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. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. 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.

Foot Health Practitioner Course - UK

Discussion in 'General Issues and Discussion Forum' started by cathedmeades, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. cathedmeades

    cathedmeades Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    Has anyone seen the Foot Health Practitioner Course offered by Stonebridge College, UK? (www.stonebridge.uk.com)

    You can learn everyting you need to know about feet in 12 weeks!

    Any thoughts, comments?

    Will there be any work for me when I head to the UK in a couple of months!!
  2. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  3. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Well, having seen the site, and as a member of this Arena, what do you think?

    The regulatory body of chiropody and podiatry in the U.K. is the Health Professions Council. The major professional bodies are the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, the Institute of Chiropodists and Podiatrists and the British Association of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. You might wish to ask if any or all of these recognise the training this company has to offer.

    Bill Liggins
  4. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    I believe if we are honest it should pointed out that all the membership bodies, with the exception of the Society of Chiropodists and podiatrists, themselve run their own Foot Health Professional short courses.This must undermine their own registered membership. To use a pun they are shooting themselves in the foot. If we look at the why of the situation its down to money. Some organisations are purely commercial , others need the money to keep themselves afloat. In the end its down to ethics, and when the financial reward are high ethic, tend to go down the drain with the dirty water.
  5. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    I'm afraid Jack that you are utterly and completely wrong. It would be wise not to use terms such as ' if we are honest ' until you have checked your facts and are certain that you are being honest.

    Fact 1. the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists have ALWAYS recognised Foot Care Assistant courses since their merger with ACCO. Any number of these FCAs have gone on to become 'Foot Health Professionals'.

    Fact 2. The institute of Chiropodists and Podiatrists have NEVER run Foot Health Professional short courses.

    All the best

  6. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    Bill nice to hear from you. Most of what I have written is fact.As you will know FCAs were only ever trained to provide a limited support system in the NHS, if they have gone on to independent practice that is up to them, but they will be out of the Society of Chiropodist and Podiatrists. My apologise if I have misread the Institutes website on which foot health professionals appear followiing chiropodists. If the Institute is not actually carrying out basic training, they certainly look as if FHP are in the membership and getting, cpd why else would the Institute give them such a prominent place on the website. I agree there is nothing illegal in that, although is it not misleading the public appearing to give the both group equal status? Or perhaps you believe they do have equal status. In my opinion the Society is the only organisation to keeps its integrity and the spirit of registration .
  7. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello Jack

    The original question related to a specific organisation which, I believe, is not recognised by any of the major professional bodies. That is purely a personal opinion since I do not know if the Society recognise the Stonebridge course, although I believe not.

    Unfortunately, what you write is not 'fact'. a number of FCAs deliberately joined the Society recognised course so that they could leave the NHS and claim that they were 'NHS trained' and that their training was recognised by the Society. They are, of course, absolutely correct.

    You are, of course, absolutely incorrect. The Institute has never trained FCAs, Foot Health Professionals or fellow travellers as you claim. It would be really honest of you if you were to retract this statement as there is nothing on the Institute website to suggest that such training has taken place.

    Like the Society, the Institute has a number of members who, close to retirement, for instance, choose not to be associated with the HPC. It is entirely appropriate that such persons retain contact with their former colleagues. Such people in the Institute are welcomed as associate members; you will doubtless know how they are dealt with in the Society. However, this has nothing whatever to do with training FHPs.

    All the best

  8. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    FCAs had a very limited training and I agree some did go on into private practice. As you know FCAs were forced on to the profession by goverment,without proper legislation, and every one knew what would eventually happen, some would set up as chiropodists. That was not the Societys fault. Bill you still have not answered my question. Why if what you say is true and the Institute are not training FHP, either basically or by cpd does their title appear next to chiropodist on the Institutes web site? This surely appears to give them equal status and is both misleading for the public and undermines the whole ethos of registration. I agree that registration is a mess and needs sorting out and there should be an assistant grade registered. However we are where we are and making a worse mess by appearing to give FHPs equal status really dosnt help. I think you also need to look carefully at the institute website before replying. The Lch is open to FHP after following a course run by the Institute. Its there in black and white. What more do you need?

