)

The RCVS membership is provided by the RCVS. There is the option of keeping your registration and work overseas (for what I believed it is stated that you should follow the rules of the country where you are working).

Another country or organisation cannot remove your membership, it is only the RCVS who can. On the other hand, you don't necessarily need to be a member if you are not working in the UK.

Hope it makes sense.

Re: Online defamation

Birte Toft — Fri, 23 May 2014 20:11:39 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Moral of the tale. Every time anyone pressurises you to give anything other than 1st rate treatment, get them to sign a disclaimer, which not only states that they have deliberately gone against veterinary advice, but which also releases you from any duty of professional confidentiality.

This could then be publicised on social media sites. local newspapers and would solve the problem

Wynne

[/quote]

You'll get no arguments from me there. The maddening thing is that my colleague came very close to demanding this, but didn't in the end.

[quote user="Dagmar Steele"]

...I am appalled by your colleagues though. Even if I'm convinced someone made a thorough mistake I would't take it to the press but talk to them first. Yikes. In Germany we have a line in our professional conduct stating you're not allowed to slag colleagues off. Of course you can tell the truth and report them to the authorities if necessary, but not reporting and giving them bad press instead would go strongly against professional conduct. I don't know about Norway of course...

[/quote]

We have similar guidelines in our code of conduct here. But there seems to be some confusion as to who actually regulates this, i.e. so far, nobody has been able to tell us where to go with our complaint if we decide there is grounds for one.

To sum things up:

A client has accused us of negligence, and the accusation seems to stem from a consultation with a vet.
The vet took on a patient that was supposed to still be under treatment, without attempting to clarify matters with us.
The vet made a statement in a newspaper article which criticised our treatment protocol and grossly misrepresented us.
We were outed by a blogger, who made slanderous accusations against our practice.
The blogger turns out to be working for the vet who also owns the practice in question.

Apparently there's grounds for legal action now, so we'll see what our senior partner says.

Come to think of it; could an overseas practising member still be disciplined by the RCVS for anything that happens outside the UK? (This question may actually be of relevance here, as I am not the only MRCVS involved in this particular case.)

Re: Online defamation

J G Wray — Fri, 23 May 2014 15:41:23 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I suppose the whole thing seems so riddled with problems that the only way I can see it panning out is for things to continue as they are, with some sort of system in place through which only the most determined can get stuff removed from Google (in a process that will no doubt be time-consuming which rather defeats the object of the exercise). But we'll see. [/quote]

The Chinese already have this in hand in respect of Facebook and Google. There's a couple of billion who won't be joining anytime soon.

Re: Online defamation

Bob Russell — Fri, 23 May 2014 15:24:03 GMT

This is not in the UK!

Even here the old Guide to Professional Conduct (which included a guide to acceptable behaviour between colleagues) has been replaced by a code that does no such thing.

It used to be unacceptable to make disparaging comments about a fellow veterinary surgeon, now it does not!

As far as I can tell this dog received correct treatment and it is the new vet that has limited knowledge. Of course all the information is he said, she said but a simple translation of the news article suggests flawed knowledge!

I make a point of never disparaging another vets treatment because I was not there, did not hear the whole history and I get things wrong, make mistakes and can be out of date! This does not stop clients occasionally bending what I say to suggest I have!

Re: Online defamation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 May 2014 15:04:36 GMT

PS to above. At the moment this poor practice is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either tolerate these libellous comments, or issue a vigorous rebuttal, and risk the wrath of Royal College for breaking professional confidentiality.

If they've signed giving you permission to do so, then that no longer applies, and the knowledge that they can be publically challenged may deter them from making unfavourable remarks in the 1st place.

The possible legal/RCVS problems now that things have gone this far is 1 reason why I would at this stage want legal advice.

Wynne

Re: Online defamation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 May 2014 14:58:29 GMT

I type something out which fits the case. Something along the line of , " I (name ) understand that (veterinary surgeon's name and qualifications) has advised X treatment for my animal (name ) I have refused. I understand any responsibility for adverse consequences is mine, and I give permission for ( veterinary sirgeons name ) to disclose this fact to any other parties

Signed and dated

Re: Online defamation

Laurence Webb — Fri, 23 May 2014 14:12:06 GMT

Do you have a form that states this? Also wondering how you designate 1st rate treatment. A range of options may all be appropriate, even if not 1st rate them amy well be adequate. Going against veterinary advice is more likley to be something a disclaimer would cover.

Re: Online defamation

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 23 May 2014 12:37:52 GMT

This could then be publicised on social media sites. local newspapers and would solve the problem

Wynne

Re: Online defamation

Dagmar Steele — Fri, 23 May 2014 09:30:05 GMT

[quote user="Birte Toft"]

Exactly. Our treatment plan, dictated by the owner's insistence on taking the dog home for the night, was for her to continue fluid therapy at home, then return the next day for more fluids and possibly another dose of antiserum. Where the lack of rest comes into it, I don't know. The dog was supposed to be attached to a drip line. The owner even requested a spare iv catheter in case the dog pulled it out (my colleague obviously refused).

[/quote]

It's easy to understand where the owners come from. They wanted the dog at home, maybe to save money, maybe for emotional reasons and have now realized how wrong it was not to take your colleagues advice. If people feel guilty they need a scapegoat, and fast, even better if the opportunity to save some bucks is in there as well. I have gotten used to this over the years: It's never ever the owner's fault, even if you told them so in the first place. So much nicer if you have a sheet of paper signed by them to shove it in their faces.

I am appalled by your colleagues though. Even if I'm convinced someone made a thorough mistake I would't take it to the press but talk to them first. Yikes. In Germany we have a line in our professional conduct stating you're not allowed to slag colleagues off. Of course you can tell the truth and report them to the authorities if necessary, but not reporting and giving them bad press instead would go strongly against professional conduct. I don't know about Norway of course...