Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Regulation of Podiatry

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Mark Russell, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. fishpod

    fishpod Well-Known Member

    this whole saga brings to mind a song by Bobby Fuller.
     
  2. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Fishpod, what`s the life expectancy of a blind squirrel ?
     
  3. fishpod

    fishpod Well-Known Member

    not long where i live. were like duck dynasty . i have a very large telescopic sight and tie salmon flies with hair from their tails.
     
  4. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

  5. fishpod

    fishpod Well-Known Member

    yes thats the very ditty:sinking::sinking:
    another song describes the whole episode sung by ELO roy orbison jimmie rogers jessie mcartny. guess the song for 10 bonus points.
     
  6. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

  7. fishpod

    fishpod Well-Known Member

    no thats the wrong song would you like 50/50 or phone a friend the song begins its please try again
     
  8. Thanks for the commentary, guys - always appreciate that you have taken the time to write, whatever view you decide to put forward. I was thinking of a suitable reply over the weekend when I came across Aaron Swartz's blog - you might have caught Storyville's excellent documentary on him last Monday if not you can watch it here:

    Although only 26 years old when he died, Aaron Swartz had a remarkable insight into human nature for one so young. The following is an extract from his blog which contrasts the behaviour of individuals in different systems. In many ways it reflects the problems in the UK podiatry profession which is often characterised by the nature of the commentary demonstrated in this and other threads. Have a think. Maybe we should invite Toyota to start training pods...

     
  9. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member

    I prefer the quote from Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark:

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
     
  10. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

  11. fishpod

    fishpod Well-Known Member

    yes please collect 10 points ps dont get matry syndrome its catching
     
  12. Final instalment in the case with the HCPC falls on Thursday 21 May 2015 @ 10am in Preston Crown Court. Would be delighted to see anyone who might want to attend - but places will be limited this time, so please let me know if you would like to come. Even you, Pauline...!
     
  13. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

    Mark
    You know you have my support - so save me a seat!

    Kind regards

    Linda Russell
     
  14. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    I note that this is on the same day as the second day of Primary Care 2015 at the NEC

    http://sterlingevents.co.uk/programme-pc.html

    Is Mark Russell seriously expecting people to turn down free CPD to go and see some kind of a legalistic circus ? :confused:
     
  15. Pauline burrell-saward

    Pauline burrell-saward Active Member

    Why on earth would you think I want to watch this three ring circus.!!!

    Can you only perform with an audience ???
     
  16. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Pauline B-S


    ROFL ! :D
     
  17. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Good to see so many supporting Mark, on another forum where vitriolic anonymous posters aren`t welcome.

    As before, a group of us, including Linda, will be travelling to Preston by train Wednesday evening after the Primary Care pic `n mix conf at Birmingham. PM me if you want details of where we`re staying, eating, drinking, etc. Be good to put a few more faces to names.

    Whatever the outcome of the appeal, Marks` actions have certainly raised public awareness of the ineffectiveness and, perhaps more importantly, the misinterpreting and misrepresentation of current legislation by the HCPC. Now that`s what I call altruism...
     
  18. Thanks Bel - that's way too kind. It's certainly been an education as well as an enlightenment. It's always fascinating to discover what's really behind the actions of public institutions like the HCPC - whatever their public position. What a shambles, huh? So we now know that the HCPC have been misleading the professions and the public to the extent of their remit and powers since their inception in 2003. There's no such thing as 'protected titles'. It is not an offence to use a title alone - providing there is no intent to deceive. Entitlement is derived from the qualification not registration - as the NMC clarified eighteen months ago. And we now know that there are literally thousands of social workers who practise as such with local authorities and are not registered with the HCPC - who claim they must be! Yep, what a wicked web we weave....

    See you in Preston.


     

    Attached Files:

  19. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Well, we should be seeing at least 282 more private prosecutions for `misuse of title` then, shouldn`t we? :pigs:

    See you in May :drinks
     
  20. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Oh my goodness,
    Am I the only person on the forum who is sick of hearing about Mark's continued obsession with the HCPC?

