RCVS election 10 days on

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Thu, 12 May 2016 07:16:03 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

So it would be nice if you had:

[quote user="J G Wray"]the grace to apologise[/quote]

[/quote]

No problem

I hereby apologise for any offence that anything I've written may have caused.

NOw.... there's a flip side to this

Do you or anyone else here remember this?

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Chris Barker"] have spent four years on Standards trying to ensure demands made of practitioners are justified, fair and deliverable.[/quote]

Thank you

[/quote]

Dr Barker, one of those, umm mentioned in passing by Dr Tapsfield-Wright, gave us an insight in to how he is sustaining his manifesto commitments whilst at RCVS. How many of those so quick to join the chorus of personal disapproval said thank you - to Dr Barker?

It's difficult for me not to form a view on how easily it is to be drawn in by indignation when views are challenged, yet be blind to other moments.

Anyway, for RFPs in practice here's another opportunity

[quote user="Chris Barker"] have spent four years on Standards trying to ensure demands made of practitioners are justified, fair and deliverable.[/quote]

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Rob Loxley — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:48:11 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]It's the rewriting of someone else's opinion and then misrepresenting it as fact that causes the problem.[/quote]

You presuppose the readership understands what JGW is saying at times!

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 11 May 2016 20:24:05 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Keep yer 'air on old fruit[/quote]

There's less of it about these days, but don't worry I shall try and keep what remains of it on my head.

[quote user="J G Wray"]Please give Dr Tapsfield-Wright the appropriate recognition of her time as a Councillor. She knows/knew all the current and recent past Councillors and chose these three , none of whom have been or are senior figures at RCVS. I don't believe for one minute that all at RCVS are cut from the same cloth, all sharing common opinions and values and motivations and in context Dr Tapsfield-Wright picked these three as having distinct values which she articulated - and then modified the seriousness of her view. I don't see that as something to go unchallenged.[/quote]

To quote a bit more of what Clare actually said (because it was from the other thread):

"It's an odd arrangement having elected members from the profession but I think it has worked well in the main and I prefer it to the option of appointed members. At least any vet who cares passionately enough to change things can stand for election just as Richard Stephenson did and Chris Barker and Jo Dyer."

It is certainly clear to me that she was not picking these three has having distinct values (she didn't say that), just making the point that she likes the system whereby vets who feel passionately as, for example, these three with whom we are all familiar with and come to mind straight away because they post here, can stand.

And you're turning her use of three examples into flipping Watergate!

[quote user="J G Wray"]I'm pretty sure that everyone here over the age of eighteen forms their own opinion on anything written here and through posting their opinion foists it on everyone here - wouldn't you say?[/quote]

It's not the posting of opinions that is a problem, nor posting an opinion of someone else's opinion. It's the rewriting of someone else's opinion and then misrepresenting it as fact that causes the problem.

[quote user="J G Wray"]As for clarity from an author, who is a professional, I think that goes further. I think you should stand by your words and then apologise when they are crassly inappropriate. You may recall what the then Registrar and the then President said when Dr Dyer's campaign got going, the former dismissed it as a storm in a teacup the latter couldn't see the point in her efforts. At RCVS you have the luxury of speaking from authority but not having accountability or even the grace to apologise.[/quote]

I don't understand how any of that is relevant to this discussion.

I agree, one should stand by ones words and be prepared to apologise when they are crassly inappropriate.

Not sure why you are conflating Clare's post with Registrar's comments about Jo Dyer's campaign. The two are completely unrelated. By no stretch of the imagination has Clare made a crassly inappropriate remark.