    Regards Jack
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2007
  9. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi chaps,

    Surely ACCO and the SCP simply accepted FCAs?

    I was a member of the SCP at the time and cannot recall seeing or hearing any great outcry by the SCP against this "injustice perpetrated by Govt".
    In fact I remember only one member of Council who spoke out against scalpel-wielding FCAs (Louise P). Of course there may have been other, less voluble objectors.

    Jack, if, as you say, everyone knew what would happen, then someone, somewhere has been very, very careless..................:confused:
  10. There is something in the contract you have to sign when you join the society after the acco training to the effect that you agree not to undertake any private work. Not sure exactly how it works, i'll look it up.

    Personnally i think i'd prefer FCA's who work full time in the NHS cheek by jowl with podiatrists and constantly exposed to in house training to be doing private work rather than the AC nurses or even (no offence) FHPs. Mind you without AC nurses and FHPs the NHS would be swamped anyway and a lot of patients will suffer bad feet rather than pay for a service they feel should be free at source. A lot of them do perfectly good work (although some of them are not so great!)

    Oh its all a bit of a mess!

  11. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Robert,
    Any contract with one professional body which does not have the ability to confer or remove practicing rights, no matter what it implies, is largely worthless.

    I'm quite certain that as I write there are FCAs in NHS employment who are doing some private work too.

    I do agree with you that its a bit of a mess:p
  12. David et al

    Found it!

    (applicants details)

    I'm no lawyer but my read of this would be that the above statement constitutes a requirement / contract with those who hold the certificate. If somebody was found to breech that contract the certificate could be withdrawn. If holding the certificate was a part of the assistant's NHS JD or KSF profile this could jeapodise their NHS employment.

    You'd have to be a particularly vicious HR manager with a particularly inept Union rep facing you for this to stick but there is obviously some pressure going on.

  13. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello Jack

    Thanks Robert, so there we have it.

    " The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatists......................... chiropody assistants who have successfully completed the course specified by the Society.......

    Where does this leave your statement that all the membership bodies with the exception of the Society have run their own Foot Health professional courses?" I fear that your statements concerning "ethics" and "integrity" concerning the Society fall on stony ground, or in your words, down the plughole with the dirty water. Do you really believe that the certificate they sign is anything but a worthless bit of 'bumf' when FCAs leave the NHS? The only enforceable point is that of title which has nothing to do with the Society in any event!

    Whilst on the subject of Society "ethics" I note that your organisation clearly feels that it is moral and ethical to attempt to poach members of other professional bodies. Perhaps this also is a public demonstration of the integrity of the Society!

    That is my personal rant over. I will formally answer your point concerning the Institute courses, speaking as the Vice-Chairman of the Education sub-committee. I have already stated that those members of the Institute who did not wish to become registered with the HPC continued to be welcome as Associates. The course which you refer to is continuing education for those existing Associate members, and chiropodist and podiatrist non-members (just like the Society) - and you will be very welcome. (I agree that the wording is slightly ambiguous and will be looked at). The Diploma is for full members only. If you click on 'Training' and then 'background' you will directed to the HPC recognised schools. Finally, the term Foot Health Professional or FHP is not mentioned. The term Foot Care Professional is, and that relates to Associates. You may feel that this is semantics, but so is your definition of FCAs.

    My personal opinion again. It is very sad that when any individual, groups of individuals, professional bodies or other groupings (and there are many of them) try to drive the profession forward, they hit a solid brick wall. That solid brick wall is named the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, and this thread is an admirable illustration of that fact.

    All the best

    Bill Liggins
  14. Johnpod

    Johnpod Active Member

    Just need to say that I fully agree with Bill's view of the Society. They, more than any other body, are responsible for perpetuating the CPSM and compounding it to the present mess. They advised the Dept of Health re grandparenting, etc. It should be plain even to government that if you take the wrong advisors you will get the wrong advice.
  15. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member


    Surely ACCO and the SCP simply accepted FCAs ?

