RCVS elections

Re: RCVS elections

Niall Connell — Fri, 01 May 2015 09:38:44 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

It is indeed worthy; but just because the majority seem 'fine', should we ignore the minority?

[/quote]

I don't believe for one second that any of the successful candidates in this years election will resist this at RCVS. they will be re programmed straight away, ground down by service on Committee, distance themselves from contact and be gagged and bound by the policy of collective lack of responsibility.

[/quote]

Good grief, Niall! I'd no idea you were distancing yourself from contact; all that activity on social media talking about students, the profession, training, and support were obviously just a smokescreen!

[/quote]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for mentioning this. That stuff is part of my stash of secret ninja moves. Seriously, though, I do value and enjoy helping with those things, as you obviously do as well. It makes everything worthwhile. Hope to meet up with you sometime soon.

Best wishes,

Niall

Re: RCVS elections

Niall Connell — Fri, 01 May 2015 09:27:34 GMT

[quote user="Jo Dyer"]

[quote user="Niall Connell"]I would like to dedicate what I may have achieved on RCVS Council so far and what I hope to achieve in the next four years to the memory of my classmate and friend, Penny Gillespie BVMS MRCVS 1958-2013. [/quote]

Congratulations Niall, I look forward to meeting you in July.

I have googled your friend and see that she is yet another heartbreaking vet suicide. Vet wellbeing is the most important issue in our profession at the moment - perhaps it always has been but we have just ignored it. We are very keen on preventive health interventions for our patients, but we pretty much ignore the same thing for our own mental wellbeing. I think there are things that can be done at an organisational level which can help to reduce the mental distress which leads to depression and can then lead to suicide, and I hope we can start to improve the situation over the next few years.

[/quote]

Dear Jo,

Thank you and congratulations to you too on being elected. You suggested that Vet Well-being has perhaps always been an issue. I believe it has been an issue for at least a long time, certainly since I qualified. I am hopeful that a difference can be made now that it's being openly discussed. I look forward to working with you on Council.

best wishes,

Niall

Re: RCVS elections

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:15:59 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Dr Conell. N= 1, and that's for the time being

[/quote]

Two N's, but I know. We need to make sure there's more of him and Jo on board! Who's voting next year? :)

Re: RCVS elections

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 11:04:13 GMT

Dr Conell. N= 1, and that's for the time being

Re: RCVS elections

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:44:07 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"][quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

It is indeed worthy; but just because the majority seem 'fine', should we ignore the minority?

[/quote]

Re: RCVS elections

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:32:56 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

It is indeed worthy; but just because the majority seem 'fine', should we ignore the minority?

[/quote] No, but ask yourself this, where's RCVS priority, with those who feature on the periphery of the profession or those who constitute the norm? When have you ever heard of anyone at RCVS, once elected or appointed or employed moving the focus of RCVS behaviour to consideration of the majority's beliefs and values? There is a hegemony at RCVS of those who know of the periphery and come from non-mainstream backgrounds who will perpetuate RCVS priorities and decide on "necessary" future priorities like re-accreditation. These are the wrong people to do this of course. RCVS will provide a consultation process which will tick a box in the Regulatory Body Behaviour Manual, but have only as much authenticity as they wish. It will not have the option of rejecting re-accreditation as they propose for instance. They will use the results of their CPD audit to justify the exercise, but only the bit where they saw non-compliance, along with a "best practice" claim. I don't believe for one second that any of the successful candidates in this years election will resist this at RCVS. they will be re programmed straight away, ground down by service on Committee, distance themselves from contact and be gagged and bound by the policy of collective lack of responsibility. This was never an Election it was a sElection process for conformity and perpetuation of RCVS as it is. Candidates manifestos are and always were just a means to an end and the overall sense of this sElection process was obviously inauthentic to 82 % of the sElectorate. Once again I commend a reading of the long version and commentary in this week's VR of the paper on career identity. Then think about how fragile this identity is when faced with challenge, adversity and failure. Then think how marvellously VetGP handle this every single day and how RCVS, our errr self-regulator, fails to know let alone recognise this and behave accordingly.

