Disappearing thread

RE: Disappearing thread

Arlo Guthrie — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 10:25:02 GMT

[quote user="KathW"]I can can see where you are coming from Arlo Guthrie and its not my forum, but I don’t think that’s a valid reason to delete a whole thread.[/quote]

KathW I agree with pretty much everything you've written!

As regards deleting that thread ... I didn't do it because of what others had posted, but because on reflection, I thought MY reaction had been a bit knee-jerk.

In other words, for many many years I have sat here moderating a relentless barrage of criticism of the College. I've always disliked the way that it becomes so personal and the way that there is so rarely any balance: that those who criticise don't see the importance of carrot and stick. They just use stick. Anyway, I saw Lizzie's appointment and thought this really is great news. Apart from anything else, someone whose commitment to the profession (as opposed to a career move) is surely beyond question. And if I am honest, I like her. So when I posted a congratulatory message and JGW comes back to use it as another opportunity to pick holes, I just thought ... oh FFS. Not again. And it came at the end of a long day (a long couple of month's actually).

[quote user="KathW"]This forum isn’t FB so you aren’t going to get 30 quick congratulatory comments after a statement (as I originally commented).[/quote]

Yes, with hindsight, a good point. I had looked over on FB and seen all the positive stuff and that added to my frustration, but as you say, the two things are very different.

[quote user="KathW"]To say you want to breathe fresh air into the forum with more younger contributors can be taken as not valuing the years of experience and contributions of this forum‘s more mature members. [/quote]

Certainly not what I think at all. I hugely value the contributions of old farts. I really do. All I mean is that we need balance, too. A range of opinion.

[quote user="KathW"]It sent me the message that you may want the forum only to discuss things in a certain way. I realis this may not be correct. [/quote]

Yes, I DO want people to discuss things in a certain way!!! In a way that is appropriate for a forum. In a way that isn't:

[quote user="KathW"]disrespectful and tantamount to jibes and taunts. [/quote]

That really is ALL I try to do. In other words, not to suppress opinion, but to try and ensure that the tone of the forum is largely collaborative, friendly, supportive and all that kind of thing.

RE: Disappearing thread

KathW — Sun, 12 Nov 2017 09:32:15 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

In a nutshell:

I posted a thread welcoming Lizzie's appointment as RCVS CEO. Against a background of relentless criticism on this site of the College and its representatives over many years, it was, I thought, a moment to congratulate them on a sound decision and wish her well.

Typically, JGW came and posted another oblique pop at Lizzie, throwing a damp cloth over things ... again.

Meanwhile, I saw the reaction to the news in a group on Facebook, which was altogether more supportive, friendly etc. and admit to feeling a sense of despair.

Reflecting on that difference in 'vibe' between us and other groups, I thought (and posted) that the answer is to try and get a younger group of contributors to breath some fresh air in here, and ask some members to leave (which was an injudicious use of the word 'some', because that could mean anything and 'some' overstates the issue).

Malcolm thought I was talking about him and understandably took umbrage. I absolutely wasn’t, and have PMd him to clarify.

Moderating is always a very fine balance between differentiating between fair and reasonable disagreement, and trying to ensure a collaborative, friendly environment which provides the greatest opportunity for the largest number of people to participate.

And to be absolutely 100% clear, I have never deleted a post because I disagree with someone’s opinion or idea. Nor would I. It’s not my place.

In other words, this is not about creating ‘safe spaces’, or censoring opinions I don’t happen to agree with.

It’s about good manners and being considerate.

This might seem a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. JGW didn’t post anything out-and-out unkind about Lizzie. But after years and years and years of needling, it is fair to say that one can become sensitised to it. And the contrast between the way JGW was taking the discussion here, and the reaction elsewhere is stark.

I think Lizzie’s appointment is an important moment, and very good news. I’ve known her for many years, and rate her as incredibly dedicated, hard-working and passionate about what she does (Mind Matters being a good example).

I don’t doubt that there will have been things she has done that not everyone will agree with, and no doubt things that people will disagree with in the future. And that is fine. Fine to say so, too. But it’s a question of picking your moment, and I would argue that now is NOT that moment.

Now, if you feel so inclined, is just the time to say ‘well done’ or ‘congratulations’ and thereby help set the scene for a more collaborative and friendly vibe.