    I could eat a can of Alphabetti Spagetti and $h!£ better posts.:rolleyes:
     
  21. blinda

    blinda MVP

    May I suggest you utilise your `ignore` button then, as I`m sure many would appreciate an end to your diatribe?
     
  22. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Oh Blinda,
    You speak for the rest of the forum do you ?:confused:

    Or maybe you are clairvoyant?

    :rolleyes:
     
  23. Doogle

    Doogle Active Member

    I didnt think persoanl attacks was alowed on this chat room? I was told to

    Be Courteous!

    Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully ... without insult and personal attack.


    whoever catfoot is is putting off my student friends from uni!!!!!!!
     
  24. ProspectivePod

    ProspectivePod Active Member

    My biggest problem with the HCPC is the fact they are so inconsistent when it comes to applying the powers that they can enforce, plus the fact that the general public 9/10 times have no clue who they are, what they do and why they are important.

    They offer you the ability to practice alongside a "protected" title yet when they cannot protect this title efficiently whilst failing the public in the same breath it makes me question the legitimacy of the organisation.

    I'm sure the problems with the HCPC are endemic across all the professions they seek to protect, with many people asking what do I actually get and is it actually worth it. If the HCPC could protect the public better then that would go some way to justify their existence.

    It just annoys me that they're unable to actually do anything worthwhile for the profession and I personally feel that these aims could be achieved much more efficiently under a single profession specific organisation much like the NMC, GMC etc. They have their problems too however the HCPC have done nothing for this profession in my opinion apart from making it easy for struck off registrants to pursue the same career under a different name without recourse as their powers limit them to disciplining either registrants or those purposely using a protected title with intent to deceive.

    It's just a shambles but I wouldn't expect anything else.

    Just my two cents, and wish Mark well in his endeavours as whilst many may disagree with his actions I personally feel it admirable that he has gone so far to stand up against something he truly believes wrong for the better of the profession and the public. We need more people to have that sort of passion, maybe then the profession can actually unite under one umbrella and achieve something worthwhile for podiatry across the united kingdom; particularly for private practitioners.

    Ashley (a soon to be anxious podiatry student)
     
  25. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hi Ashley. I am sure that all you say is true. However, the older I get, the more cynical I become. The HCPC do nothing for any of the professions or the professionals who are registered with them. In my view they are simply a QUANGO created by governments of all parties to enable the NHS to dispose of practitioners that they do not want. Their only, but nevertheless real, power is to prevent the employment of practitioners without registration, although it seems from the above that there are at least 282 practitioners in North Yorkshire who are successfully ignoring them. Of course, there is another purpose to the organisation and that is to afford employment and large pensions to minor civil servants. The true irony is that we pay the wages of these people who then sit in judgement against the very people to whom they owe their living! You cannot protest because they will simply spend vast amounts of your money against you, as it the case under discussion.

    It will, I am sure, be of interest to you and your fellow students to know that a number of us were involved in an attempt to create a 'General Podiatric Council' which would have been outside the purview of the HCPC and acted more like the GMC which you mention. Investigation showed that just prior to the Act creating the HCPC, indeed the profession had examined the possibility. All the major organisations (The British Association, The Institute and the Society) had agreed between themselves and a draft Parliamentary Act had been written. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to itself, the Society pulled out of the agreement.

    So there you are. You have an unpleasant choice when you qualify. Reject registration and lose the opportunity to practice in the NHS and private hospitals (which also require registration) or bite the bullet and pay a QUANGO for no benefit to yourself whatever -and possibly your detriment - and no representation. In my view, the British in the American colonies got it right 250 years ago - 'no taxation without representation'. Sadly, the current leaders of your profession do not enjoy the same moral outlook.

    All the best for the future

    Bill Liggins
     
  26. Bad Karma, Catfoot. Will you never learn?

    Now as a man is like this or like that,
    according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be;
    a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad;
    he becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds;

    And here they say that a person consists of desires,
    and as is his desire, so is his will;
    and as is his will, so is his deed;
    and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
    Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th Century BC​
     
  27. blinda

    blinda MVP

    The growing number of `thanks` to my suggestion, in addition to the numerous posts supporting Mark on another Podiatry forum, should adequately answer your questions, Catfoot. Goodbye.

