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.

Research on behalf of the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC regulated professional discussio

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by blinda, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. blinda

    blinda MVP


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Another survey. The HCPC is `evaluating the possibility of establishing an online community for Registrants to discuss topics of interest with fellow professionals`. Interesting, eh?

     
  2. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Wasn't there a section to comment on any other forums you may have used?
    I commented on TFS:D.
     
  3. fishpod

    fishpod Well-Known Member

    sounds a bit big brotherish to me. imho not a very good thing to get involved in
     
  4. William Fowler

    William Fowler Active Member

    A regulatory authority running a discussion forum! That I got to see!

    I fail to see how doing that is part of their statutory remit.
     
  5. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    I suppose it could be to improve service to registrants.:confused:
     
  6. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    But surely their role is NOT to provide services to the registrants, but provide service to their masters (the govt) and those they are allegedly protecting (the public).
     
  7. blinda

    blinda MVP

    You would think so, wouldn`t you? And, don`t call me Shirley.
     
  8. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    It was a tick-box exercise is all.
    That survey couldn't possibly have gleaned any meaningful information out of registrants.
     
  9. gdenbyUK

    gdenbyUK Active Member

    I agree with this point. I completed this HCPC survey, having been at the sharp end of their Podiatry Audit fiasco this summer... being given a 30 day reminder in July 2012 to submit my CPD audit materials, but NOT having received any prior notification of being included in the audit (my re-registration items were also received BEFORE the July 'reminder')!

    In my responses to them, I made clear my view that I thought few practitioners would trust or have confidence in a regulating government quango to monitor / moderate / assist in any public blogs / discussions about their profession and practise. I suggested they reduce MY registration fees, by abandoning all their ideas about promoting their assistive roles on Twitter / Facebook etc. Do we expect them to listen, or get their own house in order (or even act professionally themselves)? The cynic in me is doubtful - they seem more interested in expanding their scope of influence (into Social Care this year!), rather than getting their regulation job done efficiently.

    P.S. With the able assistance of Society of Chiropodist and Podiatrist staff, I managed to submit for audit on time. It is now ten weeks later in mid October and STILL I have no feedback of having 'passed' the HCPC audit, or otherwise. More evidence of their own lack of professionalism?
     
  10. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    I think they do have a role to play and do need to come out with some sort of social media policy; as some know there are some issues going on and there has already been this case: HPC case on 'disparaging comments on the website forum'.

    The National Registration Boards in Australia has started to consult on developing a social media policy in Australia with a consultation document that has "a draft of the social media policy has been released as a preliminary consultation paper to targeted stakeholders for initial feedback" .... I perplexed as to why Podiatry Arena is not considered a "targeted stakeholder"!
     
  11. George Brandy

    George Brandy Active Member

    Craig, I do not agree with your statement. The HCPC has a duty to protect its registrants against inappropriate, vexatious or poorly evidenced fitness to practice claims. In doing so they are providing a service to registrants.

    I assume this admin is also Craig Payne but apologise unreservedly if not.


    I am well aware of the much publicised references by Belinda Longhurst of the alleged wrongdoings by one Heather Magill on TFS and the criticisms of Jackie Sheridon, owner of TFS. I am presuming this is what "Admin" means by "as some know there are some issues going on" as it links, in the same sentence, to the already heard HPC case on disparaging comments on the website forum.

    I think it is time to set the record straight and assume that the HCPC do work with some sort of policy when it comes to social media as in the case of Longhurst vs Magill, the defendant had "no case to answer".

    GB
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2012
  12. blinda

    blinda MVP

    George,

    Could you please provide evidence of these references where I have publicly identified who was responsible for misconduct deemed serious enough for the hcpc to form a committee panel and state that the fitness to practice of the registrant in question was indeed impaired?

    I was rather hoping that we had seen an end to this. However, as you have taken it upon yourself to reveal the registrants identity and make incorrect assumptions, there is little point for me to continue affording her the dignity of anonymity and will attach a copy of the hcpc findings on my return to the UK.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2012
  13. Craig Payne

    Craig Payne Moderator

    Articles:
    8
    My comment relates to the flawed expectations that so many comments made about registration/regulatory authorities paraphrased as "what do we get for our money", implying that they expect some sort of service to be provided to them in return for the money they pay, when this is not the case or role of a regulatory authority.
     
