Latest striking off

Re: Latest striking off

J G Wray — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:40:51 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]No easy answer to the 'right to be forgotten', except for people to be more careful about how they behave in public. Is that necessarily or altogether a bad thing? Not sure.[/quote]

This from https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/Pages/convictions.aspx

"..

Help and advice for ex-offenders

Disclosing convictions

It's important to know what information is stored on you and how having convictions can affect your search for work. Here are answers to some of the questions you might have.

What is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act?

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 outlaws discrimination against ex-offenders and was amended by Section 139 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which came into force on 10th March 2014. It is intended to help people with few and/or minor convictions. People with many or serious convictions will probably not benefit from the Act because their rehabilitation period will usually be longer.

How long is it before convictions are spent?

Certain criminal convictions are 'spent' or forgotten, after a rehabilitation period. This period varies according to the offence.

There are two types of rehabilitation period:

sentences with a buffer period – start from the date of conviction and are made up of the original sentence, plus an additional buffer period
sentences with no buffer period – start from the date of conviction.

Buffer periods for people aged over 18 when convicted, from the end of the sentence, including licence period are:

community orders – one year
prison sentence of six months or less – two years
prison sentence of over six months up to and including 30 months – four years
prison sentence of over 30 months and up to 48 months – seven years
prison sentence of over 48 months or a public protection sentence – never ‘spent’.

Some buffer periods are halved if you were under 18 when convicted.

Visit the Nacro website for more information about the length of rehabilitation periods and examples of ‘spent’ periods for custodial and community sentences..."

amd

"..

Do I need to tell an employer about spent convictions?

You don't need to disclose spent convictions when applying for most jobs. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 it's unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the grounds of a spent conviction. However, some types of jobs are exempt from this Act – this means you have to disclose spent convictions as well as unspent ones. These jobs include:

working with children and vulnerable adults, such as elderly and disabled people
senior roles in banking and the financial services industry
certain posts connected to law enforcement, including the judiciary and the police
work involving national security
certain posts in the prison service
certain professions in areas such as health, pharmacy and the law
private security work...."

I see nothing about being a vet here. We are not, in the definition of the government, a healthcare industry, hence our RCVS' sponsoring Ministry is Defra -like it or not.

Re: Latest striking off

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 18:17:04 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

I queried this when I was renewing my registration and noticed that vets don't have to declare criminal prosecutions but vet nurses do. The answer was that vets have declared their righteousness when they take their oath (so we are supposed to assume that this is for life) but nurses don't. Sounds a bit unbalanced to me.

[/quote]

I thought vets didn't have to declare criminal convictions as the RCVS would be informed by the courts of any conviction?

Re: Latest striking off

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:24:49 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]what I was trying to raise as a concern is the possibility that someone could make a very stupid decision at a very young age and there be long term consequences. How many vet students have engaged in a spot of 'streaking' for instance at a party where the alcohol is flowing??[/quote]

Dear Richard,

That is a very valid concern and one to which the RCVS has given considerable thought.

The process is thus:-

When a member discloses a conviction (and in the case of a new member this would include any offences committed whilst at University or disciplinary offences within the University) the matter is first 'screened' by the Registrar. He determines if the offence has any potential to bring fitness to practice into doubt. He will take into account factors such as how long ago it was, how seriously did the courts rate it, has there been a recurrent problem, did it involve cruelty or abuse of animals etc etc.

If the Registrar is concerned he will then forward the conviction to the independent PIC to investigate. The PIC is composed of six vets and three lay people either independently appointed (or for the next transitional12 months only elected by Council). The PIC will then give the Vet concerned an opportunity to give an explanation of what occurred and to comment upon the conviction. In many cases the PIC will decide that no further action is necessary - but for more serious matters especially any involving abuse of animals, dishonesty or violence the PIC may decide that a full hearing by the independent disciplinary committee is necessary.

