RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Bob Russell — Tue, 10 May 2016 13:05:46 GMT

Mr Oakes made the national news and at least one consumer programme. Clearly he was a danger to animals and owners alike but the RCVS could not ignore him as they do the 'alternative therapy' vets!

(Very naughty smiley!)

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 10 May 2016 12:46:48 GMT

To be fair they have reported these cases in RCVS news. Generally those responsible have told people they are veterinary surgeons

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 10 May 2016 09:05:18 GMT

Thanks..............but why hasn't RCVS publicised this before? Also were these prosecutions for calling themselves veterinary surgeons, or for diagnosing and treating whilst calling themselves by some other title?

Wynne

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 09 May 2016 22:47:25 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Respect for RCVS would be increased if it was more like the Farriers' Registration Council. That regulates farriers, exactly as RCVS regulates us, but it also protects farriers from illegal and unqualified competition by being pro-active in prosecuting unqualifoied people who shoe horses. RCVS regulates us, but turns a blind eye to homeopaths and chiropractors and others of this ilk treating animals.............even though the criminals are "diagnosing and treating disease or injury in animals" which is a criminal offence for anyone not on the register. I've brought this up with RCVS Councillors, who pretend they can't do anything, even though there's nothing in the charter that expressly forbids them being as pro-active as the FRC.

Wynne

[/quote][quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Respect for RCVS would be increased if it was more like the Farriers' Registration Council. That regulates farriers, exactly as RCVS regulates us, but it also protects farriers from illegal and unqualified competition by being pro-active in prosecuting unqualifoied people who shoe horses.[/quote]

Dear Wynne,

Just for your information during my time on RCVS Council at least three people have been sent to prison for illegally practising veterinary medicine in the UK - you will probably recall Russell Oakes but there have been others. In each case the RCVS has supported trading standards / Police with expert advice and assistance to bring these prosecutions to successful conclusions. The RCVS does not bring private prosecutions itself for breaches of the VSA 1966 - not least because the penalties under the Act are trivial - it does however help Trading Standards / Police who can prosecute for false representation, deception and fraud which carry Prison sentences. The FRC tends to bring private prosecutions - but I have to say that the fines imposed by Magistrates do little to reward their efforts.

As to homeopathy - one of the problems there is that if we believe that homeopathic remedies do nothing it is hard to prosecute for illegally practising medicine by doing nothing!. Of course there is a separate issue of vets who practise homeopathy and I'm sure no one wants to start that debate again!!!

Yours,

Richard

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Iain Richards — Fri, 06 May 2016 21:53:18 GMT

About as remote as the opinions placed on internet forums......

Certainly a day being the whole staff of the practice, and doing all the things that I used to pay folk to do, makes one think. But not for too long with a warm breeze and the water and the hills

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

J G Wray — Fri, 06 May 2016 18:35:55 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

"Herriot o'er the Lakes"

I love it when I can take a dig as a compliment! Currenlty a bit further north as "the only vet on the island" doing a locu in Mull. THe view for the surgery window is a real distraction.

Iain

[/quote]

How close does RCVS and all its baggage feel on planet Mull?

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Iain Richards — Fri, 06 May 2016 18:21:41 GMT

"Herriot o'er the Lakes"

I love it when I can take a dig as a compliment! Currenlty a bit further north as "the only vet on the island" doing a locu in Mull. THe view for the surgery window is a real distraction.

Iain

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

J G Wray — Fri, 06 May 2016 16:21:34 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Yes, but.....[/quote]

Yes , butt?

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 06 May 2016 13:38:34 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Whaddyathink?....[/quote]

Yes, but.....

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Bob Russell — Fri, 06 May 2016 12:19:40 GMT

Most of these issues go to prove that the RCVS is no longer that relevant to the day to day pressures on vets.

'Big' business calls the tunes while the RCVS hum, impotently to themselves in the background.

I wrote a letter of complaint, as did a client about what I consider very dangerous and unprofessional behaviour by one of our colleagues on the 'fringes' of science. No reply, nothing in the last year. Perhaps they are becoming unable to control individual vets either!

I voted for individuals I feel I can trust. Did not tick many boxes!!

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

J G Wray — Fri, 06 May 2016 07:22:03 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]my memory is indeed notoriously short ... [/quote]

Has anyone imvoked the RCVS Health Protocol?

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] so would it be too much trouble just to copy to us the relevant bits of your message to "Nick"? You won't deny us the opportunity to pick them apart, surely?[/quote]

Oooh go on then! I'll give you what I sent to Mr Stace Chief Executive of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, but not what he replied. He is not a member of this forum and has no voice here. If you want to contact him yourself then his contact details are freely available on the RCVS website. He's a busy man and leads by example when it comes to replying to contact.