The alternative, the JGW modus operandi, is to use it as an occasion to have another dig, which just marginalises us all.

[/quote]

I can can see where you are coming from Arlo Guthrie and its not my forum, but I don’t think that’s a valid reason to delete a whole thread. I read and commented on the missing thread and though it may not have been 100% positive and congratulatory it expressed people’s opinions.

This forum isn’t FB so you aren’t going to get 30 quick congratulatory comments after a statement (as I originally commented).

Maybe many of us on here are older than the FB demographic and have seen many changes over the years and therefore are more cautious rather than just leaping on the bandwagon of straightforward congratulations.

Maybe it’s also something that’s part of the psyche of many veterinary surgeons and also develops over the years. We can’t just agree with everything within the workplace or that a client says. We have to listen and then hopefully give a measured balanced opinion. That will carry over to other aspects of our lives too and maybe we lose the balance?

To say you want to breathe fresh air into the forum with more younger contributors can be taken as not valuing the years of experience and contributions of this forum‘s more mature members.

It sent me the message that you may want the forum only to discuss things in a certain way. I realis this may not be correct.

To me some of the comments on this forum are becoming disrespectful and tantamount to jibes and taunts. They are changing the tone of the forum and I would think that is going to make many people think twice about posting an opinion here, it’s certainly making some of the forum threads look less supportive which is a great shame as there is a huge bank of knowledge and experience here.

RE: Disappearing thread

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 08:56:37 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]It wasn't "the College" which got the Chikosi case wrong. "The College" does not judge disciplinary cases. It was the Disciplinary Committee. That's been separated from Council, remember? [/quote]As I've been on a week long conference, half of which was on the workings of the RCVS and the DC, by a member of the DC, during which we performed some mock cases, I suspect I probably know more about this before you did Evelyn. I was generalising you are being pedantic.

RE: Disappearing thread

Sarah McGurk — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 07:47:08 GMT

Thanks Neil. Very interesting. Is it known that they used RCVS (members’ fee) funding?

Sponsorship could quite possibly have been found from industries who would benefit from such a project. The project is not wholly without merit, (in my opinion) but I don’t think our fees should be used for it.

RE: Disappearing thread

David Mills — Wed, 08 Nov 2017 01:13:44 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]Is there somewhere I can read about this please? I tried to search to see if there was a thread about it, but came up with nothing.[/quote]

Voila

https://nickstaceblogs.org

Neil

[/quote]

It's kind of symbolic of the Stace period and culture that the best source of information as to what Belgravia House is up to should be "Nick Stace's Blog".

[/quote]

Goodness me. How tragically embarrassing.

Anyway.

Mr G. Has your foolishness alienated one of our best, most erudite, informed, respected and helpful contributors in Mr M Ness?

If so, you owe him a public, and sincere apology. As someone who has met him in person he's a throughly decent, sensible, and bloody helpful guy.

RE: Disappearing thread

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 23:01:25 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]Is there somewhere I can read about this please? I tried to search to see if there was a thread about it, but came up with nothing.[/quote]

Voila

https://nickstaceblogs.org

Neil

[/quote]

It's kind of symbolic of the Stace period and culture that the best source of information as to what Belgravia House is up to should be "Nick Stace's Blog".

RE: Disappearing thread

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:58:26 GMT

[quote user="Clare Tapsfield-Wright"] The point of simplifying it was to acknowledge that vets were intelligent and did not need spoonfeeding for everything. [/quote]

Yep. That was done in the revolutionary new Guide. I'm sorry, the memory gets hazy, I can't remember the year that was.

The change to a Code came much later. The very renaming made it more prescriptive. It was not necessary – we all have our personal professional code anyway, which needs a bit of guidance sometimes (from a guide, obviously). And more has quietly been tacked on, bit by bit, by way of supporting guidance (!).

It may be "well supported". Some posts on this forum, for instance, suggest that some Ms of the RCVS do need spoonfeeding for everything.

RE: Disappearing thread

Clare Tapsfield-Wright — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:43:40 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

Wholeheartedly agree with Evelyn that we should adhere to a Guide. We aren't children.

Or if we want a Code, it shouldn't look like a Bible.

