Who else finds this a bit sinister?

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Dinu Catilina — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 18:10:26 GMT

[quote userid="11308" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/244296#244296"]How on earth is Tom Lonsdale allowed to run every year then?[/quote]

I hope he gets through

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Anthony Dennison — Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:46:25 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister"]"Also at Council yesterday, we approved some amendments to the RCVS Council Election Scheme around prospective candidates for Council having to declare they have not engaged in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession."[/quote]

How on earth is Tom Lonsdale allowed to run every year then?

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Gerry Henry — Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:58:36 GMT

Ball gag and no B*lls ? (notmycollege.blogspot.com)

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Sarah McGurk — Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:31:08 GMT

Yes, it does worry me that there appears to be a growing tendency to try to silence people. While I think council members ultimately have to explain that they support any majority decision to be taken forward, I want them to be able to be open about voicing their personal skepticism, if that’s what they feel. It’s reasonable to understand that in a democracy, not everyone agrees, even if they respect the voting results and support the majority view being taken forward.

The RCVS Social Media policy has worried me as well, ever since it was introduced, for all the reasons Evelyn mentioned about “scepticism” for various pet political views, which seem almost to have been elevated to the point where disagreement is seen as blasphemy.

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Cinzia Gandini — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 21:57:48 GMT

[quote userid="3585" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242851#242851"] might now include holding and publicly expressing one or more of the opinions that you have described above that are currently disapproved by the Thought Police.[/quote]

What can be considered opinions that are disapproved?

I have noticed that since the start of AI programs more and more activities came up with tougher conduct guidelines, I think that AI should be definitely regulated

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Cinzia Gandini — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 21:52:16 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242865#242865"]the cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet[/quote]

They are elected and the public can choose their MP that will represent a local area (constituency) in the House of Commons for up to five years. While there's a proposal to abolish the RCVS elections and add up this new regulation

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister"]engaged in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession[/quote]

Is there a specific description of these activities and behaviour or is it just the council that decide if it's not appropriate?

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Jon Bray — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 01:10:32 GMT

The other difference is that parliament is multi-factional, possibly because its big enough to be. If I'm so inclined there is nothing to stop me standing as an independent MP, and if I get in I'm not beholden to party whips. If instead I stand on behalf of a party, there is a good chance that (assuming I don't get caught doing anything scandalous) I'll get in or not based on how popular my party's stated policies are, but at least constituents get to choose the party.

If courts are comfortable with the idea of obiter dicta then I don't see why council shouldn't be.

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 14 Nov 2023 19:20:52 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242861#242861"]Er, toe , not tow.[/quote]

Oops. I'd love to blame autocorrect, but it was me. I'd always thought it was tow. Thanks for making me google it - learned something new!

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242861#242861"]

Collective responsibility is fine. Council votes, not unanimously, that no piece of CPD is valid unless you write a thousand-word essay to go with it; or Council votes, not unanimously, that every veterinary surgeon must wear a little "Pride" badge in their lapel; collective responsibility requires that a Council member must not encourage veterinary surgeons to flout these rules. It doesn't mean that they must not declare they think these are bad decisions or campaign to get them reversed.

Government is different, but a Cabinet Minister who cannot stomach a Cabinet decision can resign from their post – something which is in itself a loud public statement of disagreement – without disenfranchising anyone. They resign from the Cabinet, not from Parliament. Parliament makes many decisions, rarely unanimously. Those dissenting aren't forbidden to make their dissent known.

[/quote]

I know that wikipedia is not the font of all knowledge, but I generally find it pretty reliable and it says about collective responsibility:

Cabinet collective responsibility, also known as collective ministerial responsibility, is a constitutional convention in parliamentary systems that members of the cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them.

Which to me means the understood meaning of collective responsibility is to publicly support collective decisions.

That, to me, has some merit in Government.

I am not sure I understand the need for it in a by and large pretty orderly profession such as this.

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 14 Nov 2023 17:05:21 GMT

Sorry, it's not Belgravia House any more is it. It's some rented space in North London. Doesn't have quite the same ring.

Well, for Belgravia House read "the RCVS establishment"; to be distinguished from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons of which we are all Members.

