Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Iain Richards — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:36:31 GMT

"Strange thing to write. If they are irrelevant, how does their declaration allow you to make a more informed choice?"

A fair comment, but if they declare it, it's of important to them, therefore may affect their decision making. My take, it may not be anyone else's.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:25:34 GMT

[quote user="Iain Richards"]

Declarations of religious belief, therapeutic belief, nationalism etc etc are irrelevant to the function of a council member. I am pleased when these are declared as it allows me to make a more informed choice of candidate.

[/quote]

Strange thing to write. If they are irrelevant, how does their declaration allow you to make a more informed choice?

Of course this is irrelevant to Mr. Davies anyway, as he has not declared any religious belief, therapeutic belief or nationalism.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

John Davies — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:20:42 GMT

I bitterly resent you taking my little joke seriously

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:44:59 GMT

[quote user="John Davies"]

JGW - "candidates are elected to be representative of the profession. Dr Davies' experience isn't typical. Dr Davies looks like an "outlier", in the analytical sense, to me and his manifesto has no sense of hope, just bitterness and personal resentment".

...I bitterly resent your take on my motivation.

[/quote]

QED

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

John Davies — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 15:01:53 GMT

"John, did the RCVS tell you before they had published the manifestos that they wouldn't be printing it in full? Or did you only find out once they were published that they had censored yours?"

I sent in my statement a week or so before the closing date asking for comments. First I was told I couldn't stand at all, because I have outstanding debts with them. When I challenged them to justify this by the rules, they were unable to, so withdrew that obstacle. They then said I needed to declare the debt as a 'conflict of interest', which I did, but they later censored that part of my statement, rather defeating their own stated purposes. Before the submission date I was told they took issue with other parts of my statement and that I needed to modify it. However, the reasons were so non-specific it was generally hard to know what they wanted me to remove. So I submitted the statement largely unchanged.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Bob Russell — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:58:54 GMT

Sometimes we need a candidate with a degree of scepticism and anger!

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

John Davies — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:50:35 GMT

"candidates are elected to be representative of the profession. Dr Davies' experience isn't typical. Dr Davies looks like an "outlier", in the analytical sense, to me and his manifesto has no sense of hope, just bitterness and personal resentment".

If it seems like an outlier, I suggest that that is because the truth is on the one hand being suppressed, and on the other published selectively, so you are not getting a full unbiased picture. In fact, watch this space. How long this discussion will allowed to last before pressure is put on the website to withdraw it because that truth is uncomfortable for some remains to be seen.

I am not nearly so much of an outlier - in terms of both RCVS issues and clinical practice - as you seem to think. However, you need to understand that publishing uncomfortable truth is not without its risks, so I and others need to tread carefully. I have not disclosed all I know.

I bitterly resent your take on my motivation. More seriously, how do you know what my motives are?

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

John Davies — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:13:57 GMT

In point of fact I did have full rights as an employee - how else could I have won the Employment Tribunal? Having said that, reinstatement orders are as rare as a blue moon (as my barrister put it), so it is potentially the means by which someone can be judged to be both wrongfully and unfairly dismissed - as I was - yet lose their practice on account of no longer being an employee.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Iain Richards — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:28:03 GMT

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Bob Russell — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:27:42 GMT

Pets at Home appear to be struggling with sales:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/19/pets-home-shares-wilt-subdued-christmas-trading/

Interestingly they say vet services performed strongly. Does this actually mean they are skimming a lot of revenue from their so called partners or are these partners doing well themselves?

What happens if the on-line world overtakes the in-store one? "Fetch" seem to offer the best value online!!

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

grumpyoldman — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:20:13 GMT

Not sure i think the censorship was a great idea. It looks like brushing under the carpet whether it is or not. Also makes a bit of a mockery of increased transparency.

I have met and spoken to several people with JVP disasters in the middle of and post JVP disasters.When approached for start up advice I always tell people not to touch it with a barge poll, because the top skimming is too much. However some people really do seem to like it and make a go of it.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Danny Chambers — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:08:57 GMT

John, did the RCVS tell you before they had published the manifestos that they wouldn't be printing it in full? Or did you only find out once they were published that they had censored yours?

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Bob Russell — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:08:37 GMT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

Seems a perfectly appropriate and interesting field to study!