My first question:

"..Afternoon.

The turnout makes grim reading with a 14% drop from last year.

What do you think can be done about it? Do you think we should just accept it?

Regs

JGW
PS I have articulated suggestions which I would be happy to recap..."

Mr Stace responded inviting comment. My comments included this below. Other parts of this email were part of my conversation with him and since I don't have his permission I'm cutting those out. My comments have been published here before verbatim and sent to RCVS before, not to him, but to Presidents. When sent to Presidents they die - the comments die. I've paid a lot of Retention Fees over the years for that to happen. Ah well

Over to you:

".."...OK This is my current thinking. You have made the point that you don't know who you vote for. What if, instead of who you should vote for you voted on issues?
This is hypothetical and broad brush. Details are not important for me at this stage, because it is hypothetical. Vets notoriously kill ideas with "yes, but" delving instantly into detail, so I'm sticking to hypothetical.
If RCVS adopted 5 themes each year, articulated, Twitter like, in fewer than 140 characters and all candidates had to state which three of five they would be supporting, your vote would then be less personality and more issue based. Would that appeal?
The five themes would be adopted by consultation of the membership, which would be ongoing and include discussion with other representative bodies. RCVS would undertake to commit time and resources to the consideration of these five themes giving them equal standing along with their own agenda all through the year. RCVS would agree to report to all members on progress of these themes through "champions of that cause" and have an option to determine them concluded, so as to allow a refreshing of themes over time.
I can think of five right away ( below) but these are just mine to illustrate my point
1. RCVS will by January 2016 clarify professional responsibilities in respect of compulsory micro chipping of dogs
2. RCVS will by the end of 2016 clarify their position on re-accreditation.
3. RCVS will, on an ongoing basis, clarify how vets taking career breaks can re enter the working part of the profession
4. RCVS will, by Jan 2016, clarify the professional responsibilities of TB testers in respect of supersession
5. RCVS will, by Jan 2016, commit to a culture of openness which matches Government Agencies and Departments
All fewer than 140 characters
I can see no conflict with public interest in a system like this. I can see no feather-bedding of the profession or protectionism.
The result would require a change at RCVS, giving equal time and resources to members' interests. That's a very big ask
It would require a simple method of engagement with the profession. The hook would be that there would be a forum for themes to be developed and representatives elected who were committing to issues developed by members. The votes would go to those candidates who most closely match your choice of the five themes, thus, if you wished, depersonalising the exercise.
it would become a sElection exercise, based on relevant issues rather than who you do or don't know.
Whaddyathink?....."

It fits on one side of A4 which is not quite as good as the back of a fag packet, but all the same....

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 06 May 2016 00:52:55 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]It's very sweet of you to ask, but again, really?[/quote]

Is it again? I can't recall any specific concrete suggestions from you in the past, but my memory is indeed notoriously short (I do know what I had for breakfast, but only because I have the same every day).

However, I am indeed most sweet, so would it be too much trouble just to copy to us the relevant bits of your message to "Nick"? You won't deny us the opportunity to pick them apart, surely?

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

J G Wray — Thu, 05 May 2016 22:49:44 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="J G Wray"]He immediately responded, inviting suggestions, presumably because he had no answers. I sent some overnight. They involved change at RCVS, with less hubris and more value.[/quote]

Would you care to share them with us, too?

[/quote]

It's very sweet of you to ask, but again, really?

And dear Herriot o'er the Lakes it was not me who was scaremongering, 'twas those who said we only turn out when there's a crisis (what crisis eh?) or something contentious afoot.

Can anyone tell me why RCVS might be light hearted about getting a higher turnout by irritating the RFPs?

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Iain Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 21:22:16 GMT

"It truly is a long way from The Lakes to Westminster."

And it's truly a long way from your thought processes to what it is you are saying!

What have I missed? I'm not aware of any further threat to self-regulation now the anomoly of DC and council is removed.

Thanks for the seplling correction I'll type it out ten times. (I personlly blame an accidnet involving my laptop, a flight of steps, a cup of coffee and an unwise choice of footwear.)

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:54:02 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]We have already considered that JG and tried quite a lot of things - online presentations and Q&A's, voting by SMS and online, intensive publicity. I'd be interested to know what else members think we should be doing.

Bradley[/quote]

You're a naughty man and you know it.

What you are talking about here is how to vote.[/quote]

And you're a naughty man, JGW, and you know it.