     
  28. Wendy

    Wendy Active Member

    “Stand up for what you believe in, even if it means standing alone.” ~ Unknown Author

    Fortunately Mark is not having to stand alone but I am sure this is how it feels some days. The status quo (latin not band for any smart alex's!) is NOT acceptable!

    Wendy
     
  29. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Mark Russell,
    Re post #266

    I am puzzled as to what I have done to create "Bad Karma" :confused:

    All I have done is express an opinion about your modus operandi which legally, and morally I am allowed to do.

    So now you are against free speech? - gee whizz :rolleyes:

    I think someone here has their head stuck well up their fundament and it isn't me...:D
     
  30. Regrettably, this case has been adjourned again until 1st and 2nd October 2015 due to the limited availability of prosecuting counsel.
     
  31. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

    Dear Mark

    Im in the process of transferring my train ticket to the new Trial date. Is it REALLY a 2 day Trial ?!!!!

    If so, then I will come up on 30th September and go back on 2nd October unless someone tells me to do otherwise ! Also hoping to see Lynnzee-Marie who may try and attend (Uni dates notwithstanding).

    Please keep us informed if there are any more changes.

    Kind regards

    Linda Russell
     
  32. It's listed for two day although I can't see it lasting beyond one day. That said, nothing would surprise anymore. Will keep you posted...
     
  33. One year ago I published a short article about a rather unusual prosecution by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) where they brought criminal proceedings against me for calling myself a podiatrist. You will be surprised to hear that the case is still active and has developed into quite an extraordinary legal and regulatory debacle with far reaching consequences for many who have been involved.

    When the case concludes later this year, it will present Government with some challenging and important issues for future health regulation. I have attached a paper I published last June that details the background and first prosecution in which I initially pled guilty and was convicted, before overturning the conviction at appeal. When I wrote this article last summer, I was waiting to hear if the HCPC would table a second prosecution or abandon the case. Subsequently, they proceeded with a second prosecution, which commenced in September last year. It may be helpful if I summarise matters again.

    You will recall I ceased my registration with the HCPC in September 2008 when the Registrar, Mr Marc Seale, declined to answer correspondence that highlighted a serious flaw in their legislation that permitted clinicians who have been struck-off for serious offences, to continue in practice in the private sector without any restriction or regulatory scrutiny. At the time, I thought I was committing an offence as I still practised as a podiatrist after deregistering – and I had hoped that this might provoke the Registrar into responding. The HCPC wrote to me formally and told me that if I were to call myself a podiatrist without being registered with them, that I would be liable to prosecution. But the Registrar still did not respond and regrettably I felt compelled to maintain my protest.

    Between 2008 and 2013, nothing happened other than occasionally I would receive a “cease and desist” letter from the regulator informing me that they were aware I was using a “protected title” and as I was not registered with them then I may be liable to prosecution. Each time I received a letter, I would reply stating I would be happy to register once again providing my concerns on public safety were addressed in a letter from the Registrar. This never materialised.

    During this period I practised in a small complimentary clinic in St Annes, which was owned by an osteopath. I rented a room at the clinic in 2006 and worked there until March 2012. Unfortunately, what was a delightful work environment with some exceptional people., deteriorated into an altogether unpleasant experience in 2011 when the owner of the clinic encountered serious financial problems, which eventually led to a breakdown in relationships, both personally and professionally, with most staff leaving by the end of the year. I left in March when I discovered that several hundred pounds had been taken from one of my accounts in cash without my knowledge. We did not part on good terms.

    One year later, in March 2013, I received a summons from the HCPC for a prosecution of an offence under Article 39 of the Health Professions Order for “Misuse of Title”. With the Summons was an evidence bundle, which contained two complaints the HCPC had received the previous year from the wife of the osteopath and one of his friends. The complaints alleged that I had deceived the osteopath regarding my registration status by not informing him of my decision to deregister. Accompanying the complaint from his wife were several receipts and invoices purportedly taken from my patient files to demonstrate that I had kept on using the prefix “HCPC Registered” and included my old registration number after I had ceased registration.

