RCVS is watching

Re: RCVS is watching

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 10:49:43 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]" the guidance didn't come a moment too soon..." Really? Is the fabric of the profession being shaken by social media? This is modish and because it's an opportunity, RCVS cannot resist increasing the coverage of it's dead hand.[/quote]

Who said the fabric of the profession is being shaken by social media? And is that the defining test which an RCVS initiative must meet before you consider it worthy?

But now you mention it, the Internet and social media have fundamentally changed things. I'm not sure I would use the exact words you have ('fabric of the profession being shaken'), but I certainly think it is changing things at a pretty fundamental level, and it certainly DOES have ramifications for people's professional lives. So I absolutely disagree that it is a case of the RCVS increasing coverage of its dead hand. I think it is the regulator's place to show leadership on issues like this, and give guidance.

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I am sure the College also recognises that there are plenty of situations where anonymity is appropriate. Such as seeking advice / help from peers about a sensitive issue.[/quote]

Ah, well I'm not sure about that. I think they've got whistle blowing as a requirement in their rules in respect of the sensitivities around fitness to practice. Is that sensitive enough for ya? In using anonymity the person is avoiding what RCVS want which is knowledge of who they are, either by admission or whistle blowing so they can be sequestered in a process if RCVS deem it necessary. Once in that process RCVS will probably, but not certainly preserve a degree of confidentiality. Anonymity for RCVS needs to be within their gift.[/quote].

I'm not sure I really understand. I mean, you talk about this as though the internet is the first opportunity that people have ever had to be anonymous.

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Personally, I think it is absolutely in order for the regulator to have a position on this, and to make it clear that the members of profession are expected to acquit themselves professionally online as much as offline.[/quote]

So, are you confident that all postings on this forum are professional?[/quote]

You're being very black and white about this JGW, when in reality, shades of grey apply. Firstly, 'professional behaviour' is subjective. There are some things everyone would think is unprofessional, some things some people would find unprofessional, and some things that only a few people, perhaps just you would find unprofessional. I don't think there is much on here that would fall into the first category!

Then there's the question of degree and consequence. I really don't think the RCVS would come and strike you off for getting into an argument with a colleague on this site, during which you called the colleague a twerp. It wouldn't be a very good use of members' money. But if you grossly slandered someone both on this site and in perhaps a more public arena, and they complained to the College, well that's another thing.

Re: RCVS is watching

J G Wray — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:30:19 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Yeah, well, damned if they do and damned if they don't, eh, JGW? For every one like you, there's another who feels that the guidance didn't come a moment too soon.[/quote]

" the guidance didn't come a moment too soon..." Really? Is the fabric of the profession being shaken by social media? This is modish and because it's an opportunity, RCVS cannot resist increasing the coverage of it's dead hand.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I think most people would agree it is perfectly reasonable (and certainly not unfair) to illustrate a point with examples that the largest number of people will be familiar with[/quote]

Example is not the main thing in influencing others. It is the only thing. -Albert Scweitzer

RCVS singled out vetsurgeon.org

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But nobody has ever pretended "not to know what has been written on this forum".[/quote]

Rephrase - They could have gone on turning a blind eye - better?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]They clearly take a dim view of those hiding their identities,[/quote]

[/quote]

Sooo, you have a different view on professional behaviour to the RCVS, some overlap perhaps, but not the same.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I am sure the College also recognises that there are plenty of situations where anonymity is appropriate. Such as seeking advice / help from peers about a sensitive issue.[/quote]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Personally, I think it is absolutely in order for the regulator to have a position on this, and to make it clear that the members of profession are expected to acquit themselves professionally online as much as offline.[/quote]

So, are you confident that all postings on this forum are professional?

Re: RCVS is watching

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:27:52 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]They could have left things as they were, without anything as specific as a mention of social media, which would be in keeping with their current approach of vagueness in guidance[/quote]

Yeah, well, damned if they do and damned if they don't, eh, JGW? For every one like you, there's another who feels that the guidance didn't come a moment too soon.