  14. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    I post under my own name when in discussions (except on the odd occasion that I forget to log out!) and post as Admin when dealing with Admin issues, like this one:
    I have removed the comments for now and can easily post them back. I not sure the name of the individual concerned is in the public domain. Can you both PM me and let me know re the comments if the person should actually be named.
     
  15. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    My original message has been deleted at the request of another PA member, however admin might like to check out the thread

    "Anonymous forum posting may be made illegal"


    http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=9398


    specifically posts 36#,44# and 45#

    regards

    Catfoot

    PS I was pleased to read in the previous post (before it was deleted) that the individual known as Heather Magill has been exonerated by the HPC.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2012
  16. cornmerchant

    cornmerchant Well-Known Member

    Craig

    I’m astounded at your action of removing comments, or perhaps on reflection I should not be. It is just another example of your bias in favour of some posters and against others.

    You say you are not sure that the name of the individual concerned is in the public domain. Really? I suggest you revisit some of the threads associated with this matter.

    Belinda Longhurst accused Cornmerchant of misdeeds, you provided from your private data ‘proof’ that Cornmerchant was Heather Magill. Belinda Longhurst posted multiple posts claiming she was making a FTP complaint against Cornmerchant, Mark Russell posted a picture of me and gave my address in connection with the case. None of this did you censor and you even allowed a thread entitled That Footshyte.

    Now when a respected poster attempts to put the record straight -that is that Mrs Longhurst’s complaint against Mrs Heather Magill was judged No case to answer, you block it.

    I could publish the details of the case but not on this site, it would be far too embarrassing for you and Belinda but it would show the owner of That Footshyte in a good light, but I’m not sure it would achieve anything.

    Suffice it to say I believe I am owed an apology from Mrs Longhurst, yourself, Mark Russell and any of the other posters who joined in to abuse me.

    I have not posted on this site since Mrs Longhurst made her accusation, and have no intention of posting in the future. I would like to be removed from your register but understand that you just do not do that.

    Heather Magill
     
  17. George Brandy

    George Brandy Active Member

    __________________

    Fair comment.

    GB
     
  18. George Brandy

    George Brandy Active Member

    As far as I am concerned post number 16 means you can return the removed comments.

    GB
     
  19. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Everyone seems to agree, so they have been returned.
    Please be careful of what you accuse me of. There was NO favoritism. If anything, I was keeping your name out of the public domain from being associated with this case! I simply removed parts of posts until it was clarified if the naming of an individual involved in an HPC issue was in the public domain or not. I did not know if it was or was not the case. I simply said the comments are removed until I got advice if that was the case or not. No favoritism. No conspiracy. Simple pragmatism.
     
  20. George Brandy

    George Brandy Active Member

    Belinda



    You have associated yourself too many times with references to Heather Magill and her alleged wrongdoings for it not to be obvious to even the most stupid of us. The evidence is there and it doesn't take too much research to provide the links. I found this activity rather undignified of you.

    Now then, the HCPC does not form committee panels for individual cases. This is a permanent structure. It was you who questioned Heather Magill's fitness to practice. The HCPC did not. They merely followed a process instigated by you.



    There will never be an end. I will certainly be wary of disagreeing with you in the future for fear of retribution via the HCPC. I am sure many will take the same approach and this will stifle meaningful debate. It seems to be a modern day affliction that when things get a little heated we are unable to take it on the chin and reach out to the threat of litigation. But hey, this is just Podiatry Arena...hardly merits a look at these days due to the bullying and intimidation set by the main core of posters on this site. This seems to be largely based around the desire of the majority to post under a pseudonym whilst this small minority object.



    I am sorry Belinda, your approach to Heather Magill has been nothing but undignified as evidenced by your association with your fellow posters derogatory comments on Podiatry Arena. Therefore attaching a copy of your "HCPC findings" when you return to the UK will further confirm this.