    These allegations were wholly untrue and the documents in the evidence bundle were copies of computerised patient records retained by the osteopath on his clinic computer and fraudulently altered. It was straightforward to counter these allegations and documents; I have retained my patient records and obtained the original paperwork that clearly demonstrates the documents were altered. I also had detailed witness statements from all the secretarial staff who worked at the clinic at the time which confirmed the documents were false – and that the osteopath was fully cognisant of my decision to cease registration and was actively supportive of my decision to do so.

    This spiteful and mischievous act from an individual with a grudge was to have more serious consequences than I could ever imagine at the time.

    These complaints gave the HCPC what they believed to be sufficient evidence of “an intent to deceive”. This is indeed part of the offence I was to be prosecuted for, however its importance, as an essential ingredient of the offence, was not something I was aware of at the time – and with good reason.

    Since the HCPC came into being in 2003, it has maintained the position that it is an offence to use a protected title – such as chiropodist or podiatrist – unless registration is held concurrently. It is a position that was accepted by the professional bodies – and the profession generally. It didn’t stop the problem of unregulated practitioners – they simply circumvented the spirit of the legislation and adopted a different name – Foot Health Practitioners. But we all accepted that the primary titles were protected and thus there was, at least, some public safeguarding – in the NHS if not the private sector. Thus, when I ceased registration and told the HCPC I was keeping my “title” – I thought I was committing an offence. But I was wrong.

    I was wrong because I believed what the HCPC had told me. That it was an offence to use a title without being registered with them. It is not.

    During the Old Bailey appeal to my first prosecution, the HCPC barrister made an extraordinary admission to the Judge, HJH Pontius, when she agreed that use of the title without registration is not an offence on its own. There must also be evidence of dishonesty – of “an intent to deceive, either expressly or by implication”. A person can legally use a title without holding registration with the HCPC as long as there is no accompanying deception. They cannot state or imply they are registered when they are not. That is the offence.

    This was a remarkable admission given what had gone before. When I ceased registration I undertook to remove all reference to my previous registration details and to inform all patients and colleagues what I had done. The regulator replied, informing me that I was committing an offence and was liable to prosecution. But I wasn’t. Unbeknown to me, I was actually complying with the legislation by making sure I was acting honestly and openly and informing everyone connected with my professional practice what I had done. I have never stated or implied that I held registration with the HCPC since September 2008.

    Each time I received a “cease and desist” letter, which claimed I was committing an offence by practising using a “protected title” without registration, there was never mention of an “intent to deceive”. I had no intention of deceiving anyone – quite the opposite – a position the regulator was fully aware of. Yet still the HCPC maintained this deception of its own! They could have advised me that I was able to call myself a podiatrist providing I did not claim or imply that I was registered, but they didn’t.

    My first face-to-face contact with the Prosecution was at Westminster Magistrates on 22 May 2103 at the initial hearing. No one had contacted me from the HCPC before I received the summons in March that year and thereafter, all contact has been through their solicitors Bircham Dyson Bell (BDB).

    When I presented the prosecuting barrister with the original patient records and the witness statements from the secretarial staff outside the court before the hearing started, she took them for a short conference with her instructing solicitor from BDB – Richard Langley. When she returned she agreed the evidence was unreliable and could not be used in the prosecution. She then asked what I intended to do. As I thought I had still committed an offence of Misuse of Protected Title – I told her I would plead guilty. But I insisted that all evidence of any dishonesty or deception would have to be removed from the summons. This was agreed – and was subject to a formal notice of agreement, which we subsequently made in June. I then lodged a notice of intention to plead guilty and a sentencing date was arranged later that year.

