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. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    "Boy."????????????????????????

    I'm going to find my tin helmet I suggest you do the same:eek:
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  2. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Indeed. See you there.
     
  3. twirly

    twirly Well-Known Member

    Wishing you every success in the outcome on Monday Mark. :drinks

    Kindest regards,

    Mandy.
     
  4. Appendices referred to in plea. I have uploaded these as photographs rather than documents. I have not attached the legislative documents - health professions order and the PAM Act 1960. The Gardiner case can also be found on previous pages here as can his website. The Scottish parliamentary records can be found on the thread Political Developments.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. ...and some more
     

    Attached Files:

  6. and my final letter to marc Seale 4/9/2008 - appendix 2
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Law Commission consultation
     

    Attached Files:

  8. and the Society's evidence to the Law Commission
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    Mark,

    I am very, very impressed by your well presented argument, and the VERY best for Monday!

    Unfortunately I can't make it!
     
  10. We'll, I've had better days.... Three lay magistrates - one of which might have been Craig Payne's retarded twin brother were unimpressed with my argument almost to the point of being hostile. Guilty verdict with a £280 fine plus costs. Costs are £6,000.

    As far as the bench spokesperson was concerned, irrespective of the regulatory failings and my intention the law was broken therefore a guilty verdict was appropriate. An appeal will be lodged tomorrow.

    As I travel back home on the train I feel completely shattered, but whatever disappointment I might feel has been assuaged by the very kind support I have had throughout by many colleagues - both virtual and real. I am especially indebted to all those who have taken the time to write in support through references and other statements, but most of all two fantastic girls who took time out of their busy lives to travel to London to be there in person. Bel and Linda, my most grateful thanks.

    I'm not sure what or where to go now - other than to see the process through to its conclusion, whether that be in the Crown, Supreme or European Courts. At this moment I am completely knackered but no doubt tomorrow will bring a different perspective. This has not been an easy road - my losses in patient fees alone since 2008 are in excess of £48,000 - so it's not a path to venture down lightly, should anyone else feel the urge to stick their head above the parapet! But that is where mine will be for the foreseeable future until this abberration in our regulation has been resolved.
     
  11. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    Mark, this decision of the court is not in the public interest!
     
  12. Unfortunately the court is not conceded with 'public interest' - they are only concerned with the law, rightly or wrongly. I would think that any person can see the merits in the argument - and it seems perverse that the likes of Gardiner and Price can be properly dealt with through the FtP process, yet be able to turn the other cheek and continue in practice without any penalty whatsoever, whilst the whistleblower is penalised quite severely.

    One final point I didn't mention earlier concerns one colleague I approached for a reference. He/she is also a partner with the HCPC. Some weeks ago they were cautioned by the registrar not to make any comment regarding this case, publicly or privately otherwise they would cease work for the organisation and regrettably they had to abide with the instructions. Whilst I understand perfectly the position they were in and their reluctance to provide any reference for the reasons above, I have to say that this was a road well travelled by some in our profession over the years.

    Time for a large dram methinks....
     
  13. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark

    You no doubt feel hard done by but surely the moment you changed your plea from 'not guilty' to 'guilty' the outcome was inevitable !

    I`m sure you knew that the magistrates would take the easy course and impose a penalty and any plea of mitigation would have little effect.

    You say you might appeal, but having pleaded guilty what can you appeal against ?

    To continue would require the verdict to be 'set aside' and a knew plea entered, a very costly business.

    The only people with any interest in changing the HCPC are some of the registrants and unless sufficient combine to take action nothing is ever likely to change. For an individual to act all that can be hoped for is that they feel some satisfaction from 'getting it off their chest'. I hope you do !
     
  14. Inevitable perhaps in the lower court unless I was fortunate enough to have an enlightened bench, but that was always the risk. The appeal will take in several grounds which I cannot reveal presently - but yes, it has already proved a very costly business and no doubt it will continue that way too - and not just in monetary terms. And I am in complete agreement with what a determined number of individuals can achieve. I still remember the Podiatry Association and the momentum they created to bring the changes that has taken the profession where it is today. At least the better ones!

    Kind regards
    Mark
     
  15. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

    Mark

    It was an absolute pleasure to be there in the Court alongside you, albeit watching from the gallery - but sadly when the Magistrate stopped you at the beginning whilst in mid-flow - not allowing you to finish your opening address - both Blinda and I were apprehensive as to the outcome.

    The Court was, as you say, only interested in legalities and paid no heed to the uniqueness of this case and what it means as regards utimately proctecting the general public from especially those who have been struck off. Yet these people continue to treat the general public, unregulated, and therefore outside the rules and regulations that ensure we 'do no harm'. That CANNOT be, and never should be, right!

    Your exasperation was so clearly evident on your face when your words were not given any heed and your fine for standing up for the general public was all they appeared interested in, sadly it was the costs that pushed the fiqure to some £6,000. Unfortunately, since you now have a criminal record, you cannot rejoin the HCPC and therefore cannot call yourself a Podiatrist which must be especially galling for you with some 30 years of service under your belt.

