RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Tim Cheyne — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:16:44 GMT

Interesting article on BBC website this morning.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14677143

Am not sure whether this makes the RCVS a 'Black Swan' or just a lame duck.

Tim.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Ian Mostyn — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:40:22 GMT

Surely the Peter Principle is more appropriate to this discussion?

Ian

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:15:41 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I don't think Stalin has anything to do with it.[/quote]

Didn't think you'd fall for a soft mid-court lob like that, Bob.

Adolf and Ned Sherrin have already congratulated me.....

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:43:15 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Godwin's Law strikes yet again![/quote]

I don't think Stalin has anything to do with it.

[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:38:52 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]Godwin's Law strikes yet again![/quote]

I don't think Stalin has anything to do with it.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:38:04 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Can we nominate him against his will[/quote]

Better to persuade him by overwhelming support and offers of help which I think will be forthcoming.

The stick can come if all else fails.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:35:35 GMT

Godwin's Law strikes yet again!

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Mark Holmes — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:30:54 GMT

I would agree JGW would be perfect, even more so that he doesn't want the job. My concern with committees of this sort is that they self select for the type of person who likes committees, they are frequently not the type of person you would chose to put on them.

Can we nominate him against his will, vote for him and then enforce his participation?

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Bob Russell — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:53:08 GMT

JGW has already said he is not interested but I think he is exactly the person to do the job IMO.

The committee clearly need a shake up. Bob Partridge already livens things up and provokes some very condescending comments from other council members. Whilst I do not agree with all of Bob's (or JGW's) views I do think it is time for the complacency of the council to be challenged.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 09:45:16 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Do we want a "DOT ORG" candidate or not?[/quote]

Better and snappy VSorg candidate!

Don't let this thread just move down the list and vanish off the bottom; this is important!

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:52:25 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]The real questions is: who is prepared to put themselves forward?[/quote]

One name springs out at me, initials JGW.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Chris Barker — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:45:56 GMT

'The real questions is: who is prepared to put themselves forward?'

Only the very determined, those with elephantine skin, and those with plenty of free time.

For any 'problem' Councillor will be politely greeted and instantly rewarded with membership of the Preliminary Investigation Committee and thereby become buried under paperwork for the first two years...

After the passing of the promised Reform Order, which will split away the PIC and DC, then commitment to Council will become less onerous and perhaps Councillors will have time to properly contribute to the governance of the RCVS and oversight of the, as yet nameless, 'Senior management Team...RCVS Project Manager and the ASI Project Manager'

Chris B

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Simon Neuhoff — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 12:10:58 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

OK, we've been on about this for long enough.

Do we want a "DOT ORG" candidate or not?

If we do, what do we want him/her to stand for?

Arlo, this might be better as a new thread?

[/quote]

The real questions is: who is prepared to put themselves forward?

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

David Mills — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:25:27 GMT

Quite right Mr Todd.

[Thanks for the community concern. Didn't regard it as personal, am sure my fellow debaters are similar. Apologies if writing style aggrieves. Bad arguments are a bugbear and litter the forums, life, politics, everywhere - I just highlight them when they come up. Myself, Mr G and Mr G obviously disagree: no biggie]

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 07:05:57 GMT

OK, we've been on about this for long enough.

Do we want a "DOT ORG" candidate or not?

If we do, what do we want him/her to stand for?

Arlo, this might be better as a new thread?

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Clive Ansell — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:16:13 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

enjoy the strike tomorrow and reflect on how most of us will never have someone else pay or guarantee our pensions....

[/quote]

We will. When we reach state pension age our pension (if it still exists with this lot in power) is set by government and paid for by the taxpayer at the time.

I'm probably out on limb here in a mainly Tory profession, but I'm with the strikers'. The government are reneging on what is agreed and in place, and are trying to steamroller through changes without discussion. The cynic in me feels they are trying to provoke a strike so that they can blame someone in part for the economic mess, and to push through more anti union and anti strike legislation.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Bob Russell — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:32:05 GMT

[quote user="Richard Carter"]

Time to turn the hose on this - all getting very personal. Everyone - time out, have a large glass of something alcoholic, enjoy the strike tomorrow and reflect on how most of us will never have someone else pay or guarantee our pensions....

[/quote]

Seconded!

Having said this it is essential that pressure be kept on the RCVS committee until the whole story is known. At that stage Mr Wray should be ready to apologise or Mrs Nute apologise and resign as appropriate.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Richard Carter — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:23:27 GMT

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Alex Gough — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:24:53 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Mr Gough - I doubt we will agree as I care little for the approval of my fellow professionals - but to compare someone taking out a court order to have something removed from google or elsewhere to a statement about whether someone knew something before they let on is hyperbole[/quote]

No it's not hyperbole, it's analogy. I was comparing and contrasting the situation here and on google, as fortunately Ms Nute didn't need a court order to get a possibly inaccurate comment remove. Stating that this is the "essence of hyperbolic bad argument" is itself hyperbole. And just because you don't care about the opinions of others, doesn't mean that other people feel the same.