Thus it is a fairly lengthy process with many safe guards in place including two completely separate and independent bodies before anyone is 'struck off' or otherwise 'disciplined'. In terms of convictions the main objective is always the protection of the public, the good name of the profession & animals and NEVER to punish an individual a second time - although removal from the register will inevitably be punitive that is NOT its primary role.

I think that the process concerning convictions is very thorough, fair and serves to ensure that only serious matters end in a disciplinary sanction.

Yours,

Richard S.

Re: Latest striking off

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:00:22 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]what I was trying to raise as a concern is the possibility that someone could make a very stupid decision at a very young age and there be long term consequences.[/quote]

I didn't think that was really clear from your earlier posts, which seemed to me to be arguing that the penalty was excessive, that it should have been treated as a mental health case, and that the person has been strung up.

For me (a layman), it seems fairly clear cut. The Code says:

6.5 Veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.

It would seem pretty obvious to me that engaging in sexual activity with an animal fulfils that criteria in this country. Should a vet be struck off for it? Unquestionably, to my mind.

You seem to be making the point now that it would be unfair to lose your career for something idiotic done at a young age.

That raises two issues:

1. I don't think the public would think it was right for someone who had engaged in sexual activity with a horse and a dog, not to mention the stuff involving a sheep and the pornographic materials, should ever be a vet, regardless of what age they were when they did it. And there is a HUGE difference between streaking at a party whilst a bit pissed, and shagging a horse.

2. Whatever the European Court says, we have collectively renounced our right to be forgotten. Reports of this man's behaviour will be easily accessible online ad infinitum. It's not like the olden days when you could rebuild a new life, reasonably safe in the knowledge that it was unlikely that someone would go into the library archives, trawl through the old editions and find reference to your conviction.

That ease of access to information also means that the badge of 'bringing the profession into disrepute' stays ad infinitum, too.

No easy answer to the 'right to be forgotten', except for people to be more careful about how they behave in public. Is that necessarily or altogether a bad thing? Not sure.

Re: Latest striking off

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:03:35 GMT

Richard (Carter) Can you not see that the vast majority of the general public would be horrified and disgusted if this man was allowed to continue in our profession?

Wynne

Re: Latest striking off

Richard Carter — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:58:12 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

Hope that clears up a few points.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson

[/quote] Thank you for the detailed reply - what I was trying to raise as a concern is the possibility that someone could make a very stupid decision at a very young age and there be long term consequences. How many vet students have engaged in a spot of 'streaking' for instance at a party where the alcohol is flowing?? All it needs is a camera and Facebook to be recorded for posterity.

Old joke - grandson asks granddad why he he has a certain nickname - granddad replies 'See that school over there? Do they call me Sam the school builder? See the church over there? Do the call me Sam the church builder? But one sheep.....'

Re: Latest striking off

J G Wray — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 09:52:12 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I think our late (and unlamented) Regisrar. She really was an arrogant so-and-so.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about arrogant. I think she has more dimensions than that. The term RFP originated around the time of RCVS seeking a new VSA, which would have drawn in paraprofessionals under the RCVS' aegis. The cost of this was, to some degree, analysed and veterinary manpower and value as an income generator looked at. They knew then there might be a setting up cost and cash flow issues requiring subsidies (cross-subsidy ahem) from Members. Council members, the so called Officers of the time (vets) were also party to this and the terminology. This became public when they had to go public.

The concept of Members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons being cash cows ( a veterinary analogy?) runs deep at RCVS. Who amongst us would make a pig's ear (veterinary analogy?) of running a business like RCVS with its' reserves and income stream? The acquiescence of RFPs is still essential to RCVS non-Statutory functions and best of all they're unaccountable to RFPs. But you knew that already.

Re: Latest striking off

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:13:24 GMT

I think our late (and unlamented) Regisrar. She really was an arrogant so-and-so.