    If I remember correctly FCAs were the babies of ACCO, not imposed from above. Finances were tight at the time and they were seen as a cheap option, FCAs were employed instead of chiropodists.

    I remember seeing a large advert in SEARCH (the ACCO mag) for an FCA course, in the same issue an editorial telling newly qualified pods to find alternative employment until things improved.

    I had a heated debate, in the letters column, on the adverse effect this would have on the profession in the long term. I think I`m proved right.

    What did the SOCAP do ? Nothing that I can remember, but took them in at a later time !

  16. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Rosherville,

    Can we then all agree that ACCO and the SCP were happy with the FCA situation as long as it suited them?

    Would be good to have an ACCO or SCP viewpoint here.

    Boring for the rest of the forum, I know, but a fairly vital part of podiatric history for the UK.

    I'm far from being an apologist for the SCP or ACCO, but I can see why elements of both would think FCAs a good idea. In fact I'm not sure I disagree.
  17. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Hi David,

    Can we then all agree that ACCO and the SCP were happy with the FCA situation as long as it suited them?

    Yes, that`s true. Though at first I believe the greater part of SOCAP members and hierachy were against the idea but were ignored by the chief chiropody officers.
  18. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    It is clear that Jack Golding who is a very senior member of the Scoiety is convinced that FCA's were imposed by the government. This gives rise to two questions:

    i) where did this piece of information originate

    ii) do the majority of Society members believe this to be true

    As David has said, this needs clarification for the history of podiatry in the U.K.

    Bill Liggins
  19. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    Hello Bill

    FCAs were imposed by the the NHS. They were trained to assist and had a limited roll. All professions have an assistant grade and that is no bad thing. Dispite assurances from you Bill the Institute are training FHP for independent practice, which must undermine the whole idea of registration. I agree its a mess, but making it more of a mess dosnt help. As far as poaching is concerned you will recall that in the PA we were not above recruiting on the basis that we believed we were the best on offer. At this point in time,and with all its shortcomings the SOCPs is that best. The fact that much of the registered profession belongs to the Society speaks for itself and as more registrants find themselves in organisation taken over by FHPs its bound to prosper. We will see.
  20. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello Jack

    I can formally state that The Institute are NOT training FHPs (or any variation on a theme) for independent practice, and I will be grateful if you will either substantiate or withdraw your accusation.

    The Institute does welcome Associates to CPD, both in branches and at relevant courses.

    Personally, I feel that FHPs in general are here to stay, and that being the case it is a good thing, not bad, that FHPs carry out CPD. Perhaps you disagree?

    The Society, as you admit, are training FCAs. That was not quote 'an imposition by government', that was, as David states, an acceptance by SOCAP against the interests of their members.

    "As more registrants find themselves in organisation taken over by FHPs its bound to propsper." I don't understand this statement.

    We have known each other for a long time and whilst I am always happy to discuss matters, unless you are willing, as I am, to answer questions, the process becomes sterile. Will you please answer the two simple questions from my previous posting?

    All the best

  21. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    Hello Bill,

    I thought I had answered your question. The Society do train assistant grades they are for employment in the NHS should be supervised and have a very limited remit. A world away from someone being trained on a very short course for independent practice. Surley you are splitting hairs when you say the Institute are only providing cpd. what it is doing is providing top up for FHP in order to recruit Lch membership. You say you dont understand what Iam saying about organsation being swamped with the unregistered. I will ask a question, where are the Institute and other organisations going to get there membership from? Apart from a few malcontents it will not come from the universities so you will be left with FHP who will eventually be in the majority. I know you will say that it has always been the philosophy of the Institute to welcome all. I assume they were party to the pre HPC talks and agreed that, that, with all its shortcomings, it was a way foreward. I can understand the other commercial organisations embracing the FHPs, keeping to the spirit of the HPC would hit their pockets. So what is the Institute reason for undermining the ethos of registration?
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2007
  22. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    David, Bill, Jack,

    Just checking through old publications. I don`t think the history is that straightforward.