    What should have happened on the 22 May, when the Prosecution agreed the evidence of deception was unreliable and removed it from the summons, is they should have abandoned the case. Without evidence of an intention to deceive, there was no offence and the matter should have ended there and then. But if it had, I would have realised that the HCPC had been giving a completely inaccurate position on “protected titles” all along - and that would have been quite embarrassing, given my public stance. But there is more. What I also was unaware of at this point was the legislation does not provide for “protected” titles. The legislation stipulates only “designated” titles. The term “protected titles” was been created by the HCPC during its interpretation of the primary legislation and does not appear in the Health Professions Order 2001 or subsequent amendments.

    The sentencing hearing in November 2013 revealed the HCPC intentions for the first time. I intended to plead guilty and offer a statement in mitigation as an explanation for my actions and hoped the court would understand that I acted honourably and with the interests of the public at heart in an open, honest and transparent manner. I assumed the prosecution would say something similar – but I was badly mistaken. The Prosecution barrister told the court I had “acted dishonestly and mischievously” for “reasons unknown” and that during the period since I had ceased registration, had signed myself “variously as HPC Registered, Registered and State Registered Podiatrist”. The only evidence of this came from the evidence that was removed during agreement. In doing so, the prosecution deliberately mislead the court citing inadmissible evidence that she knew to be unreliable.

    My mitigation fell on deaf ears and I was convicted and sentenced to pay a £280 fine plus £5k in costs. I appealed the conviction on the basis that the prosecution had misled the court but as I had already pleaded guilty – the appeal was to vacate my plea. In February 2014, the application to vacate the plea was upheld by HJH Pontius at the Old Bailey who also noted that the HCPC had failed to include the “intent to deceive” element of the offence in the documents submitted to the court that day and it was not read out to me as part of the charge. Judge Pontius also recommended that the Prosecution barrister remove herself from any future proceedings.

    I was unrepresented until the Old Bailey hearings but have since had legal representation from Nick Glassbrook in St Annes. Nick’s background is in Pharmacy and he specialises in medical and pharmaceutical regulation. His interpretation of the legislation also suggested that it was not an offence to use a title without registration providing there was no deception – and that was part of the argument we used during the Old Bailey hearing – and one which both the Judge and Prosecution agreed.

    After the conviction was overturned and my plea vacated, Nick wrote to the solicitors for the HCPC asking what their intentions were as it was clear that I had not committed any offence and we proposed the case should be abandoned. Between March and June 2014 he wrote a further 14 times without receiving any response. In April 2014, I submitted an application for registration with the HCPC to demonstrate good intent. It was never acknowledged or responded to.

    In June 2014 we received notice that another prosecution was being scheduled for September at the City of London Magistrates Court. Same charge as before with the same evidence – including the complaints and altered documents procured by the osteopath.

    The Judge in this prosecution was DJ Tan Ikram who had experience as a legal assessor for the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The NMC is governed by the NM Order 2001 – which is analogous to that of the Health Professions Order – indeed they progressed through Parliament together in 2001/2 before enactment. We thought this quite fortunate as during the weeks leading up to the hearing, we discovered the NMC had changed their position on protected titles through an obscure announcement on their website. As the legislative provision on offences for both regulators are identical, we thought it was a critical development. The statement read:

    The NMC's position regarding the use of qualifications after registration has lapsed is governed by article 44 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001:

    "44 - (1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication):

    (a) he falsely represents himself to be registered in the register, or a particular part of it or to be the subject of any entry in the register

    (b) he uses a title referred to in article 6(2) to which he is not entitle

    (5) A person guilty of an offence under this article shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

    Article 6(2) states:

    "Each part shall have a designated title indicative of different qualifications and different kinds of education or training and a registrant is entitled to use the title corresponding to the part of the register in which he is registered."

    It is important, therefore, for nurses and midwives to distinguish between their qualifications and registration status. Those who allow their registration to lapse can still refer to the fact that they are a qualified nurse, midwife or specialist community public health nurse but must not give the impression that they have a current registration.