[quote user="J G Wray"]They could have issued this guidance stripped of reference to specific examples of social media, which would have been fair.[/quote]

You're being churlish JGW. I think most people would agree it is perfectly reasonable (and certainly not unfair) to illustrate a point with examples that the largest number of people will be familiar with.

[quote user="J G Wray"]They could have gone on pretending not to know what has been written on this forum[/quote]

But nobody has ever pretended "not to know what has been written on this forum".

[quote user="J G Wray"]They clearly take a dim view of those hiding their identities,[/quote]

I don't think that is true. My impression is that the College would take the view that being transparent is more in keeping with being a professional than being anonymous, and I would agree to a degree. But equally, I am sure the College also recognises that there are plenty of situations where anonymity is appropriate. Such as seeking advice / help from peers about a sensitive issue.

So I think 'dim view' is a) wrong and b) too simplistic.

All in all, I read the guidelines in the spirit in which I believe they were intended - which is just to crystallise current thinking about the impact of one's online persona on professional life. Personally, I think it is absolutely in order for the regulator to have a position on this, and to make it clear that the members of profession are expected to acquit themselves professionally online as much as offline. I think the clarification regarding the position re client confidentiality is useful too.

Re: RCVS is watching

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:05:42 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]You have made a passing reference to the change in professional behaviours as practices becomes vehicles for the sale of commoditsed services and products. I have little doubt this is a reference to your competition.[/quote]

I have only slight doubt that you are being truthful here.

However you should explore that little doubt which you feel, since it should lead you to abandon your initial assumption and come to a conclusion which more approaches the correct.

Re: RCVS is watching

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:49:15 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Mr G has made it perfectly clear that he has no access to the identities of Anon.[/quote]

That's not quite true. He could look up the IP address of the post and then search for other users using the same IP. It's all logged and doable.[/quote]

That's not quite true either!

IP addresses are either fixed or dynamic (the latter being randomly assigned every time you start your modem). Most people have a dynamic one which changes every time they switch their router on or off. A dynamic one will come from a pool of IP addresses owned by their provider. If your provider is BT, that is a very large pool of IPs. So I could look up an IP and search for others using the IP. But a) if I did, the likelihood of the same IP address popping up would be unlikely, and b) even if it did, it would still not prove that the same computer was responsible for both posts and c) life's too short as it is, thanks!

I guess I could go and ask BT for the record of which account was using the IP at a given time, but I doubt they'd be willing to divulge that without a court order. And there are plenty of suppliers (e.g. proxies) who are outside the jurisdiction of a court order.

So whilst I guess it is technically not impossible to track down which computer posted on here at a given time, it might as well be for all the effort it would take.

It's the sort of effort that perhaps one of the security agencies might go to, if they felt that the post was part of some terrorist or severely criminal activity. But trying to track down a vet who has been a bit sarcastic about a colleague in a forum? Get real!

Re: RCVS is watching

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 13:32:49 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Mr G has made it perfectly clear that he has no access to the identities of Anon.[/quote]

That's not quite true. He could look up the IP address of the post and then search for other users using the same IP. It's all logged and doable.

I trust Arlo doesn't do this, but he could. A court order could make him do so.

Chances are the people using the Anon log on are mainly members here, anyway.

Nothing is truly anon.

Re: RCVS is watching

J G Wray — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:50:59 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Mr G has made it perfectly clear that he has no access to the identities of Anon.

This is why unsuitable posts are deleted where this is seen to be misused.

[/quote]

This kind of makes my point, that there are other arbiters of professional behaviour beyond RCVS. How many do you suppose? They may overlap in their views, but occasionally they may be contiguous or non-contiguous and then who's to say who's right? If by one arbiter a posting here is fair and RCVS chooses another point of view then why is RCVS right? They have might, but why are they right?

RCVS may feel they uphold professional standards (ahem) and protect the public, but they do not define what is and isn't professional behaviour. That's down to what vets do and how society views their actions.

[quote user="Bob Russell"]We are all responsible for what we say and do.[/quote]

You'd have thought, so why post with your identity hidden? I don't see RCVS as the determining force for professional behaviour but I do agree with their concept of accountability. If some agree with the RCVS in this rule making and articulate this on this forum for instance without indicating their identity, then there's at least an irony in what they write, perhaps even a hypocrisy.