[/quote] I certainly bear responsibility for the Code which was intended to make it clearer and more accessible than the massive compilation of advice notes that was the previous guide. It doesn’t look like a bible to me Francisco but sets out what is expected from a vet concisely and with links to supporting guidance.I doubt anyone waded through the previous guide , it was massive and some bits were seriously out of date. The point of simplifying it was to acknowledge that vets were intelligent and did not need spoonfeeding for everything.

Having principles to follow rather than prescriptive guidance was intended to make it more applicable to the myriad of different scenarios that kept being raised which “ weren’t in the guidance” . The improvement in the ease with which to search online needed to be accommodated too and an app was developed so it needed to be in a suitable format making it easy to search for the necessary information. It’s several years on now but I’m sure anyone interested could look at all the discussions and meeting notes if they want to. I don’t agree that it’s more prescriptive Evelyn , it seemed fine to me as a practitioner at the time and was well supported by other council members.

RE: Disappearing thread

Neil Wheadon — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:39:30 GMT

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]Is there somewhere I can read about this please? I tried to search to see if there was a thread about it, but came up with nothing.[/quote]

Voila

https://nickstaceblogs.org

Neil

RE: Disappearing thread

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 22:05:23 GMT

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]The extraordinary and still unexplained Indian adventure.

[/quote]

Is there somewhere I can read about this please? I tried to search to see if there was a thread about it, but came up with nothing.

[/quote]

I haven't recently looked myself, but you could try the RCVS website. Or riffle back through issues of Veterinary Record for 2017.

There was a post or two on this forum. Not sure what search terms would pick them up.

RE: Disappearing thread

Sarah McGurk — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:58:22 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]The extraordinary and still unexplained Indian adventure.

[/quote]

Is there somewhere I can read about this please? I tried to search to see if there was a thread about it, but came up with nothing.

RE: Disappearing thread

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:57:01 GMT

Wholeheartedly agree with Evelyn that we should adhere to a Guide. We aren't children.

Or if we want a Code, it shouldn't look like a Bible.

RE: Disappearing thread

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 21:38:26 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]The only case I can recall in living memory which it got wrong was Chikosi and then the outcry led to a change in the code which shows it is listening to us. Every other sanction I've seen handed down has been justified.[/quote]

It wasn't "the College" which got the Chikosi case wrong. "The College" does not judge disciplinary cases. It was the Disciplinary Committee. That's been separated from Council, remember? (Though at the time of separation, two members of Council left Council in order to get on the DC. Which in my opinion was well against the spirit of the separation and was disgraceful. However, I think they've probably served their time and gone).

However this does bring us to one of the main heads of complaint from me. A very long time ago a veterinary surgeon was expected to know without being told what professional behaviour was and what was disgraceful. Then it became clear that a guide was necessary and the first Guide to Professional Conduct was produced. This gradually became a thick book, very prescriptive. Then, in a minor revolution not so long ago, the prescriptionist Guide was scrapped and a brand new Guide produced which outlined principles and left most of the details to be worked out by intelligent adults. Then the prescriptive details began to creep back in until in another revolution – or coup – came and the Guide was scrapped in favour of a prescriptive Code. You may feel that the difference between Guide and Code is "mere semantics" but the change is strongly symbolic. The prescriptionists are back in power.

That was just one of "a few mistakes" Then there was the ill-fated rush to obtain a new Act. The undimmed burning ambition to get a new Act. The outrageous advertising of PSS members at College expense (i.e. with retention fees). The reconstruction of Council to reduce still further what little democratic influence we Members have upon it. The extraordinary and still unexplained Indian adventure.

You know, fifteen years ago I was one of those old farts who always defended the RCVS against younger MsRCVS who wished to (verbatim quotation) "stick two fingers up to the Royal College".

RE: Disappearing thread

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 18:50:11 GMT

Very unlike me, I've watched this thread from afar so far. Those who think the RCVS is a consumer champion presumably are seeing it protecting the public to the detriment of its members. The only case I can recall in living memory which it got wrong was Chikosi and then the outcry led to a change in the code which shows it is listening to us. Every other sanction I've seen handed down has been justified. Some may not be happy the college is not satisfying their personal agenda but this is an organisation effectively manned by amateurs and it has to tread a very careful and fine line to keep a very diverse profession happy. Yes there have been some injudicious spending decisions, a few mistakes along the way and a few less than perfect appointments but aren't there in any organisation?