Re: RCVS elections

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:08:36 GMT

It is indeed worthy; but just because the majority seem 'fine', should we ignore the minority?

Re: RCVS elections

J G Wray — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:18:39 GMT

....I think there are things that can be done at an organisational level which can help to reduce the mental distress which leads to depression and can then lead to suicide, and I hope we can start to improve the situation over the next few years...... Well, if you read the paper on career identity in this week's VR in full not abbreviated form then this may be a very hard row to hoe at RCVS. RCVS reinforces the bias and provides the organisation which intrinsically prevents congruence. In addition and I am being pejorative here, but actually most vets are able bodied, balanced emotionally and mentally, are not dogged by addiction or depression, do not have family or emotional baggage, do not aspire to esoteric practice or wish to get out of the profession. Instead, they are, to use a difficult to define word, normal. They're also self-motivated from an early age with a sense of identity founded on strongly held beliefs and consequent values, are in general practice working with the public, doing the best work for animal welfare. They are how society recognises the profession and crucially, from RCVS' point of view, they went to college to become vets not MsRCVS. Spending time on things other than what defines and characterises normal, average VetGPs, and what happens when their sense of identity is disrupted is a poor service to the majority. But, it's very worthy

Re: RCVS elections

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:46:13 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

That's a pretty good definition of bullying.

Wynne

[/quote]No, bullies target the weak and vulnerable, TL hardly gives the impression he is either of those. That said of course he could be both and his RMB obsession is just a cry for help and attention seeking. Sorry Tom I've been wrong all these years, please forgive me.

Re: RCVS elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:37:18 GMT

That's a pretty good definition of bullying.

Wynne

Re: RCVS elections

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:29:05 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

I completely accept that, but why sink to his level?

[/quote]Because he's an easy target and its fun.

Re: RCVS elections

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 12:57:28 GMT

I completely accept that, but why sink to his level?

Re: RCVS elections

Bob Russell — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:31:58 GMT

Tom is very happy to insult fellow professionals in no uncertain manner!

If you read many of his comments they are far from professional. Of course he is completely right and the vast majority of vets are mere lackeys for the pet food companies and are knowingly poisoning patients for financial gain.

He is more interested in self-promotion and bad mouthing and gentle insults help this promotion. When he is willing to enter into a balanced, reasonable discussion then perhaps he will be taken more seriously.

I suspect he makes a good living out of these 'ideas'! Plenty of 'nutters' out there waiting to be convinced and pay for his books etc.

Re: RCVS elections

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:20:53 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Come on, guys; let's be professional about this. Badmouthing and insulting Tom for holding deeply held beliefs isn't the right thing to do, and is borderline unprofessional. I'm not saying we have to agree with him, but why be mean about it?

[/quote]

Sorry, it was slightly tongue in cheek. However, his manifesto basically insults us...

Re: RCVS elections

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:34:22 GMT

Re: RCVS elections

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:23:21 GMT

Commiserations to Richard. I have to admit, it was reading his posts on this forum that actually made me vote for the first time since I graduated in 2012, and I voted for him.

Congratulations to everyone else.

And Tom,

See you again next year for some more question-avoiding, non-scientific and ashamedly accusatory posts that we will once again try our hardest to ignore.

Re: RCVS elections

Jo Dyer — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:31:16 GMT

Congratulations Niall, I look forward to meeting you in July.

Re: RCVS elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:25:57 GMT

Congratulations to all the successful candidates, including those I didn't vote for.

Commiserations on the 2 votes.

Wynne

Re: RCVS elections

Tom Lonsdale — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 05:12:26 GMT

[quote user="Gordon Hockey"]

At 11:08 PM 27/04/2015, you wrote:

Dear Tom

Disappointing news I'm afraid. You were not elected.

You got 374 votes.

Please will you keep the news confidential and off social media (you can tell close friends and family personally) until after our press release tomorrow morning.

Yours

Gordon Hockey
RCVS Registrar

Sent from my iPhone

[/quote]

Dear Gordon,

Thank you for the news this 19th year of standing for honesty and integrity in the vet profession.

