 |
 |
Well of course it's conspiracy theory, that's precisely my point. There's no evidence that anyone has forged a reference, so I don't understand why MTAS insist on this "signed verified" business, particularly as a signature will do little if anything to prevent such forgery in any case. Interesting to see Simon's response: "Ooops, didn't realise they could read the reference on-line!". Perhaps he was being facetious but the inference is that he would have written his reference differently had he known it was available to the applicant. My point is that many referees will be tempted to water down their references because of this concern. Or, as happened in my case, if they don't water down the reference, then the applicant will simply reject it and find another. Either way, we now have a system that militates against weak references getting through to the interview panel. That's a bit worrying. AF ----- Original Message ----- From: "Prescott Mark (RLZ)" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:38 PM Subject: Re: ST Interviews > Re the current string - references - Is this conspiracy theory, or is > there > any evidence that this is or has occured? > Is this simply conversation to keep our mail-boxes full? > I believe that the candidate should not be able to modify the references > requested (ie excluding the bad ones) > > My experience of the appointment process in the West Midlands reflect > others > - ie serious concern about the design and content of application forms > used, > and time allocated, for shortlisting. Here the interviews have been > similar > in every way to multi-station interviews for EM used in this region for > registrar appointment previously - including every candidates CV and > supporting documentation being examined at one of the additional stations. > > My concern is that, whilst we interviewed many high calibre candidates who > I > will be very proud to work with, we do not know how many others have not > had > the chance to come before an interview panel. > The latest advice (http://www.mmc.nhs.uk/pages/review) seems to imply that > many of those set aside will have another chance - review of application > or > definate interview - but whether that will be fair has to be seen! > My view - the main issue is that shortlisting panels were denied the > chance > to use the CV information to do the job. This meant that long-listing was > not done then and competencies and experiences could not be judged fully. > > MarkP > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adrian Fogarty [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] >> Sent: 20 March 2007 12:14 >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: ST Interviews >> >> But I think you're missing my point. If a hacker was able to forge an >> online >> reference from me, then it's very easy for them to print a copy of that >> reference and append a signature to it. Any scrawl will do, doesn't even >> have to remotely look like my actual signature as there is no reference >> point for that at the various Deaneries, so it'll still be a "verified >> signed" copy as far as the interview panel is concerned. >> >> AF >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Doc Holiday" <[log in to unmask]> >> >> > From: Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]> >> > Anyway, it's still more secure than a signature on a piece of paper if >> you >> > ask me. >> > >> > --> Not really. That piece of paper is available to one person, to whom >> > you have handed it and whom you know to be a doctor, whose GMC >> > registration you confirmed before employing him/her and thus you could >> > assume a few things about him/her. The information on the web is >> availabe >> > to anyone who has that free software and the intent to mis-use the >> > info. >> >> > You have no idea who this person is and what their motives are or even >> > whether they exist... >> > > This electronic message may contain information from Shrewsbury and > Telford > Hospital NHS Trust which may be privileged or confidential. The > information > is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. > If > you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, > distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If > you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by > telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.