    GB
     
  21. Another sad indictment of UK Podiatry. The problem is, Heather, since you mention me specifically, is that you write anonymously - as do many others - and as the tone and style of your posts are often similar to a small minority of posters AKA Catfoot AKA REG AKA Lovefeet - negative, disparaging, personal, dismissive and in a narrow sense of the word, bitchy. It is unsurprising that other contributors confuse identities easily. At least everyone knows who you are now, which helps. Doesn't mean you are not entitled to your view, but at least we can associate that with a proper identity. Perhaps you might sent a trend and something positive might come about after all. I have no idea what triggered a complaint by Belinda - none of my business - but I can imagine. Some of the comments on thatfootsite border on the slanderous and are frequently libellous. Worse than that, they are personally hurtful and spiteful. When they are directed from a hidden identity, puropsely, with the intent to harm or injure the reputation of another colleague - who may have no redress - then I think that is very regrettable.

    Of course, none of this would matter if everyone took a similar approach and acted within the spirit of the forum rules. Try to bring a pleasant side of your personality to the discussion - if you've had a bad day then watch the TV or read a book instead. Leave the internet alone. And when you do log-on remember there's a real person at the other side of the screen; it's not a interactive video game where you allow your "character" to develop a fantasy personality - as tempting as it might be. If there was a requirement for displaying the proper identity of users then - or at least being able to access via a sub menu - then I think the level of debate would be greatly enhanced. Sadly in a way, it would be a good thing - perhaps Craig and the other forum contributors might consider in future.
     
  22. ‎To quote another Russell from an interview in 1959
     
  23. blinda

    blinda MVP

    You can`t have it both ways, George (and I have no idea what you mean by `association with your fellow posters derogatory comments`). As stated earlier, I had no intention of naming the Registrant or discussing the matter any further, until you decided to reveal their identity and make false claims. Therefore, in the interest of `setting the record straight`, I have no option but to post the findings here, where it is abundantly clear whose conduct is inappropriate and vexatious.

    I asked:
    You replied:
    So, I`ll take that as a `no, I can`t`then, shall I?

    To save you the trouble, these are the only posts on Podiatry Arena, where I have mentioned the HCPC complaint;

    http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=265225&postcount=1
    http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=265352&postcount=4
    http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=272989&postcount=45

    As you can see, I have not identified the Registrant on any occasion.


    Correct. The Investigating Panel is indeed a permanent structure. However, and I quote,”the HCPC have a `standard of acceptance` that all cases have to meet before we [they] can deal with a fitness to practice concern about a professional”. It is at this point that the majority of `vexatious` (yeah, I know there are 2 definitions) complaints are dropped as they do not meet the standard of acceptance. Yet, it was deemed that the Registrants unprofessional remarks were serious enough for a case to be brought to the Investigating Committee, as summarised by the FTP Case Manager here;

    Whilst registered as a Chiropodist/Podiatrist, you made inappropriate and/or unprofessional remarks on a website, That Foot Site, in that you posted the following:
    1) “Bel is talking out of her backside as usual – she is getting very good at that...she must have a sh!t load of quotes from papers to hand – maybe she doesn’t have enough work” on 25 May 2012.
    2) “I think both of Bel`s faces need to be better looking than her backside” on 26 May 2012.
    3) “Bel the Bitch in full glory- see the continuing thread on vinegar. Its not about the topic, its about the reason why perfectly competent pods do not post on pod arena” on 27 May2012.
    4) The matters set out in paragraphs 1 to 3 constitute misconduct.
    5) By reason of that misconduct your fitness to practice is impaired.



    Your assumption is incorrect. The HCPC do not have any policy in place concerning registrants activity associated with social media, yet. Also, your terminology of `Longhurst vs the Registrant`is incorrect. That would only be the case should I personally sue for slander. Any complaint raised about a registrant is entitled `Health and Care Professions and (named Registrant) `. You are correct in your statement that the decision of the Committee was that there is no case to answer as that is the only term used to declare that a case will go no further, on this occasion. However, as shown in the attached document, the Reason provided for the decision is; “insufficient evidence to link the Registrant to the alleged unprofessional remarks”, thus, the HCPC “has no realistic prospect of proving the facts of this case at a final hearing....accordingly, no further action will be taken by the HCPC in respect of the allegations”.

    So, you have read the Registrants version of events. Here`s mine;

    On 25 May 2012, I was informed of a thread on the unmoderated forum `thatfootsite` where anonymous posters were making unpleasant and unprofessional remarks about me personally and my professional practice. The remarks were not uncharacteristic of the Registrant that I subsequently made the complaint against. Utilising an online website, I traced the IP address to the Registrants geographical area. In order to pursue my complaint, I emailed the owners of both Podiatry Arena (Craig) and thatfootsite (Jackie), requesting the IP address of the suspected Registrant and of the derogatory posts. I did NOT request the identity of cornmerchant as this was already known to me and the Registrant was fully aware of this due to previous dialogue via Private Messaging on Podiatry Arena.