Last year in a thank you letter to nominators Roger Meacock, Andrew Stephens and voters I wrote an open letter to Veterinary Times:

The stench of junk pet food contaminates most aspects of our profession -- the RCVS regulator, veterinary schools, associations, journals, research projects, conferences, internet discussion lists, charities and veterinary clinics. Clients are starting to notice; slowly they are turning up the heat.

The veterinary profession, as with the complacent frog in a jar, faces a growing crisis. How heartening then, for the profession, the animals and the wider community, that more than 10% of those who voted are not complacent. They voted to avert the crisis. They voted to deal with the heat.

Regardless of how you voted, there's an open invitation to pay us a visit when you're down this way. We've got lots to discuss and lots more work to do.

In your press release I note your comment:

'Still available to watch via the RCVS website and YouTube channel, the 11 RCVS Council candidate videos have been viewed 2,967 times.'

Is this some sort of admission of abject failure, incompetence and endemic malaise?

In two months the Hill's junk food Science Death Experiment video has recorded 87,000 views on Facebook and 4000 views on YouTube

To end on a positive note, at least 374 MRCVS are in accord with the Facebook, YouTube visitors. Those 374 vets voted for:

In previous years I've called for a full parliamentary inquiry. Now I believe that the RCVS Council should be dismissed and an administrator appointed pending the outcome of that inquiry. I recommend that there be legal proceedings against prominent companies, veterinary institutions and individuals in respect to breach of contract, animal cruelty, theft and deception.

All the best,

Tom

Re: RCVS elections

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:27:23 GMT

[quote user="Richard Hillman"]what do you lot think I should have done or should not have done.[/quote]Sadly by being very honest you may have lost some of the votes from those who think people with depression should get a grip on themselves. This sadly probably outweighed those who voted for you because they thought someone who has expereinced depression would be more understanding of what other's face.

Still you've set out your stall and if you stand again next year it will show some of the doubters you have some staying power.

You can only be honest with yourself and with us and if that doesn't work C'est la vie. Who knows you may have just had a lucky escape!

Re: RCVS elections

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:19:38 GMT

Wot Louise said.

Re: RCVS elections

Louise6732 — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:10:40 GMT

Hi Richard I voted for you and am disappointed that you didn't get elected. I thought that you would have represented us very well and your past experiences made you extremely well placed to stick up for the wellbeing of the profession. As to what you could've done better, I voted for those who bothered to communicate with us voters because if you can't do that then how am I meant to trust you will support us in the long run? So I voted for those who spoke on the forum and answered questions, those who stuck their head above the parapet! I don't know think you could've done any more than what you did, but please try again next year! Louise

Re: RCVS elections

Richard Hillman — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 18:43:34 GMT

I am very disappointed not to have been elected and I'm not sure if missing out by 2 votes makes me feel better or worse.

Looking back there are things I think I could have done better but what do you lot think I should have done or should not have done. I seriously welcome your feedback of any kind as I consider whether or not to stand next time. I am not looking for sympathy or kind words here, please say what you honestly think...

Thank you to those who did vote for me, I honestly think I could have made a difference and would have benefitted the practitioners, especially the GPVets but hey ho....

Re: RCVS elections

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:52:42 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Perhaps next time people should think twice before wasting a valuable vote on a RMB candidate![/quote]My vote wasn't really wasted I voted for all the people I wanted to see on council, I just would like to have seen TL put his money where his mouth is if he was elected. But that begs a question: should we vote tactically for someone we don't particularly want to scupper someone we really don't want?

Re: RCVS elections

Bob Russell — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:40:01 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Bad news for the RMB vote this year, I see[/quote]Damn that means only 373 other people wasted their votes.

More seriously Niall's post made me feel very humble and I wish him well but was very disappointed not to see Richard elected. I feel we've lost an opportunity for the profession to be represented by someone who truly understands the pressure we are under. Don't give up Richard come back next year.

[/quote]

I agree! Disappointed and quite surprised. Perhaps next time people should think twice before wasting a valuable vote on a RMB candidate!