I don't agree with every aspect of their governance but it we want to remain a self-governing profession this is about as good as it gets.

RE: Disappearing thread

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:47:18 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]The Royal College needs to have a rethink if it genuinely thinks itself to be a consumer champion.[/quote]

But is it? Or is that just someone else's personal take on what they are doing?

RE: Disappearing thread

Bob Russell — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:19:43 GMT

Consumers have a number of champions already. Trading standards and Citizens Advice being two of them.

The Royal College needs to have a rethink if it genuinely thinks itself to be a consumer champion. It will put it firmly in the us against them category and this will neither serve our clients or vets well.

Protecting and serving the profession will do far more good than acting as a one stop shop for clients that don't like a clinical outcome or the size of their bill, mediation or otherwise.

RE: Disappearing thread

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:13:01 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I fail to see why the RCVS appears to consider looking after veterinary surgeons wellbeing to be almost a dirty word[/quote]

Because it wants to be a consumer champion, for pet owners?

[/quote]

Ironic timing...I am currently listening to a webinar given by Ms Lockett about 'mind matters'.

RE: Disappearing thread

Rob Loxley — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 13:11:11 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I fail to see why the RCVS appears to consider looking after veterinary surgeons wellbeing to be almost a dirty word[/quote]

Because it wants to be a consumer champion, for pet owners?

RE: Disappearing thread

Bob Russell — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 09:54:11 GMT

I fail to see why the RCVS appears to consider looking after veterinary surgeons wellbeing to be almost a dirty word.

I spent the first 20 years pretty much ignoring the RCVS. It was staffed by the wise and the good. If I did nothing wrong I would be left alone. If I did wrong then it would 'correct' things.

Very unwise spending choices at Belgravia House suggested all was not well and it was not. Bob Partridge made a lot of enemies on committee but did a lot to wake up the sleeping.

Chikosis showed that there were people making fools of themselves (and others) and the combination made me more aware of the politics.

There is no place for a them and us situation. They should be us! Actually they should be the good us's!

The wellbeing of the profession should be the absolute priority. Not the well being of our bank balances (although that has to be considered) but the overall 'happiness' of the profession. Younger colleagues should feel the protection as they settle into the veterinary world, good practitioners should be encouraged to stay good and the very few bad eggs should be removed.

The RCVS should be rethinking its approach.

The Practice Standards Scheme has a place but not to the detriment of those that choose other ways to maintain high clinical standards.

Getting involved in a mediation scheme does not strike me as that positive a move. By all means look into a number of mediation schemes and offer the option where appropriate.

The starting point should always be 'we already have a very good veterinary profession, is what we plan going to really make it better or perhaps worse?'

RE: Disappearing thread

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 09:02:44 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Reflecting on that difference in 'vibe' between us and other groups, [/quote]

Who exactly is "us" Arlo, the views on this forum as fairly contradictory, I don't think we are all the same. [/quote]

You're right, and to some degree therein lies the problem, which is that the vocal minority create an impression of this group that does not reflect the greater majority.

[quote user="David Mills"]Yet another embarrassing example of poor judgement by Mr G.[/quote]

Looking at this comment dispassionately, I was struck last night by an interview on the news last night with Jared Cohen, CEO of a company called Jigsaw, hired by Alphabet (Google) to 'make the internet a better place'. Clearly no fool.

He said:

"Anyone who is on the Internet understands that the most universally appreciated challenge is the decline in civility in conversation."

I like that word civility. It sums up, in one word, what I am trying to moderate for. Civility does not restrict robust debate, or the free expression of opinion. Quite the reverse.

"Right now what is happening across the entire internet is the trolls are winning; the loudest most obnoxious voices are driving all of the people who want to engage in debate and conversation out of the discourse."

He's right, though I should stress I am not quoting this pointedly at David Mills (or anyone else here)! I make a much more general point.

What is really interesting, though, is what is behind the decline in civility. I have just 'tweeted' Mr Cohen:

"Decline in civility online is caused by the limitations of the written word, not innate nastiness. Solve that!"