    This is the reply I received from the owner of thatfootsite:
    From: Jackie
    Sent: 28 May 2012 08:58
    To: 'Belinda Longhurst'
    Subject: RE: Slanderous posts
    Hi Belinda
    How do you go about requesting the IP address of the poster – we have been asked this before but our programmer did not know how to do this.
    Kind regards
    Jackie

    From: Belinda Longhurst
    Sent: 27 May 2012 20:40
    To: jackie@thatfootsite.com
    Subject: Slanderous posts
    Hi Jackie,
    Please DO NOT remove the slanderous posts about me, I am formally requesting the IP address of each poster as I am taking this further.
    Regards
    Belinda Longhurst


    With the evidence available to me I then made the complaint. The HCPC telephoned me a few weeks later to discuss the matter. They said “I understand that you have been provided with an IP address confirmation by the administrator of Podiatry Arena, Craig Payne. He has also confirmed the identity of cornmerchant with us. However, having contacted the administrator for TFS, it is clear that they are unable to provide any details in relation to the various posts”. I was advised, verbally, that it would be unlikely that they could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Registrant had posted the comments, but would put the case to the Investigating Panel as I had provided enough evidence to warrant investigation.

    So, the final decision was neither a surprise nor a disappointment to me personally, as I was aware that the website utilised to trace the IP address may not have been admissible as `firm evidence`(which it wasn`t) and that the Registrant would deny making the posts (as they did before, until I pointed out I had their IP address here), despite the fact that the Registrant had made a `formal apology`, openly admitting that they had made the comments here. I had made my point and the remarks were deemed `inappropriate and unprofessional...misconduct, thereby impairing fitness to practice.`

    Moreover, I would like to reiterate the final paragraph of the HCPC decision letter, which states;
    “In accordance with Rule 4(6) and (7) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Investigating Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, THE REGISTRANT IS GIVEN NOTICE THAT, IF WITHIN THREE YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE PRESENT ALLEGATIONS ANOTHER ALLEGATION IS MADE AGAINST THE REGISTRANT, THE COMMITTEE MAY TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGATIONS SET OUT IN THIS NOTICE IN CONSIDERING THAT SUBSEQUENT ALLEGATIONS(s).”

    Now, I would not consider that as exoneration and would also be very careful what I post for the duration of the next three years.

    George, you have completely missed the point of the complaint. I was not objecting to the Registrant disagreeing with me during a meaningful debate here on the Arena. I was objecting to the name calling, claiming that I was `talking out of my backside` and stating that I `do not have enough work`. Would you consider these spiteful remarks made on the unmoderated forum thatfootsite to be`meaningful debate`? I welcome moderated heated debate, as you know, with both pseudonyms and openly identified posters here. I don`t object to pseudonyms per se. My reason for `thanking` Mark for his post in this thread, was for the following part which hits the nail squarley on the head:

    “Probably the most important reason people choose to submit anonymous postings is that they would be extremely embarrassed if those that read their words knew the source. As well as the legitimate candidates you can also count the spiteful, the agitators, the sociopaths, the insecure and the generally unpleasant.”

    I hope that clarifies.
     
  24. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Excellent!
    Full data, full facts, no innuendo, no half-truths and no name-calling.
    How can anyone complain about that.

    Thanks Bel, for taking the time to set the record straight about this very unpleasant episode. I'm delighted that the HCPC showed themselves in a good light in this instance.

    Thanks also to Mark, for coming up with the right quotes at the right time.
     
  25. More or less "undignified" than this?

    I would say that whoever wrote those comments should be the target of your ire. Are they not far more undignified than anything Bel said? What are your views on those comments George?

    Do you feel the comments above, in bold, constitute "meaningful debate?" George? I don't. That style of interaction SHOULD be stifled IMO. This has certainly made me more careful and perhaps thats a good thing. If it makes other people likewise, perhaps we could create a cyberspace where we afford each other a similar degree of respect to that we would pay each other in real life. Wouldn't that be super.
     
Loading...

Share This Page