    The hearing in September was scheduled for one day and I entered a not guilty plea. At the start of the case the Judge noted that the statutory provision for evidence for this offence was within a six-month period prior to the serving of the original summons – between September 2013 and March 2014 and most of the hearing was devoted to sorting out the admissible evidence in the prosecution bundle. Judge Ikram also indicated that he would give a written judgement as it was the first case of its kind and that we would have to return to court for that judgement after the trial had ended.

    The case was adjourned until January this year and resumed at Hammersmith Magistrates Court where I gave evidence in my defence.

    There was no evidence of an “intent to deceive” as clearly that has never been my intention! Within the six month period imposed by the Judge, there was certainly no evidence of any infringement, so I was curious, to say the least, how the prosecution might portray that there was. During my evidence I was cross-examined by the prosecution – Mr Michael Holland QC.

    He asked about an Internet blog I have. www.mark-russell.net He produced an introductory paragraph on my blog that started, “Hello, I’m Mark Russell, a Scottish Podiatrist of thirty years experience…”

    I was asked if the blog was under my control; if I had written the above line and whether I intended to deceive the public when I wrote it. I answered: yes; yes and no.

    During his summing up, the Prosecutor suggested that even though I had committed no offence in making the above statement – a member of the public who came across this page on the internet, might infer from what I had written that I was in fact a registered Podiatrist and thus a deception could have taken place. I almost laughed out loud when he suggested this – I started my blog as an online record of my case with the HCPC and it contains all my articles and papers on the issue and anyone looking at the website could be under no illusion that I held current registration.

    Unfortunately, it would appear that the Judge was not so enlightened. When he returned after a short adjournment he announced that he had changed his mind about a written narrative and would instead give a verdict there and then. Incredibly he agreed with the Prosecution that a member of the public might infer that I was registered from what I had written and therefore I was guilty of the offence and fined £200 and £1,000 toward costs. The actual prosecution costs for the day was £27,472 so maybe he thought he was doing me a favour! But it is a perverse judgment for a number of reasons.

    If the Judge had considered the context of the statement on my blog, he could not possibly conclude anyone might be misled regarding my registration. My blog is not a practice website. I don’t have one. As mentioned previously, it was set up with the sole intention of highlighting my difficulties with the HCPC. I am reasonably well-known in my profession throughout the UK. When it appeared we had reached an impasse with my registration and concerns about regulation, I started the blog to provide the public with as much information as possible about the issue and why I felt compelled to cease registration. That isn’t deception – it is being open and honest.

    If I had written, “I am Mark Russell, a HCPC Registered Podiatrist” – that would constitute an express deception and is an offence.

    If I had written, “I am Mark Russell – a Podiatrist” – next to a logo stating “HCPC Registered” – then that is an implied deception and is an offence.

    Stating I was “a Scottish Podiatrist” in an introductory on a blog about my case with the HCPC could not possibly be construed as an intention to deceive, yet this was the “evidence” I was convicted on. There are no victims – no evidence that anyone was so deceived – the offence is merely a figment of the Prosecutors imagination, yet the Judge agreed!

    When I returned home after the trial, I looked at the blog and noticed the introductory paragraph is no longer there. I realised when we started the blog in May 2012 I had written the introduction when my web designer was at my home setting the website up for me. It was a light-hearted paragraph, which was only on the blog for a few weeks before I turned it into a correspondence page. When I checked with Google Wayback – which tracks website changes - the paragraph was only online between 21 May 2102 and 3 June 2012. That means, of course, that it actually falls outside the admissible evidence window of six months – and should not have been used.

    I have been convicted once again of an offence of dishonesty – of an “intention to deceive” – when that is absolutely not the case and I am not prepared to accept that verdict under any circumstances. We lodged a notice of appeal after the hearing and a hearing was scheduled for Preston Crown Court on 21 May 2015. Two weeks before the appeal was due to be heard, the case was adjourned until October 1st as the Prosecuting QC was unavailable, but there has been some significant and deeply troubling developments since then.

    None of this case has made any sense to me. It seems incredible that this matter has progressed. I would have thought that my initial latter of concern would merit a response from the Registrar – I was highlighting a serious issue after all – and I couldn’t understand his refusal to reply despite several letters and emails.