Alex

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:50:31 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]The original accusation was that X knew about overspend Y back in N. That is not a defamatory statement in any way comparable to your second example[/quote]

Not the way you put it, I agree. But actually, the original post was loaded with innuendo and suggesting that Mrs Nute is dishonest. I absolutely, completely and utterly 100% disagree with you that it is not comparable with being called incompetent. Having said that, we're talking about something pretty subjective here, so whilst I would like to persuade you otherwise, I fear I won't, and I accept your right to your own opinion.

Still, if I'm blunt, I don't much like the way your posts read as though only one person's opinion is right here, and it's yours!

The sarcasm in your last shot at Alex kind of illustrates my point. Once again, you just don't seem able to accept that there is any other way of looking at things than your own. Once again, I think it is presumptuous of you to dictate how much offence someone should or shouldn't take, or how they should react. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell you how to behave.

If this reads as though I'm angry, or trying to cause offence, David, my apologies. I'm neither. Just trying, as best I can, to explain the thinking behind my actions.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

J G Wray — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:27:26 GMT

In the "bundle" of papers for the May 2011 PRC meeting there is a presentation by a Mr Webster,the Facilities Manager at RCVS. It is entitled

"..Proposed Protocol for the Management of Major Projects."[at RCVS]

In this he sets out how future projects should be managed. Now, he, of course, is in charge of the LGF facilities as well as the rest of the building. There's a bit of management speak about "full envelope of ....services" - yawn - to get past

I cannot find any reference in documents to anyone commissioning this long report to PRC in Feb 2011 or Oct/Nov 2010.It is a general report, not just referring to his own area.

I am not clear who contrives the agenda for each meeting. An experienced and long standing member of Council would know this and could tells us.

There was no reason for him to do so if there were a problem with the IT project, because the previous PRC meeting had, even though not recorded, been told that project was on budget.

it is commendible that this should have been done, but why?

JGW

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

David Mills — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:50:21 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Why on earth should Mrs Nute (or anyone else. Really, this is not about Mrs Nute) have to sit and tolerate an attack on their character, made by anyone who feels the urge, regardless of whether or not it is true? Why should they have to waste their time defending themselves against anything anyone cares to throw at them?

I wonder how you would feel if someone accused you of being a thoroughly useless, incompetent vet in a forum of your peers. Maybe you wouldn't care. But surely you must understand that there are others who would. And care very deeply.

[/quote]

I understand your reasoning, but disagree with its conclusions, and the generality into which it has now been morphed. The original accusation was that X knew about overspend Y back in N. That is not a defamatory statement in any way comparable to your second example, or this aggrandised 'anything anyone wants to throw at them'. I agree with removing the second - who wouldn't (although as it goes I see it as a conceit to be slavish to the thoughts of fellow professionals)? But the accusation is surely answerable in one line: I did not know about overspend Y back in N. That would be enough, until proof/evidence otherwise came to light - no need for discussion between X and Mr W. Until such time I still - and this is where we obviously disagree - wholeheartedly object to the use of words such as 'lies' (as another poster said, this is effectively calling Mr W a liar - that is defamatory) especially in the title, and the demands for an apology. It is an over-emotive, overreaction.

Mr Gough - I doubt we will agree as I care little for the approval of my fellow professionals - but to compare someone taking out a court order to have something removed from google or elsewhere to a statement about whether someone knew something before they let on is hyperbole: shucks, I just tripped over and cut my knee but it doesn't matter because kids are starving in Africa. Obviously true but so far apart in magnitude the comparison becomes meaningless.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Anthony Todd — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:34:22 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]why didn't you do just that Mrs. Nute?[/quote]

Mrs Nute has frequently posted on this forum so why not now?

The "PI" excuse doesn't seem valid, to me.

Obviously she is best placed to deny or refute JGW's allegation but doing it via a third party has an aroma about it.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Bob Russell — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 22:23:36 GMT

This is all getting rather personal.

If a member complains about a comment made by another it is appropriate for a moderator to remove a post on the grounds it may be inappropriate in some way. An explanation by PM to the poster may be good manners but as an 'independent' moderator is it right to demand an apology?

Not convinced.

Re: RCVS, Overspends, Wray, Lies

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:48:02 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Pray, the evidence on Mrs N's part apart from contacting you? Your argument thus far: she says it's a lie, so you believe her. Mr Wray says it isn't, and you don't believe him/he says she knew about it and you don't believe him. Thence you demand a unilateral apology. Still failing to see your evidence-based-posting, only poor judgement.[/quote]

I'm sorry for not explaining myself well enough (genuinely), I shall try again.

This is not about who I believe. Who cares who I believe?

It is about the principle of the matter.

I do believe (very passionately) that if someone wants to use this forum to make accusations against another member, the onus is on them to provide the proof, from the outset.

Without proof, an accusation is not worth the paper I wiped my backside with this morning. Problem is that I can't, as moderator, just instruct everyone to ignore it. The accusation is still there. The elephant in the room. There'll be those that wonder whether it was true, or partly true.

So I feel I have to do something more (hate the word) proactive about it. I have to strike it from the record. I ask for an apology from the accuser.

If, on the other hand, the accuser had proof, well that's another matter.

But Mr Wray has no proof. Until he does, I think he should retract his accusation and apologise.