Re: RCVS is watching

Anthony Dennison — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 12:49:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Will the new guidence on STUDENT behaviour mean that Cambridge undergrads will be informed "en masse" the morning after the Boat Race that none of them will be allowed tojoin the profession?

Wynne

[/quote]

I'd be more worried after AVS Sports Weekend tbh.

Re: RCVS is watching

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:38:46 GMT

Will the new guidence on STUDENT behaviour mean that Cambridge undergrads will be informed "en masse" the morning after the Boat Race that none of them will be allowed tojoin the profession?

Wynne

Re: RCVS is watching

Bob Russell — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 09:08:51 GMT

Mr G has made it perfectly clear that he has no access to the identities of Anon.

This is why unsuitable posts are deleted where this is seen to be misused.

We are all responsible for what we say and do. Everyone in the profession is a grown up even if some chose not to behave that way!

Re: RCVS is watching

J G Wray — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 07:22:36 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Not at all. It's guidance to professional behaviour. [/quote]

There is a premise here. The premise is that the RCVS, the arbiter, is in touch with society's current values within the niche field of the delivery of veterinary services, with those services structured as they are now.

You have made a passing reference to the change in professional behaviours as practices becomes vehicles for the sale of commoditsed services and products. I have little doubt this is a reference to your competition. Others have made scathing references to their competitors, notably those touting themselves on social media and websites as not-for-profit practices.

Now, RCVS is wading in and clipping the wings of the whingers, or so they say. If they cannot enforce this or make it the grounds for serious professional misconduct then they will only have the ADR. That is not what that was meant for....

The behaviour of professionals is not different to that of society. It changes, but there is no point in having rules which are unenforceable and this social media stuff is specific enough to be regarded as a rule rather than "guidance" .

As for educating students in professional behaviour, then who would you have do that? Would you really leave that to RCVS?

Re: RCVS is watching

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:31:58 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]SO what's the point of, ahem pointing out something they disapprove of but can't actually stop? I think it makes them look silly.[/quote]

Not at all. It's guidance to professional behaviour. That's the point of it. It should hardly need pointing out, but it's good to remind people of it, especially students.

Re: RCVS is watching

J G Wray — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 19:14:46 GMT

Well, RCVS always had some choices.

They could have left things as they were, without anything as specific as a mention of social media, which would be in keeping with their current approach of vagueness in guidance

They could have issued this guidance stripped of reference to specific examples of social media, which would have been fair.

They could have gone on pretending not to know what has been written on this forum, by those who are prepared to be accountable and those who avoid accountability, but they're watching all, including those who use Anon and hide their names. They clearly take a dim view of those hiding their identities, but I'm not sure how they would ever find out who they are, unless Mr G surrendered their details to RCVS. SO what's the point of, ahem pointing out something they disapprove of but can't actually stop? I think it makes them look silly.

That this or any forum leaks eventually is in no doubt and RCVS have pointed this out, but they didn't have to.

If the RCVS exists to protect the public then this attempt, inept as I see it, to throttle discussion for example, of the public's behaviour, means RCVS are, once again of Another Planet. The public, bless'em have and are saying far worse things about vets than anything showing up on this forum. The public, bless 'em, are in some parts discussing and encouraging stuff which compromises animal welfare and promotes illegality, like the supply of POM-V without prescription, including topical stuff like antibiotic....

Now, I would like to have a Regulator without a chip on its shoulder, which regulates in a balanced fashion, rather than one following modish and pointless trends in regulatory practice.

The justification for this regulatory creep is thin at best. It rests on some nebulous concept of professional reputation. Hands up all those who think that RCVS know better than we do what the public think of us?

Re: RCVS is watching

Bob Russell — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:51:04 GMT

It could be that the RCVS consider VetSurgeon more on the political pulse than BVA/BSAVA or more subversive?

Re: RCVS is watching

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:18:40 GMT

I think we've been here already Jonathon.

http://www.vetsurgeon.org/forums/t/20835.aspx?PageIndex=1

or maybe you mean something different.