    Nor could I understand why the prosecution advanced the case when they accepted and agreed to remove all evidence of deception/dishonesty. Without that crucial element there was no offence, as they must have known. Likewise, I failed to understand why the HCPC would advance the argument that using a title without holding registration was an offence without qualifying the essential stipulation for an intention to deceive. The HCPC has clearly been misrepresenting its regulatory authority to the public and the professions since its inception in 2003 – and continued to do so throughout the preliminary hearings until the admission at the Old Bailey – and this I found incomprehensible. Why would the regulator give a misleading position on the legislative provision?

    When the HCPC was in the process of being established following enactment of the HPO – the legislation was given to a firm of solicitors to provide a legal framework for its operations. This included an interpretation of what constitutes the various offences and what titles and functions are protected in law. It would appear that the original advice given to the regulator on protected titles and the offence under Article 39 of the Order that I was charged with was wrong. That is the only conclusion one can reach given the admission made at the Old Bailey other than the HCPC has deliberately deceived the public and professions, promoting the position that using a title without registration is an offence under any circumstance, whilst knowing that is not the actual case in law.

    In April I submitted a FOI request to the HCPC asking who provided the initial legal advice on the HPO legislation and in particular, which solicitors advised on the interpretation of the offences. It is, coincidently, the same firm of solicitors, Bircham Dyson Bell, who are prosecuting me on behalf of the regulator.

    Given the admissions in Court – and the revised policy statement by the NMC – it seems extraordinary that criminal proceedings were commenced when the Prosecutor was fully aware that there was no evidence to support the charge and yet she deliberately misled myself and the court to the necessary provision of the offence. Why would any prosecuting authority advance criminal proceedings when there was no evidence to support it? That is something I would like an answer to.

    Running concurrently alongside this prosecution are a number of related matters.

    General Osteopathic Council

    The osteopath who encouraged the malicious complaints with the altered documents was reported to his regulator – the General Osteopathic Council (GOsC) – shortly after I received the original summons in March 2013. The GOsC gathered independent witness statements and evidence from the secretarial staff at the clinic. The case was put to an Investigating Committee, which concluded that there was a case to answer for unacceptable professional conduct and recommended a Fitness to Practise hearing

    The GOsC hearing was initially scheduled for last November but was cancelled a few days before without any reason. In March this year, I was contacted by the GOsC to let me know that they had received a report from their legal assessor that a review of the case concluded a hearing would be unsuccessful as my credibility as a witness was undermined as a result of the criminal proceedings against me by the HCPC. They proposed to table a motion to their Conduct Committee to abandon the case against the osteopath on those grounds.

    Again, this made little sense. The osteopath admitted procuring and soliciting others to complain but denied knowledge that I had ceased registration. The facts and evidence easily proved otherwise. I pointed out to the GOsC that there would have been no prosecution if their registrant had not acted dishonestly (and criminally) in the first place. I submitted a supplementary statement to them and gave them permission to speak to Nick Glassbrook to get a clear understanding of the case and appeal, which they duly did.

    The Conduct Committee heard the application to discharge the case on 1st June and upheld the recommendation from the legal assessor that the case be abandoned. I was sent a copy of the Committee’s conclusion and deliberation the following day.

    Once again I was at a loss to understand how they could reach the conclusion that they did. The connection between the false allegations and the subsequent prosecution by the HCPC were not considered – only the issue of my credibility as a witness and how it was impaired by the current legal proceedings. It did not make sense. But the clue was on the front page of the report… The GOsC had changed their legal assessor. The original legal assessor who concluded there was a case to answer the previous year was a Mr Angus Withington. The legal assessor advising the Committee to abandon during the hearing was Mr Gary Leong.

    Gary Leong was the legal assessor appointed to conduct a review of the case in February 2015 and it was he who concluded that the case should be dropped. However, Gary Leong holds another appointment. He is also a legal assessor for the Health and Care Professions Council, where he also holds the position as Chair of their Fitness to Practise Panel.

