Ralph
I am aware that the Society is a Trade Union.
At risk of repeating myself endlessly, and I am beginning to understand why
readers of these postings become irritated, you ask what needs to be done:-
1. sort out the areas which are of interest to all and do not conflict
with the interests of others
2. set up an independent body to which all groups can have input
3. meet at an independent venue
4. have an independent Chair
5. do not pre-judge
6. be open and honest
7. crucially, do not hector and bully others
If you really mean that you desire unity and not that you simply desire the
Society to engulf every other organisation, I think that you will find a
surprising degree of co-operation. If you STILL want the Society to
dominate every aspect of professional life then by all means continue as you
are BUT it will be the Society that is responsible for stagnation.
Kind regards
Bill Liggins
----- Original Message -----
From: "R B Graham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: The Reason of Things (Ralph Graham)
> Bill,
>
> As I said we are talking to the other groups on a regular basis. As for
SMAE
> they walked away telling the others that they believed they were best
served
> by being separate. I do not know whether they are talking to the other
> organisations without us but I do not think so.
> Whilst we at the SCP have been accused of ignoring the membership I do not
> know whether the SMAE has any input from its members and how they feel. I
do
> know that many of them have expressed a wish to join after HPC
registration
> but they are being encouraged not to register. Perhaps Mr Batt who watches
> this mailbase could comment on this aspect.
>
> The SCP would be happy to re-enter dialogue if they wish. The West
Midlands,
> like the Norfolk and the Lothian groups are very small and can contact
again
> if they wish to be involved.
> The two main organisations outside the SCP are still in discussions. I am
> not sure what you think we need to move on that hasnt happened. We will
> assist in update training, we will co-ordinate in response to govt policy.
> We have no incoming rules save one, we can not abandon the SCP since we
have
> special registration with the TU register which would cease if we
dissolved
> and is not repeatable. This special reg is too valuable to give up. Other
> than that there are no pre-conditions.
>
> Ralph Graham
> Consultant Podiatrist
> Witham, Essex, UK
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A group for the academic discussion of current issues in podiatry
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wm J Liggins
> Sent: 06 September 2004 4:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: The Reason of Things (Ralph Graham)
>
>
> Hello Ralph
>
> This is the problem. Like it or dislike it, the profession will go
no-where
> without SMAE or properly the BChA. They have no wish to talk to the
Society
> precisely because they believe the Society to be arrogant etc. The West
> Mids organisation likewise will not talk to the SMAE organisation. This
not
> historical but current.
> When I refer to humility, I mean precisely that these differences have to
be
> accepted and put aside for the general good. This pre-supposes that any
> coming together can only happen when it is for the benefit of all ie. a
> target, and the areas of difference are left on one side.
> I have indeed been preaching the gospel of a GPC for many years and to
many
> organisations, yours amongst others. I have to say that it is the Society
> who are intransigent and not the spokesmen for the other organisations who
> are by and large, receptive and innovative in their thinking.
> I freely accept that I am just a clinician who cares deeply about my
> profession and not one tenth the politician that you are. I do, however
> claim to have developed some foresight over the years, and please believe
> me, if you cling to the idea that all members of the registered profession
> are going to flock to the Society you are sadly deluded.
> I care not whether the forum of professional bodies is called the GPC, nor
> do I care whether someone else wishes to claim that 'they thought of it
> first' (I am sure that many have). I simply appeal to the Society to make
> contact with the others, on the basis that I have suggested, so dialogue
can
> be commenced. I freely accept to that for a vibrant future, the Society
is
> a necessary component but if the Society refuses to move, then it is the
> Society is which is dooming the profession to an existence of impotence
for
> the foreseeable future.
>
> kind regards
>
> Bill Liggins
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R B Graham" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:48 PM
> Subject: Re: The Reason of Things (Ralph Graham)
>
>
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > The SCP are in engaged with those other bodies already. With the
exception
> > of SMAE which pulled out (their choice). We meet and discuss such issues
> as
> > we have in common. Indeed in Boston two members of the Institute and I
> > discussed this very matter. I have to say that none of the organisations
> > have put forward the idea of a GPC though so if you are a member
somewhere
> > you will need to promote the idea to them.
> > I do not understand what your ref to humility is about. I would have
> thought
> > that by being as open as we are this was not a problem, certainly no-one
> has
> > suggested the current policy was arrogant, certainly not from the other
> > bodies perspective. As for the historical view of the Society it is just
> > that, historical. They once had slavery in Carolina but I found them
very
> > pleasant and no grudges either way. Time is a great healer
> >
> > Ralph Graham
> > Consultant Podiatrist
> > Witham, Essex, UK
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A group for the academic discussion of current issues in podiatry
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wm J Liggins
> > Sent: 06 September 2004 3:26 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: The Reason of Things (Ralph Graham)
> >
> >
> > Hello Ralph
> >
> > I trust that you will be willing to read and accept this posting which
> > touches on your reply to Mark Russell. He will doubtless post his reply
> in
> > due course.