In other words, I am often struck by the same thing as you, Dinu Catilina

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"][quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I would love to meet these people (all men, oddly) who are so disrespectful of other people's feelings online. I'm fascinated to see how they behave in person[/quote]

I met them :). I run a forum for dog breeders and exhibitors, it's 9 years now, and met the trolls several times. Very polite and reserved in real life :) [/quote]

It is really interesting, that. Of course there are some people who are just plain obnoxious in any context (again, talking generally, not pointedly). But I think they are in the minority, and what one tends to find is that those people you might think from their posts are the most miserable shits are, offline, completely different and altogether more likeable. In other words, it is a limitation of the medium.

The majority of people here, I think, recognise that limitation and work with it (very well). One or two are, um, less good at it. I used to think the answer lies in education. I don't any more.

I think in the short term, the only solution is moderation. In the longer term, it is to develop ways that the written word can be made to reflect some people's altogether nicer offline personas more accurately.

Some interesting points made in this thread about the RCVS and perception of it. I'm going to tangent that aspect now.

RE: Disappearing thread

Jo Dyer — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 08:30:55 GMT

[quote user="MartinH1"]As a young vet, I often why there is so much discontent for the RCVS with older members. We were taught that the RCVS is a regulatory body, and there to safeguard the public and animal welfare by controlling who and who cannot practice veterinary medicine.[/quote]

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]For the vast vast majority and I include myself (an older vet), the RCVS is the regulator and aside from paying them once a year to remain a vet I have very little to do with them, I haven't even been to HQ.[/quote]

Interesting points. Being of Neil's generation, I was of the same opinion. As long as they don't bother me, I won't bother them.....Well it worked until about 4 years ago!!

Martin, your generation is being told that RCVS is 'just the regulator' and I have heard that from many people. But as Evelyn says (sorry, it won't let me quote for some reason), we are a self-regulating profession. Regulation is not the sole raison-d'etre of the RCVS. Indeed the 'mission statement' (for want of a better phrase) is 'We aim to enhance society through improved animal health and welfare. We do this by setting, upholding and advancing the educational, ethical and clinical standards of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses'.

What has seemed to be forgotten at times, was that veterinary surgeons cannot 'improve animal welfare through advancing standards' if their own welfare is not seen as important also. I think things are improving from that point of view but it is a message that needs constant repetition, and that is my reason for being on Council.

I'll wait for JGW and DM to come and shoot me down now

RE: Disappearing thread

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 08:27:06 GMT

[quote user="Dinu Catilina"]Some are women as well, don't be sexist please. [/quote]

I wasn't. When I said oddly, I meant it. As it happens, some of my friends are men!

I'm the very last person to be sexist, I can promise you!

RE: Disappearing thread

Dinu Catilina — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 08:05:16 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]I would love to meet these people (all men, oddly) who are so disrespectful of other people's feelings online. I'm fascinated to see how they behave in person[/quote]

I met them :). I run a forum for dog breeders and exhibitors, it's 9 years now, and met the trolls several times. Very polite and reserved in real life :)

Some are women as well, don't be sexist please.

RE: Disappearing thread

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 07:38:56 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]If you put yourself up as an elected member of anything then expect nice things and expect some shit.[/quote]

There is a big difference between respectfully disagreeing with their opinion and decisions, and generally throwing shit in their direction. I would hope you know that.

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]Sometimes people need telling they are an idiot.[/quote]

No, they don't. That is simply rude and unpleasant. Do you tell strangers elsewhere that they are an idiot?

I would love to meet these people (all men, oddly) who are so disrespectful of other people's feelings online. I'm fascinated to see how they behave in person. Anyone going to the LVS???

RE: Disappearing thread

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 07 Nov 2017 01:59:59 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]I do have a problem with the increasing nannyism of this safe space and some magic forcefield that having worked for RCVS and tried your best (bless) you deserve some kind of special protection or respect. [/quote]

Agree 100%.

If you put yourself up as an elected member of anything then expect nice things and expect some shit.

This is not Facebook and I'm glad of that. Embrace that Arlo Guthrie, don't try and emulate it.

I find this forum rather 'real' and I'm glad the discussion can be robust. Sometimes people need telling they are an idiot. It can get a bit tedious with some retired members going around in circles (AT gets a bit confused, bless him). Whether he's to everyone's taste or not JGW makes some very good points and the forum would be a much worse place without him.

I think David is absolutely correct and some people need to grow up.