Er, sorry about the bright yellow. I hit the wrong line by mistake. Can't seem to cancel it.

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 14 Nov 2023 16:56:19 GMT

[quote userid="3341" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242854#242854"]Council members now have to sign a declaration that they are not allowed to publicly disagree with *ANY* decision made by council. Absolutely no dissent is to be tolerated. Not even a "Council agreed X - however my personal view is Y - but I agree to follow the collective" - NOPE - every decision is required to be seen as unanimous.[/quote]

Wow. Just wow. I did not know that.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242859#242859"] But isn't that the basis for collective responsibility in any field - that you agree to tow the party line publicly?[/quote]

Er, toe , not tow.

What Bob describes is the suppression of any dissent.

[quote userid="2100" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242859#242859"]I have always found members of this profession are more inclined to have a pretty reasoned and well ordered discussion than a bunfight, so what is collective responsibility in RCVS Council actually achieving, at the cost of stifling broader debate?[/quote]

As I've pointed out, it's not "collective responsibility". It's stifling broader debate. It's suppression of dissent. Our lords and masters in Belgravia House might try to bring themselves to reflect (reflect! ) that they might just consider that their opinions so firmly held today might just be wrong (and when next week they are seen to be wrong, it might be too late to put matters right.)

I'd like to ask the great and good of Belgravia House what I'd like to ask all who seek to "deny platforms" or "cancel" anyone they disagree with: what are you afraid of?

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:38:57 GMT

Bob Partridge - But isn't that the basis for collective responsibility in any field - that you agree to tow the party line publicly?

I think probably it is a good thing in Government not to have ministers publicly at each other like ferrets in a sack.

Surely the real question is whether collective responsibility is appropriate in order to show united leadership in the veterinary profession.

On the one hand, it is surely easier to follow united leadership.

On the other - and I may be over generalising - but I have always found members of this profession are more inclined to have a pretty reasoned and well ordered discussion than a bunfight, so what is collective responsibility in RCVS Council actually achieving, at the cost of stifling broader debate?

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Bob Partridge — Mon, 13 Nov 2023 22:28:40 GMT

Guys, you are missing the bigger picture......

Council members now have to sign a declaration that they are not allowed to publicly disagree with *ANY* decision made by council. Absolutely no dissent is to be tolerated. Not even a "Council agreed X - however my personal view is Y - but I agree to follow the collective" - NOPE - every decision is required to be seen as unanimous.

Pol Pot would have thought it great. North Korea is deeply envious......

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Glen McIntosh — Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:19:24 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister/242846#242846"]It's obviously just me, but this declaration could be used to suppress , shall we say, expression of climate change scepticism, Covid lockdown scepticism, Black Lives Matter scepticism, Stonewall scepticism or whatever expression of opinion is currently disapproved of by the Thought Police.[/quote]

Not bringing the profession into disrepute and not undermining public confidence in the profession are obligations that all M’sRCVS must meet, otherwise they risk losing their membership. So I suppose I can’t see any big issue with making prospective counsellors declare the same at the time of their candidacy.

What is of greater concern to me is that “any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession” might now include holding and publicly expressing one or more of the opinions that you have described above that are currently disapproved by the Thought Police. If so, it will affect all of us, not just candidates for council.

This is already happening with some regulatory bodies in North America.

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 12 Nov 2023 19:12:01 GMT

Hmm. Couldn't they just have omitted "private or" ?

It's obviously just me, but this declaration could be used to suppress , shall we say, expression of climate change scepticism, Covid lockdown scepticism, Black Lives Matter scepticism, Stonewall scepticism or whatever expression of opinion is currently disapproved of by the Thought Police.

One just wonders why such a declaration is necessary at all.

RE: Who else finds this a bit sinister?

Ben Walker — Sun, 12 Nov 2023 08:39:55 GMT

[quote userid="2131" url="~/f/non-clinical-questions/30821/who-else-finds-this-a-bit-sinister"]What's behind this?[/quote]

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/document-library/council-november-2023-papers/rcvs-council-papers-november-2023.pdf

The previous wording was “that there is nothing in their private or professional life which, if it became known, would embarrass the College”.

The change is toning down the language due to a concern it inadvertently strayed into impacting on human rights issues.