> > You have yourself stated that the HPC will not listen to the Society, I
> went
> > on to remark that they (The HPC) will not listen to any professional
> > organisation but have clearly stated that they wish to engage with
> > registrants on an individual basis. The Society CPD requirement is
> > irrelevant since the HPC is the organisation which will, in future, lay
> down
> > standards of CPD, although doubtless in 'consultation' with the various
> > professional bodies - whatever that means! It is a proper and healthy
> > situation that there exist more than one professional body. There is,
of
>
> > course, no reason why the professional bodies should not meet in a
> separate
> > forum to agree matters of mutual interest and support, however, to lose
> the
> > individuality of the different bodies would certainly be a retrograde
> step.
> > I agree that in order to acheive the above, a certain amount of
sacrifice
> on
> > the part of all the groups will be required. However, the Society must
> > understand that others see it as archaic, recidivist and arrogant. It
> will
> > therefore behove the Society to cease dictating to others how they
should
> > behave, to show a little humility and to agree to join a forum with
> > specified targets on which all groups can agree. There will otherwise
be
> no
> > forward momentum at all in the progfession in the U.K. and you will be
> > unable to meet with your 'tormentors', as you put it.
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > Bill Liggins
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "R B Graham" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 1:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: The Reason of Things (Ralph Graham)
> >
> >
> > This is the reply I will post on the SCP website.
> >
> > 1.We have a grandparenting period which ends next July.
> > 2.These people are registered under the law
> > 3.If they joined the Society, as many wish, they would strengthen our
> > position as the
> > premier representative body.
> > 4.If they join they will have to carry out the same CPD as all other
> > members.
> > 5.If they do not join we will only represent 75% of the registered
> > profession which will damage
> > our negotiating position and allow others to claim their representation
of
> > part of the
> > registered profession.
> > 6.This change is only available to those who are grandfathered by July
05.
> > 7.The Council decision did not need any change to the Articles. The
> decision
> > was to
> > allow membership on the basis of the HPC process.
> > 8.Mr Clarke states that he would not admit these people. He is entitled
to
> > that view.
> > At what point do we move forwards? I note that my motives for asking
> Council
> > to consider these changes are often incorrectly attributed. My motives
are
> > simple unify the profession and move on.
> > Reviewing the past and sniping achieve little and what we need is vision
> for
> > the future.
> > I was much moved by reading the autobigraphy of Nelson Mandela. He
> concluded
> > whilst in prison that the only way to progress was reconcilliation not
> > recrimination. He chose to start with his chief tormentor surmising that
> > success with him would be the best indicator. Bear in mind he had been
> > imprisoned for 30 years and seen friends die.
> > Now I am not suggesting that our situation has the same level of
suffering
> > but surely the parallel can be drawn. We are all out there treating feet
> > lets make a scarifice if you see it as one so that we make a real
benefit
> > for the future.
> >
> > Ralph Graham
> >
> > Ralph Graham
> > Consultant Podiatrist
> > Witham, Essex, UK
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: A group for the academic discussion of current issues in podiatry
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mark Russell
> > Sent: 06 September 2004 11:38 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: The Reason of Things (Ralph Graham)
> >
> >
> > Dear Ralph
> >
> > At the beginning of the year, Matthew Parris, writing in The Times noted
> > that one of the qualities needed of being a successful politician is to
a
> > master in the back arts of sophistry. In an unrelated matter, I note you
> > didn't address the points that I had made about consultation and
> > communication with the members and wider profession. In your note to
Bill
> > and I, you make the case for the status quo but that is the argument and
> > it is not the process. It is the process that I have an issue with. I
note
> > that you wrote to Sam Clarke on the SCP website and we spoke at length
> > last night then jointly penned a response. For the benefit of those
> > colleagues who don't have access to the SCP site I have adopted it here,
> > with Sam's consent, to restate my position. It's Sam's comments about
the
> > red wine incidentally. Just so you know.
> >
> > Kind regards.
> >
> > Mark Russell
> >
> > <<I raise the issue of the articles of association for a number of
> > reasons. First, I note from the information on this website that the
> > current articles do not allow membership without some examination being
> > set first by the Society - I take it to gauge competency and suitability
> > of character. If what you say is true, and I have no reason to suggest
> > otherwise, and council acted in the proper manner, then these articles
> > have been superseded. If that is the case, can you confirm that the
> > articles were changed and will you ensure the website details are
updated
> > accordingly?