So it would be nice if you had:

[quote user="J G Wray"]the grace to apologise[/quote]

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Wed, 11 May 2016 19:20:41 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Oh fer crying out loud[/quote]

Keep yer 'air on old fruit

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Which, read precisely, means no more than 'here are three examples of vets who cared passionately and stood for election'[/quote]

Please give Dr Tapsfield-Wright the appropriate recognition of her time as a Councillor. She knows/knew all the current and recent past Councillors and chose these three , none of whom have been or are senior figures at RCVS. I don't believe for one minute that all at RCVS are cut from the same cloth, all sharing common opinions and values and motivations and in context Dr Tapsfield-Wright picked these three as having distinct values which she articulated - and then modified the seriousness of her view. I don't see that as something to go unchallenged.

Now, in my professional life when I articulate something to the public it carries weight because of professional gravitas and accountability. I don't see that as being carried through by some at RCVS and to behave like you have an option to recant, because what you said gets a bit murky is closing on hypocrisy as in you lot must behave professionally, but we have an option.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Must be equally lovely to be able to decide unilaterally that your own interpretation of someone else's words is the right one, and then foist it (your interpretation, that is) on everyone else[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that everyone here over the age of eighteen forms their own opinion on anything written here and through posting their opinion foists it on everyone here - wouldn't you say?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]There is, in my mind anyway, just as much of a responsibility to try and understand what someone is saying (and not mischievously twist their words), as there is on the author to try and be clear in the first place[/quote]

I'm not so sure that's how life works, old bean. Look how the fourth estate handles the same news item. As for clarity from an author, who is a professional, I think that goes further. I think you should stand by your words and then apologise when they are crassly inappropriate. You may recall what the then Registrar and the then President said when Dr Dyer's campaign got going, the former dismissed it as a storm in a teacup the latter couldn't see the point in her efforts. At RCVS you have the luxury of speaking from authority but not having accountability or even the grace to apologise.

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 11 May 2016 14:15:01 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]You are placing too much emphasis once again on a phrase. [/quote]

It's interesting you know, this dichotomy between professional life and representative life. In our professional life we are held to be accountable, regulated in all that we say and do. In fact it goes further, because RCVS claims to regulate us if we are ill or have undertaken actions not compatible with the professional that is a veterinary surgeon.

But, if you are of RCVS then these standards of accountability for what you say no longer count.

It is difficult to know how the RCVS operates, given the level of secrecy it has, the "Omerta" of their Councillor conduct rulebook, the collective blank front they show in adversity.

It must be lovely to be able to say, you read too much in to something or that's not what I meant, or my words, my sentences are just comment, I didn't really mean that. I can't do that with the public, but then I charge for my words, my opinion. RCVS don't charge us, do they?[/quote]

Oh fer crying out loud.

Clare wrote:

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"] At least any vet who cares passionately enough to change things can stand for election just as Richard Stephenson did and Chris Barker and Jo Dyer.[/quote]

Which, read precisely, means no more than 'here are three examples of vets who cared passionately and stood for election'

It does not mean: 'I cannot or will not identify any others who feel passionately'.

[quote user="J G Wray"]It must be lovely to be able to say, you read too much in to something or that's not what I meant, or my words, my sentences are just comment, I didn't really mean that.[/quote]

Must be equally lovely to be able to decide unilaterally that your own interpretation of someone else's words is the right one, and then foist it (your interpretation, that is) on everyone else.

There is, in my mind anyway, just as much of a responsibility to try and understand what someone is saying (and not mischievously twist their words), as there is on the author to try and be clear in the first place.

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Wed, 11 May 2016 13:29:35 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"]You are placing too much emphasis once again on a phrase. [/quote]

But, if you are of RCVS then these standards of accountability for what you say no longer count.

It is difficult to know how the RCVS operates, given the level of secrecy it has, the "Omerta" of their Councillor conduct rulebook, the collective blank front they show in adversity.

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Wed, 11 May 2016 12:06:12 GMT

You are placing too much emphasis once again on a phrase. I mentioned those names as an example because I have seen them post on this list. You know this very well and playing headgames as usual you mischievous rascal

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Tue, 10 May 2016 14:14:10 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]If it was true PR maybe we should be allowed to rank the candidates and use an STV system ? is the software upto it ? [/quote]

I'm not sure that RCVS or the RFPs care about the system.