    When I contacted the GOsC the following day, I was informed by their acting head of regulation, Russell Bennett, that they were unaware of Mr Leong’s role at the HCPC and that he had been given all of our defence and appeal documents, which of course are strictly privileged. At the very least, there is a clear conflict of interest in his participation in a case with another regulator, which if it had been heard, was likely to prove quite embarrassing for his other employer…

    Nursing and Midwifery Council

    BBC Northwest contacted me last month for clarification on nursing regulation following the Stepping Hill and Furnace General cases in the media. The BBC had contacted the NMC and enquired whether the nurses/midwives that had been struck-off were able to continue in practice as unregistered nurses. The NMC stated that they could not. The reporter who was familiar with my case had contacted me to ask for a copy of their revised website statement on use of titles and I was surprised to hear they had changed their position. When I checked with the NMC website, I noted the revised statement had been removed.

    I duly contacted their registration department – and spoke to the head of regulation - and asked the question myself. I was told the same as the BBC – that anyone struck-off as a nurse could not practice as a nurse again in the UK. When I quoted their policy statement, I was immediately transferred to their media team who initially tried to claim the same position before conceding there was no prohibition on use in the private sector. Nurse and Midwife are not protected titles on their own.

    Quite why the NMC have sought to conceal the actual position in law is beyond me – especially when they have already publicised a revised policy statement online. But I have asked the question to them. I have yet to receive a response.

    I am well aware that podiatrists are way down the line when it comes to political and public awareness and it must seem a curiosity why someone from that profession would be prepared to risk their savings and professional reputation over a seemingly minor and restricted matter to that profession. But is not only podiatry – it is all the professions covered by this legislation: physiotherapists, paramedics, social workers, nurses and midwives – to name a few. Many of the nurses who have been struck-off the NMC register are still working as unregistered nurses in private care homes and with employers who do not stipulate registration as part of their employment. As more NHS services are contracted out to the private sector, this problem will continue to develop.

    We are constantly, as health professionals, encouraged to report dangerous practice that places the public at risk. The recent Francis Inquiry supported that responsibility whilst highlighting the difficulties ‘whistle-blowers’ encounter whilst trying to do just that. Regrettably there is a growing body of evidence that suggests public institutions are conspiring to impede that process – and improperly manipulating judicial proceedings to secure that goal.
     

    Attached Files:

  34. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark

    Can you clarify ?

    There are 3 offences under the 2001 Act and are you or the barrister quoted mixing up 2 of them. You may not be guilty of claiming to be registered with the HCPC, intent to deceive but you did 'misuse title' which doesn't require 'intent to deceive !
     
  35. blinda

    blinda MVP

    The HCPC have misled us into believing just that, John. Here is the HPO;
    As Mark, and many others, have discovered during this saga; you only commit an offence if you falsely claim to be on the register, use a title to which you are not entitled or qualified to use - and all offences have to be carried out with intent to deceive (whether expressly or by implication).

    The HCPC would have us believe that we are not `entitled` to use our earned title, if we are not registered with them. This is an untruth. The titles are merely designatory terms - NOT protected.
     
  36. The entitlement to use a designated title comes from your qualification, not registration - see the NMC policy guidance for lapsed registration above.
     
  37. Just to be clear - the above statement comes from the NMC and also applies to the professions covered by the HCPC. This is the position of the court and of the HCPC - although they have yet to issue a public statement to clarify the position and are unlikely to do so until the end of the case. They have misled the profession for the last 13 years - they proclaimed podiatry and chiropodist were protected titles - and there is no such thing. You would have thought someone might have noticed! And now the cat is out of the bag.....shock, horror and help ma Bob, we fell for it hook line and sinker. You still paying your registration fees then, John?
     
  38. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    'Still paying your registration John' ?

    No Mark, I positively deregistered a year ago, without a fanfare and without allowing registration to lapse !
     
  39. I bet that was satisfying. Are you still practising or have you retired?
     
  40. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Deeds not words.

    How many of your 'supporters' have followed your example Mark ?
     
Loading...

Share This Page