Wynne

Re: Latest striking off

J G Wray — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 07:29:35 GMT

[quote user="Lizzie Lockett"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

I have never used any of the terms in your previous post and would not consider using them any more than I would my own staff.

A lot of effort has been put into removing barriers between Belgravia House and RCVS members! We work in a profession and RCVS staff members work for its members. I work in a profession but work for my clients and their pets.

Not sure I can see much difference, we all work for someone! I also work with my clients and their pets. It pays the bills!

[/quote]

And there I can agree with you - and sorry, I didn't mean to imply you had used those words directly - although some other members have. It's really important for RCVS staff to feel that they are working alongside the profession to help make it the best it can be - for the benefit of both the profession and the public.

[/quote]

Hmmm. Where did the term "RFP" - Retention Fee Payer i.e. unit of RCVS income originate?

Re: Latest striking off

Richard Stephenson — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:24:31 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

To the 'hang em high' crowd now that the RCVS will be looking into non-veterinary convictions, where do you stand on a vet who has a conviction of:

dangerous driving?

driving over the alcohol limit?

[/quote]

Dear Richard,

The 'hang em high' crowd have long gone into retirement if they ever existed. Currently if you receive a drink driving conviction it is likely (assuming no one has been killed or injured) that the RCVs would wish to check that you did not have an underlying health / alcohol addiction problem. There is a strong evidence base that drinking and driving convictions are a firm indicator that there MIGHT be an alcohol problem. the experience of the RCVS PIC is that there is frequently a close link. If a MRCVS is found to have a alcohol problem then usually they would be referred to the 'Health Protocol' and given professionally guided support to sort out their issues whilst providing whatever undertakings experts in the field think are necessary to protect the public whilst they remain in practice. Currently there are 12 veterinary surgeons within the health protocol and a number more being assessed.

[quote user="Richard Carter"]domestic violence or other physical violence (even possibly in a road rage or similar incident) - struck off?[/quote]

Domestic violence is currently (rightly to my mind) considered by society to be a very serious offence indeed and were a veterinary surgeon to receive a conviction regarding a violent offence then it is likely that the independent Disciplinary Committee might be asked to examine the case to see if it affected fitness to practice. That is not the same as automatically being 'struck off' - the DC would consider the circumstances of the offence and any mitigation.

[quote user="Richard Carter"]theft? Here you can range it from petty theft of shop-lifting or hands in the till at work to defrauding insurance claims either directly or by gouging the case with 'full work up/extended intensive care'.[/quote]

Cases concerning theft of even a very small amount bring into question the honesty of an individual and for a professional person those questions are inevitably at the upper end of the spectrum of seriousness. However there has to be some common sense introduced into things and the PIC would generally look at the circumstances of the conviction, the sentence imposed by the courts, former good conduct (or recidivism) and the insight of the respondent into the offence. The Privy Council has recently given some guidance on this issue in Samuel v RCVS. I would have to ask would you be happy to trust a GP who was found shop lifting with the care of an elderly vulnerable relative?

[quote user="Richard Carter"]taking illicit drugs and here you could try work out if you think there should be a difference in being struck off whether this was at work or in private time?[/quote]

Taking illicit drugs would inevitably bring into question fitness to practice whether it was done at work or not. For example Dr Shipman had been suspended from practice for drug abuse and many would argue that permitting him to return to unsupervised practice was a bit of a clanger. HOWEVER the RCVS rarely deals with members who have genuine drug addiction by 'striking them off' - they are usually referred to the 'health protocol' and given expert medical help regular drug testing and continued to practice with some degree of supervision (as specified by experts in the field).

[quote user="Richard Carter"]What happens to convictions 'spent '- the RCVS still need to know?[/quote]

As a rule convictions that occurred more than 6 years ago would not result in disciplinary action (although that may depend on factors such as how serious or if there had been a failure to disclose them to the RCVS).