I have been uncomfortable with the apparent silence from JVP's regarding negative experiences. There have to be some. Is the legal pressure to stay slient that strong?

Also nothing wrong with a candidate for committee to put forward this issue. the RCVS already has a lot of members that are closely associated with corporates. Perhaps this is the time to vote for someone to improve the balance.

I really dislike the idea that a candidate statement is reduced/altered/redacted without it being clearly stated.

So far the only information regarding the Davies situation has been from the link here and the candidate statement again on here.

If bitterness and resentment can be converted to constructive action then all the better!

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

J G Wray — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:53:18 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]
[quote user="Stephen Putnam"]Already a no vote for me with the "christian apologetics".[/quote]
Yes I am puzzled by this comment too?? I wonder would you feel comfortable making a similar remark re Jewish apologetics or Islamic apologetics??
Just seems an odd thing to say to me???

[/quote]
I'm baffled by the mountaineering in Oxfordshire and as for the cycling, well.....

I have considerable sympathy for the JVP experience and know of two similar cases, both involving underperformance financially, one complicated by a complaint.

I'm also sympathetic towards the experience with RCVS, because it is an organisation which has banged on about standards as if it exists in a virtuous bubble, yet.....

However, to use another candidate's words, candidates are elected to be representative of the profession. Dr Davies' experience isn't typical. Dr Davies looks like an "outlier", in the analytical sense, to me and his manifesto has no sense of hope, just bitterness and personal resentment.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Niall Taylor — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 06:54:22 GMT

[quote user="John Davies"]I’m also studying for an MA in Christian Apologetics[/quote]

[quote user="Stephen Putnam"]Already a no vote for me with the "christian apologetics".[/quote]

An 'apologetic' is someone who defends, not someone who apologises for. A 'Christian apologetic' will defend the views and scriptures of Christianity. I wouldn't have thought that would be particularly problematic in itself, it seems a legitimate area of interest if you are of a religious persuasion.

http://www.thebestschools.org/rankings/top-10-graduate-programs-christian-apologetics/
Apologetics is about rationally defending a position or view whose truth is challenged. Usually, apologetics refers to the defense of the Christian faith, laying out a case for the accuracy of its historical claims (such as the resurrection of Jesus) and for the soundness and coherence of its theology (such as the doctrine of the Trinity).

http://www.liberty.edu/online/masters/christian-apologetics/
The Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics online program will provide students with the philosophical, historical, and biblical knowledge to defend the rationality of Christianity. This degree is beneficial for Christians seeking advanced knowledge of Scripture for personal ministry or pastors who want to strengthen their understanding of the Bible.

Niall

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Niall Taylor — Thu, 30 Mar 2017 06:41:17 GMT

[quote user="John Davies"]JVPs are both partners AND employees in their own business. The JV contract ends if, for whatever reason, the JV partner ceases to be an employee.[/quote]

Sounds to me from what you say like a JVP has the worst of both worlds - no rights under employment law so can be dismissed with little in the way of due process yet unable to have the long-term, big picture view a partner should have, again because of the possibility of dismissal when things aren't going well.

Maybe I've misunderstood, but I don't see how you can be a partner and an employee with/for the same organisation at the same time.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Richard Stephenson — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:47:05 GMT

[quote user="Stephen Putnam"]Already a no vote for me with the "christian apologetics".[/quote]

Yes I am puzzled by this comment too?? I wonder would you feel comfortable making a similar remark re Jewish apologetics or Islamic apologetics??

Just seems an odd thing to say to me???

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

John Davies — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 22:38:50 GMT

I'm puzzled. What have you got against Christian apologetics that it rules me out as a candidate?

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Stephen Putnam — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:13:27 GMT

Already a no vote for me with the "christian apologetics".

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

John Davies — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:28:04 GMT

JVPs are both partners AND employees in their own business. The JV contract ends if, for whatever reason, the JV partner ceases to be an employee.

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Clive Ansell — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:16:56 GMT

I know an employee can of course, but how can a "partner" be "dismissed"?

RE: Election unfair - John Davies (candidate)

Bob Russell — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:55:50 GMT

Thought it was a very short entry!

Always been a little strange how little gets published with regard to Joint Venture partnerships! I thought they were all matches made in heaven and partners were raking in the money so fast that they could not decide which new yacht should be bought this week and where to park the new sports car!

Refreshing to see another side to the story!

Added to my provisional voting list!