RCVS sees the Election of Councillors as a tiresome annual process to get the numbers up which every now and then allows then some defence against being accused of being male , pale and stale.. viz

[quote user="Bradley Viner"]The big issue in the past was gender balance, and this time the "wisdom of the electorate" would seem to have got it right - two new members out of six, and a balance overall of three males and three females. [/quote]

so, the method doesn't matter

RFPs don't see much going for the Election as it stands, so method means little.

Candidates can see which buttons to press with the current system, so they might mind.

You may recall this from a long serving Councillor:

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"] At least any vet who cares passionately enough to change things can stand for election just as Richard Stephenson did and Chris Barker and Jo Dyer.[/quote]

Only three candidates were identified as caring passionately enough to change things, so the rest over the years presumably have other notions of what it means to be a RCVS Councillor . To them a changed system might matter.

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

grumpyoldman — Mon, 09 May 2016 23:37:27 GMT

looking at it another way the voters actually registered about 10 000 abstentions ?

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

grumpyoldman — Mon, 09 May 2016 23:29:58 GMT

What was interesting was the number of votes actually cast 4400 . compared to the numbers of votes received per candidate ,and the votes of all candidates added together . The voters potentially had 26,400 votes but only seemed to actually use just over half of them. Which seems to suggest 2 things : many just voted tactically against one candidate ,but when they looked at it found they did not like 2-3 others either . Some just voted for someone familiar.

If it was true PR maybe we should be allowed to rank the candidates and use an STV system ? is the software upto it ?

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Mon, 09 May 2016 18:42:01 GMT

[quote user="sajackson"]Ladies of the night and lawyers solicit, canditates canvas![/quote]

Ahhhh lawyers, now there's a subject

Q.Why do sharks leave lawyers?

A. Professional courtesy

Point of order and in the Barbour-Hill tradition

verb (solicits, soliciting, solicited)

1 [with object] Ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone: ‘he called a meeting to solicit their views’

[no object]: ‘don’t solicit for money’

2 [no object] Accost someone and offer one’s or someone else’s services as a prostitute: (as noun soliciting) ‘although prostitution was not itself an offence, soliciting was’

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Stuart Jackson — Mon, 09 May 2016 16:50:01 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"] I voted for Tom Lonsdale as I joked I would on this forum,[/quote]

He is, in the words of Nat King Cole "Unforgeddabul..".

I suppose I should also ask who can remember who got in last year and what they solicited as well?

[/quote]

Ladies of the night and lawyers solicit, canditates canvas!

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Mon, 09 May 2016 16:42:36 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"] I voted for Tom Lonsdale as I joked I would on this forum,[/quote]

He is, in the words of Nat King Cole "Unforgeddabul..".

I suppose I should also ask who can remember who got in last year and what they solicited as well?

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 09 May 2016 14:03:17 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]And can you remember the issues the candidates espoused in order to solicit your vote?[/quote] I voted for Tom Lonsdale as I joked I would on this forum, a case of 'put up or shut up' protest vote (my smileys aren't working.) The problem with the whole process in my opinion is that unlike politicians when you can kind of tell if they are accountable, unless you take a deep interest in RVCS matters it's not really obvious who does what and who's effective in what and this I believe is the reason behind the apathy Neil

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

J G Wray — Mon, 09 May 2016 13:34:15 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]I did look just after they were announced on the RCVS website and although they said Stephen May was returned and another name, the results weren't apparent which was a bit odd.[/quote]

And can you remember the issues the candidates espoused in order to solicit your vote?

RE: RCVS election 10 days on

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 09 May 2016 12:29:07 GMT

Interesting question

I did look just after they were announced on the RCVS website and although they said Stephen May was returned and another name, the results weren't apparent which was a bit odd.

So to add petrol to your question, I haven't looked again and won't either which shows my degree of interest (and I voted)

Neil