    I hope you take heart in the many good wishes you've received from many on the Arena, especially so when you start your fight afresh with the Crown Court and on your Appeal.

    Despite the gravity of the above it was wonderful chatting to both you and Blinda afterwards at the pub - as you are both such witty, complex, high-functioning, and highly amusing people.

    With my best wishes

    Linda Russell
     
  16. blinda

    blinda MVP

    As the man said, he`s not dead yet. Magistrates are small fry. Maybe just the beginnings of many, many pubs we may have to frequent in the pursuit of hightening public/authoritative awareness to the ineffectiveness of current legislation.

    I`ve been called many things before, but never "high-functioning". Was this opinion formed before I turned up at the wrong court?:eek:
     
  17. Linda

    That is most kind, thank you. It was a real pleasure to meet both you and Bel on Monday - it would have been a horrid trip back without the all too brief encounter with you both afterwards. It meant a great deal - and it certainly exorcised a few demons within!

    Look forward to catching up soon.

    Kindest regards

    Mark
     
  18. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

    Blinda

    You DO make me laugh!

    High-functioning people are just that 'high' so they dont let little things like addresses faze them - nor did you - you arrived at just the right time like Boadicea in her chariot (well Taxi).

    and Mark,

    It was emotional!

    Linda
     
  19. I know most will be getting bored with this saga, but unfortunately it has some time to run yet. In the meantime the following petition has been submitted and accepted HM government - would be grateful for your signature if so minded.

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57282
     
  20. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    The response to this petition, 12 signatures in 9 months, shows the irrelevance of Chiropody/Podiatry in the public consciousness and presumably the majority of members of the 'profession'.

    Who would advise any half intelligent young person to embark on such a career ?
     
  21. The petition has been active for less than 24 hours and runs for 3 months. If there are 100,000 signatories the House is obliged to debate the motion - it may do if there are less, if the matter is of sufficient importance - but it is not obliged to. 100K seems a lot, and no doubt the hassle of completing the online form will put many off, however the petition can be supported by paper signatories - so I shall upload a template with the details for colleagues to print out and invite their patients and friends to add to the professional names.

    Kind regards
     
  22. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Normally these e-petitions run for 12 months, giving a better chance of collecting a good number of signatures !
     
  23. Pauline burrell-saward

    Pauline burrell-saward Active Member

    I have to agree with one of the other posters, What can you appeal against? you pleaded guilty of your own free will, the fine is very low and the costs set, and cannot be overturned on appeal.

    The magistrates are only concerned with the law and have much less freedom than you may think, they work under " guidelines"

    what they don't do is get involved with political agendas.

    I'm not surprised they didn't give you the time to plough through your mitigation, it was pure politics and very long.

    Not with standing the above I wish you well
     
  24. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I`m sure many of us join you in wishing Mark well in his endeavours (just as I`m sure he will be along shortly to speak for himself).

    Personally speaking, I was not surprised at the outcome last Monday. Most people are aware that the Magistrates Court is only concerned with the letter of the law. In a previous career, I frequently instructed the Magistrates Court to START criminal proceedings. In the event of a plea of `guilty`, the bench will hear the facts of the case from the prosecution, and mitigation from the defence (yes, the Court confirmed that they had “ploughed” through Mark`s very pertinent mitigation) and then consider sentence. This could have resulted in either a fine or discharge. If I were Mark, I would also be appealing against their decision `not to discharge`.

    Taken from our `trusted` friend Wiki;

     
  25. Hello Pauline

    You seem very authoritative and well informed regarding the judicial system. May I ask if you hold more than just an interest in the legal system? Thank you for your kind wishes

    Mark
     
  26. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    I was not aware that Mark had changed his plea to guilty which I think changed the whole case outcome which was a shame.

    I agree with Pauline ( which is a first) if Mark has been using a title to which he is not entitled by Law he has pleaded guilty to doing that in law that is it job done finished the sentence is handed down.

    The mitigation is a protest to the result of the law which is not the object of the case in point ie using the title of podiatrist.

    I agree I wanted Mark to win and still do BUT

    I do not want him to carry on a futile battle by himself and at his own expense causing extreme damage and possible bankruptcy. I dont know what the possibilities are but I fear to continue on this course is wrong.

    If Mark has taken legal advice I suggest very strongly he gets a second opinion on his position before he suffers more personal damage.

    Just my thoughts and advice from an old campaigner that has learned when to walk away from battles he could not win so he could come back and fight another day.

    Whatever he chooses Good luck from me.
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  27. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I know you well enough, Del to realise that you have Mark`s interests at heart. But, if he feels that it`s not job done then he`s not alone, as the 24 signatures in the last 48 hrs (and increasing by the minute) testify on the e-petition.
     
  28. madmacaw

    madmacaw Member

    Hi Mark,

    I have completed the petition and asked others to do the same. I wish you the best.

    Regards,
    Nonie:boxing:
     
  29. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    DTT,

    "I do not want him to carry on a futile battle by himself and at his own expense causing extreme damage and possible bankruptcy. I don't know what the possibilities are but I fear to continue on this course is wrong. "


    DTT,

    I agree with you 110%. I personally feel that for Mark to take it further in terms of an appeal, is nothing short of financial suicide. I was going to say this a few days ago, but you have done it for me.