[quote user="Richard Carter"]Also having been to a boys boarding school if half the stories of what farm boys get up to are true then as I originally said, this is not uncommon[/quote]

I have no idea what farm boys may or may not get up to but I do believe (and hope) that as professionals we set ourselves FAR higher standards than 'farm boys'. Whilst there may be some countries where sexual activity with animals is not unlawful (and indeed the laws are surprisingly liberal in the UK) I genuinely believe that most normal members of the public would want to be sure that their horses / dogs etc are 100% safe from such behaviour whilst under the care of a veterinary surgeon. We are not 'farm boys'. Indeed in the case under discussion defence counsel conceded (from the report) that even possession of such images rendered the respondent unfit to practice as a veterinary surgeon so I wouldn't have thought it a particularly controversial.

Hope that clears up a few points.

Yours,

Richard Stephenson.

Re: Latest striking off

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 15:42:34 GMT

Just behave and you'll have no probs - and maybe our profession will regain some of the respect it used to enjoy.

Wynne

Re: Latest striking off

Richard Carter — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 12:24:48 GMT

Perhaps some more information to explain where I am coming from - during national service a trooper who would have been in late teens or early 20's was caught on the hay bale behind a mare. The attitude of those in charge despite being the army was most enlightening - at no stage was this viewed as a crime, the whole approach was 'something broken or gone awry, can it be fixed?'

Also having been to a boys boarding school if half the stories of what farm boys get up to are true then as I originally said, this is not uncommon even if it is a case of teenagers experimenting and then getting onto the straight and narrow path as they grow up. Just hope it doesn't reach Facebook.

Getting struck off has huge life changing consequences - if you have a mortgage, you are probably going to lose your house, various insurances to cover loss of income will not come into effect and if this gets onto your financial record, the chance of you ever being able to borrow money, get insurance etc is probably nil.

So well done to the 'hang em high' crowd.

I am really looking forward to the point where the RCVS has the opportunity to give graduated sentences - in this case follow what the courts have already done and said - if you do this again, you are out, go see a doctor in the meantime and come back in x months with a report.

To the 'hang em high' crowd now that the RCVS will be looking into non-veterinary convictions, where do you stand on a vet who has a conviction of:

dangerous driving?

driving over the alcohol limit?

domestic violence or other physical violence (even possibly in a road rage or similar incident) - struck off?

theft? Here you can range it from petty theft of shop-lifting or hands in the till at work to defrauding insurance claims either directly or by gouging the case with 'full work up/extended intensive care'.

taking illicit drugs and here you could try work out if you think there should be a difference in being struck off whether this was at work or in private time?

alcoholic and under the influence?

Remember this could apply to incidents that happened in your past before you became a vet - that oversupply of vets we were so worried about could be a thing of the past.

What happens to convictions 'spent '- the RCVS still need to know?

Re: Latest striking off

Utlendigur — Sun, 03 Aug 2014 11:13:27 GMT

[quote user="Louise Buckley"]

That rules out human doctors then unless they prefer animals as lovers

[/quote]

No, they can sleep with whoever (human) they like - EXCEPT their own patients - I think a few have been struck off for that.

Re: Latest striking off

Louise Buckley — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 23:13:49 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Richard Carter"]Back to the fellow struck off - so how exactly does having been caught with pants down affect your ability as a veterinary surgeon??[/quote]Well I'm usually the first to ask this question in relation to civil and criminal offences but even I can see that if your sexual preference is shagging animals, having easy access to them is not an ideal scenario for public confidence in the profession.

[/quote]

That rules out human doctors then unless they prefer animals as lovers

Re: Latest striking off

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:31:52 GMT

Advised by whom? Certainly not me!

Wynne

Re: Latest striking off

Richard Carter — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:12:13 GMT

The crime is not in dispute - it went through the courts and sentence was passed. Strange that just a few months ago when a vet killed someone he was having sex with, we were being advised that it was a tragedy, a personal disaster that was not related to his veterinary skills and that we should be at least respectful of the personal issues obviously at play.