It's not possible to vote by 'online presentations and Q&A's' or by 'intensive publicity'. And making it easier to vote (SMS and online) is certainly something one might reasonably expect to improve response rates.

That said, I agree with your underlying point. Stating the obvious here just to explain my thinking: People tend to take action when they can see it will benefit them. 'Yes, but what's in it for me.' When it comes to voting for council, it's difficult to come up with a really compelling answer to that question. In fact, turkeys and Christmas come to mind.

Some will remember that for a few years, I was trying very hard to do my little bit for democracy on this site, with the election forum designed to try and get voters engaged with candidates, and various emails trying to persuade everyone to vote. I put a lot of thought into it all, and don't think my efforts made a huge amount of difference.

I've often thought what a difficult position the RCVS is in, because on the one hand, it's something you are a member of, and on the other, it's the regulator. So you always feel that as a member you should be getting more. 'It', on the other hand feels that in order to be seen as an effective regulator, it should not be engaged in many activities that benefit its members (or it might lose public confidence).

I've long argued that the RCVS should either remove the M or get involved in more activities that would have a more direct positive impact on members AND be in the public interest. For example, championing owner education and RESPONSIBILITY. Coming down on people who practice veterinary medicine under another name. Carrying out consumer research that would be of practical value to members AND guide the regulator. I think this sort of thing could be done without reducing public confidence in the organisation's role as regulator.

Not that my opinion is really of any relevance!

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:25:01 GMT

Francisco. Absolutely no chance. We've had 25 years of left-wing governments. The change that's needed is to a minimum taxation one.

Wynne

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 05 May 2016 18:19:56 GMT

Would you care to share them with us, too?

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:33:39 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

The trouble is that after 4 years, everyone would be aware of the faults of the current regime, and would take their virtues for granted, That would be an impetus for change for the sake of change.

[/quote]

So you mean you'll be voting Corbyn next...

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:25:42 GMT

The trouble is that after 4 years, everyone would be aware of the faults of the current regime, and would take their virtues for granted, That would be an impetus for change for the sake of change.

Wynne

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:19:02 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Then each election would be followed by dramatic change just for the sake of change.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. Things would only change if there was a drive of needing change. And a practice owner would have more time to implement changes if they were needed. At work I think I'm the only one who votes, the others think their time is wasted in a decaffeinated version of election that chases you every single year!

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:09:25 GMT

Then each election would be followed by dramatic change just for the sake of change.

Practice Standards Scheme.............no PSS................back to PSS

Only RVNs allowed to call themselves veterinary nurses................anyone allowed to call themselves veterinary nurses............back to only RVNs

Single subject Certificates..................modular Cert AVPs.................back to single subject Certs

etc etc etc

As soon as practice owners would have adjusted to the new regulations, and got them to work, it would be all change again.

Wynne

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

J G Wray — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:08:34 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]

We have already considered that JG and tried quite a lot of things - online presentations and Q&A's, voting by SMS and online, intensive publicity. I'd be interested to know what else members think we should be doing.

Bradley

[/quote]

You're a naughty man and you know it.

What you are talking about here is how to vote. The method of voting, I guess as you've found isn't the issue, it's what the vote is for. Has RCVS considered that the purpose of the vote should change i.e. the purpose of the Councillors once elected?

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 05 May 2016 17:02:10 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

Hi Bradley

Do you think that reducing the frequency of the elections would help?

[/quote]

I completely agree with Kate on this.

Veterinary life is busy enough, and I do (personally) think that one of the reasons of low turn out is how little change is seen for the average vet every year, based on a election of very little change.

A single election with larger gaps, would allow more time for constructive criticism of current affairs, leading to candidates to offer a more accurate definition of their program and their own profile. And these programs would have more time to be developed, discussed and offered.

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 05 May 2016 16:32:05 GMT

"Three or four year terms"

Surely you mean 3 or 4 terms - each (currently) of 4 years?

The problem (as I see it) of reducing the frequency of elections (if this was allowed) is we would have a "general election" every (say) 4 years. This would then result in a wholesale change, and each incoming Council would be tempted to make its mark by totally altering everything. We wouldn't know where we were!

Wynne

RE: RCVS results and turnout - no surprises

Neil Wheadon — Thu, 05 May 2016 15:59:03 GMT

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]There is a proposal to limit this to three four year terms in the revised legislation. [/quote]

Wouldn't it be more sensible to limit the number of times you can stand?

I compare the RCVS elections to the Police Commissioner elections. Unless you take the time to study the candidates it's better to leave well alone and let those better informed make the decision? The only disadvantage of a low turnout rate is politicians looking at the lack of engagement? and asking questions.

Neil