    Mark, a lot of people care about you. Your intentions are good, but continuing along the appeal route may be financial suicide.
     
  30. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Yep your right (for a change ;)) I have Marks interests at heart and I know only too well the passion for a cause that he feels. I spent many years of my life putting my head on the line for my work colleagues and looking after their interest rather than looking after me and mine. Lets just say at this point in my life what I did was a big mistake:bang: Please dont let Mark be in the same situation .

    Its very easy to get caught up in the moment and be encouraged by your peers but in the final analysis it is Mark who will be left with the aftermath I dont want to see that.

    Again just my take on it
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  31. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Yeah, like I said, I know you.

    I also sincerely hope that any support being offered to Mark is not misconstrued, by others, as pressure or persuasiveness.

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  32. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    My comments were about my previous life in a previous place not here or anything to do with anyone or anything to do with this profession BTW
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  33. Derek et al.,

    Many thanks for your concerns, but if money was the issue, I wouldn't have started this five years ago as it has already cost me much more than the fine and costs imposed by the court. There are many other things happening in my life away from podiatry that have much greater implications for me, so much so that in that context, this is a mere side issue. Although one that has much importance - at least for me.

    As you will become aware in time of the 'other matters', I will enlighten you in due course - when I have a free hour or two to write a summary, but for now please be content in the knowledge that perspective is everything!

    Best wishes

    Mark
     
  34. Health and Care Professions Council

    I would like to make a statement following a press release on the HCPC website regarding my recent case on Protection of Title. The press release states:
    I would like to make it absolutely clear that this statement is completely false, that there was no intent to deceive - public, patients colleagues both in the podiatry profession and other disciplines. Further, this was accepted and agreed by the prosecution in May after my initial pleading hearing during which I had entered a plea of not guilty. The agreement that no deception occurred was the reason I changed my plea, indeed the charge on the summons reflected that position.

    I would like to think that at least those reading these pages over the last five years will easily form their own opinion regarding this case - I have always taken the view that this matter should be aired publicly, especially within the profession - for at its heart is a serious issue regarding the function of the regulator when it comes to protection of the public. Whilst you may hold an enlightened view, I cannot expect the wider public to do the same, given, at this point, they will not be aware of all the facts in this matter and on that basis I find the actions of the HCPC wholly misleading and reprehensible as well as deeply injurious.

    Sincerely

    Mark Russell
     
  35. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Re: Health and Care Professions Council

    The above statement written by the HCPC is a blatant lie. Whoever wrote this `press release` was either not in attendance at the Magistrates Court, or is deliberately publishing spurious claims. One can only speculate the motive for the latter.

    If you haven`t already signed the e-petition, the above may add credence to your decision to do so.

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/57282
     
  36. Re: Health and Care Professions Council

    If they had been in court they would have heard the HCPC barrister say "we accept there was no intention to deceive but there has been a blatant misuse of a protected title..." which is rather at odds with the HCPC statement on their website.
     
  37. mgates01

    mgates01 Active Member

    Re: Health and Care Professions Council

    Hi Mark
    I don't know you but I have read with admiration your attempt to highlight the blatant nonsense that is HCPC regulation.
    Your tenacity and bravery deserve a bigger audience (I would suspect most of the Podiatry Arena population totally agree with and support your stand).
    I wondered if you have considered trying to encourage some of these consumer rights programmes to become involved.
    Given the amount of air time any health "scandal" generates these days I would have thought there may be an eager journalist out there keen to make a name for themselves. I do recognise that not all journalists are beyond scruples themselves and any story may not be presented exactly as you might like, but it may be a way of getting the debate more into the public arena and expose the HCPC for the toothless body it really is.
    Apologies if you have already considered this.

    Good luck and best wishes.
    Michael
     
  38. Re: Health and Care Professions Council

    It's in hand, Michael, but there's another important part of the judicial process to come first - which I am really looking forward to. Thank you very much for your kind comments, much appreciated.

    Kindest
    Mark
     
  39. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member

    Re: Health and Care Professions Council

    Director of Fitness to Practise Kelly Holder commented:

    “Individuals cannot practise in the UK using one of our protected titles unless they are registered with the HCPC. It is a criminal offence for someone to claim that they are registered with us when they are not, or to use a protected title that they are not entitled to use."

    That was the whole point of your argument. That people were able to sidestep the use of a protected title with impunity.
    :craig:

    Sincerely hope things look up for you in the next round Mark.
    Will forward the petition on :drinks

    Tracy
     
  40. Re: Health and Care Professions Council

    Thanks Tracy - appreciate that. It's a funny old business - law and justice - more often it's what is not said that that is of importance and the real deceit lies in avoiding it deliberately. I should also say that I had a call earlier last night from a colleague who also works for the HCPC to advise that these pages are being read by HCPC staff and therefore colleagues should be mindful what they write. I must check the standards to see if guilt by association still applies. If so, I can think of a few that are also in the mire! Wellies for christmas....

    Kind regards
     
Loading...

Share This Page