Re: Latest striking off

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:09:02 GMT

Evelyn The "named person" in this instance is hardly innocent.

Wynne

Re: Latest striking off

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 22:46:46 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"] Altogether unimportant idle speculative chit-chat[/quote]

Is all great fun.

But shared upon a semi-public forum, concerning a named person, without the slightest shred of evidence (only the expert opinion of your friend who does not appreciate that it is perfectly respectable to go to Hungary to study veterinary medicine), it's the sort of thing that only usually appears in the Sun.

George, this was like none of your previous posts over the years. I could hardly believe it was you.

Re: Latest striking off

George Cooper — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:46:32 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="George Cooper"]and I quote, a "suggestion"[/quote]

By whom?

On what evidence?

[/quote] Oh - yawn - I'm beginning to see why the same dozen names only appear as contributors! In a private and personal telephone conversation between me, a vet, and a highly experienced and dedicated social worker who acts as children's advocate both in court based situations and also practically in some desperately sad family situations, where we were talking about the state of play regarding "our" (as in UK) children - in *some* situations! which were not disclosed or enlarged upon by the advocate. I then muttered apropos of not a lot about my raised eyebrows that a VS had been struck off, at which the other half of the conversation exclaimed that it had featured in the BBC news, and proceeded to wonder at the choice of Hungary for study. Further speculation on both sides continued, and I became aware that, whilst extrapolating from first-hand experience of paedophile traits, I was hearing the suggestion that the veterinary miscreant might have chosen to do something similar..... Altogether unimportant idle speculative chit-chat on a telephone the other night which had simply made me wonder ..... and I thought I might as well share it! So - I did.

Re: Latest striking off

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:11:22 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"]and I quote, a "suggestion"[/quote]

By whom?

On what evidence?

Re: Latest striking off

George Cooper — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 17:48:30 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

[quote user="George Cooper"]There is also the suggestion that this individual only chose to study veterinary medicine in order to get closer to his "intended", rather like paedophiles seek to work in child-centric situations, and despite being a British citizen, could not achieve the standard required to enter a UK school.

[/quote]

You can buy a sheep for not much money, many of us have pet dogs. You don't need to be a vet to gain access to animals. Would be a pretty silly thing to become a vet just to have access to 'intended'. Work on a farm or in kennels or both. No studying required.

Why would this behaviour be linked to paedophillia? Human sexual behaviour is often very odd towards the extremes. Fifty Shades of Grey anyone?

[/quote] It was Bob, and I quote, a "suggestion"! Nor did I "link" it to paedophilia, merely using that as an example!

Re: Latest striking off

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:35:13 GMT

[/quote]

Why would this behaviour be linked to paedophillia? Human sexual behaviour is often very odd towards the extremes. Fifty Shades of Grey anyone?

Re: Latest striking off

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:58:34 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="Sammy82"]I just wonder if the RCVS knew about the offences when registering him. Surely it is on his police record.[/quote]

IIRC disclosure of criminal convictions to the RCVS was voluntary until fairly recently?

[/quote]Can't for the life of me see why this got a red star but then red star man works in mysterious ways.

Re: Latest striking off

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:49:40 GMT

[quote user="George Cooper"] could not achieve the standard required to enter a UK school.

[/quote]

This is not correct; the tactics are simply different. In British schools it's difficult to get in but once you're in, you're usually fine unless you massively screw up something. In many Central European vet schools they are less strict, but spend the next 6 years trying to fail you out. Attrition rates are routinely better than 40% and in fact a little over half of my class qualified out of the group that started.

Re: Latest striking off

George Cooper — Fri, 01 Aug 2014 12:57:12 GMT

There is also the suggestion that this individual only chose to study veterinary medicine in order to get closer to his "intended", rather like paedophiles seek to work in child-centric situations, and despite being a British citizen, could not achieve the standard required to enter a UK school.