> >
> > I also raise the issue because I had no idea what was going on until I
> > read your letter in the Journal. There's been some rumours flying about
> > but that was all; I don't recall it being a topic of conversation at the
> > Rx Summer School this year either. And on an issue of this magnitude I
> > would have thought there would have been some form of consultation with
> > membership before the articles were changed. I am perfectly willing to
> > have my elected representatives make decisions on my behalf for certain
> > matters. I don't wish to be consulted whether you change the curtains at
> > Fellmongers, for instance. But on an issue of such importance, with all
> > the consequences of the action, I would have thought you'd do us the
> > courtesy of informing us, before the fact?
> >
> > You may see it through other eyes, but from my perspective, and I
suspect
> > many other members too, the impression left is that we have been ignored
> > and treated with impunity.
> >
> > You asked me a couple of questions - whether I agreed that membership
> > should be open for all, and what I would do under the same
circumstances.
> >
> > First, I don't think membership should be open to all. We have gone from
> > the point of having some benchmark to entry to one where we have none at
> > all. That cannot be right. You write in the Journal article, that not
only
> > will the Society be accepting membership from all grand-parented
> > practitioners, even though some are clearly of questionable standard,
but
> > you will also be coaching the people who didn't make it through the
(lax)
> > scrutiny of the HPC process (so God knows what these people are like),
in
> > order to be successful in future application! Eh? I look forward to the
> > day when a blind thalidomide gains registration and membership and
proudly
> > hangs his plate outside the surgery door, courtesy of the Society's fast
> > track coaching trip. We've criticised SMAE for years for offering a two
> > year part-time course, but at least they had some form of training.
Please
> > tell me that there will be some form of rigorous examination to vet the
> > suitability for these people and your not going to do this by sending
out
> > a CDRom or a glossy brochure so they can read up how to get through the
> > registration process by writing the form out properly. It's bad enough
for
> > undergraduates to see the grand-parented chiropodists gaining equality
of
> > membership without having the burden of student loans to cripple them,
but
> > to hear you propose coaching the failed candidates must drive them to
> > despair. If the HPC's process is a mess, then I fear the Society's is
far
> > worse.
> >
> > Second, what would I do under the same circumstance? The answer to that
> > would be nothing, without having prior discussion and debate will every
> > single member in this organisation. You made your case for what you did,
> > but I hold a different view from that you gave. If the reality of the
> > situation was that the Society had to offer, or felt it desirable to
> > offer, membership to the grand-parented clinician, then I would ensure
> > that some form of testing examination was set before full membership was
> > accepted. That is, after all, what we demand from our own students. The
LA
> > requirement you wrote of hardly constitutes a 'testing' standard in my
> > opinion. It would be fairly easy to have an individual to study for this
> > module alone and know nothing about physiology or disease of the foot;
he
> > or she could be a disaster waiting to happen, and suddenly they have
> > equality in employment rights and equality of membership as someone as
> > experienced as yourself. Am I going mad or is it the liberal consumption
> > if vin rouge over the last few weeks? I don't know even more.
> >
> > In fact I would probably not even offer an examination. The Society is a
> > representative organisation. It is not the regulator. I believe that
> > vetting of competency to practice is the responsibility of the latter
and
> > clearly, as you yourself have noted, it is failing in its duty to the
> > public. In that respect I would mount a high profile campaign, writing
to
> > the media, instructing the lobbying company to lodge EDM's (there have
> > been none of either, I note) and doing absolutely everything possible to
> > ensure that Joe Public knows what is going on. Instead we are treated on
> > to the unsavoury reading of the war between Faculty of Surgeons and the
> > British Orthopaedic Association. Pass the red wine please.
> >
> > My main question to you was why the membership was not informed not what
I
> > would do in similar circumstances. I would have been perfectly willing
to
> > listen to your point of view, then I could have considered the
> > implications of the policy and came to a reasoned judgement of my own.
It
> > is the failure of THAT process which I object to and I believe that you
> > and Council and the Chief Executive [as a signatory to the Journal
letter]
> > should apologise unreservedly for proceeding as you did without prior
> > consultation or debate.
> >
> > But of course, that is a matter for your own conscience.>>
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
> >
> > All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
> > the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
> > no responsibility for the content.
> >
> > to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
> > leave podiatry
> > to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
> >
> > All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
> > the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
> > no responsibility for the content.
> >
> > to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
> > leave podiatry
> > to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
> >
> > All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
> > the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
> > no responsibility for the content.
> >
> > to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
> > leave podiatry
> > to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
> >
> > All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
> > the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
> > no responsibility for the content.
> >
> > to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
> > leave podiatry
> > to [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
>
> All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
> the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
> no responsibility for the content.
>
> to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
> leave podiatry
> to [log in to unmask]
>
> Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
>
> All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
> the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
> no responsibility for the content.
>
> to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
> leave podiatry
> to [log in to unmask]
>
> Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server
All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
no responsibility for the content.
to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
leave podiatry
to [log in to unmask]
Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