    FCAs were not imposed by the NHS. They were thought up by ACCO (or it`s embryonic group) who ran courses. SOCAP was against this but bowed to pressure and wanted assistants on par with Dental assistants. ACCO, however, decided that FCAs should work alone on designated patients in both the clinic and domiciliary situations. Clearly 'cheap labour' or call it what you will.

    The NHS stood back from all this stating the training and scope was down to the individual employing authorities ie. the chief chiropodists.

    To say say that SOCAP then moved it`s position would not be quite true. Most of ACCO members were also in SOCAP so SOCAPS position was fragmented and they drifted; then with unification it was complete. The same of course with surgery, SOCAP was against it resulting in the PA, SOCAP then moved it`s position starting surgery courses, then unification.

    From this it would appear that SOCAP has never driven anything, been against everything, ended up by being used as the larger vehicle. Not very inspiring.

    Jack, I`m not sure that SOCAP agreed that the HPC was a way forward. Yes the hierachy were against it but then moved it`s position, a Chairman then joining it. But was there not subsequentely a vote at an AGM decrying the HPC and wanting as it`s aim a General Podiatric Council ?

    Seems like a lot of politics, self interest and position maintaining to me me. No wonder the average member is apathetic.

  23. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    Bill, Rosherville

    Whatever the history, we are where we are, and having an assistant grade happens in every other profession and is not a bad thing.Large organisations like the Society will always be conservative when faced with something new, its how new ideas evolve that matters. With the faculty of surgery and medicine the Society have moved on. The drugs list and the involvement of the Royal colleges of Surgeons Scotland in surgeon education are yust two of the ways that the Society is proving its worth since amalgamating with the PA and COs.
    The question that has not been answered is, are organisation who provide training for independent FHP merely undermining the whole idea of registration? I believe they are,and their main motive is either commercial or to increase the membership and income. The HPC was imposed by goverment, no doubt about that, and as a small profession there was little that could be done about it
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2007
  24. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Jack,
    I believe the history is important, but I'm happy to accept that this is my personal view.

    The question you are asking is are those organisation providing private training for FHPs undermining the whole idea of registration.
    The answer to my mind is no. HPC registration was not an exercise carried out for the good of the profession. It did not exclude anyone from continuing to train foot practitioners, and of course as far as UK podiatrists are concerned it is deeply flawed. To lay the blame for this at the foot of commercial organisations (I'm thinking principally of SMAE, The Alliance and Stonebridge here) who are training FHPs does not make sense.
  25. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    Hello David

    I believe we are all aware that the HPC was setup not to protect podiatrists but the public. With that in mind how does allowing registrants to train others, to become in effect unacountable practitioners protect the public?Remember there are a lot of thing that are legal but not ethical. You will recall that in the days of the CPSM it was a disaplinary offence to train or associate with non registered chiropodists. Leave aside the commercial bodies you mention. They have always trained on short courses. Their motive has always been profit, and no doubt the the present mess will suit them. Iam still at a loss to understand why an organisation like the Institute which in the past was second only to the Society and has acted professionally would now join in the training of FHP. They surely are undermining any ethos left in the idea of registration. Or is it in this day and age ethical considerations are no longer necessary?If it were so its a very sad day.

    regard Jack
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2007
  26. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member


    When we were having our exchange of views I thought I was talking to the person I knew a few years ago, and your ideas might be of value. Looking at other sites on the arena I now know that far from being the David Holland we knew, this David Holland has turned away from his routes and sold himself to the other side. Really David on every blog you should declare your interest. Your view cannot be objective when you are paid by people running FHP courses. I know what your doing is legal, however is it ethical, or do ethics go out of the window where money is concerned?

  27. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Jack,

    I'm not sure where you are coming from with this statement:
    (much cut - "sold himself to the other side. Really David on every blog you should declare your interest. Your view cannot be objective when you are paid by people running FHP courses."

    May I state categorically that I have not sold myself to the other side?
    Your statement is a great example of the antagonistic attitude of some which is keeping the profession apart in the UK.
    I simply became bored with the posturing of the SCP which has gone on since well before I qualified (and that was a good few years ago, believe me:p), and joined another UK Podiatry professional body who give me a good Indemnity insurance deal.

    I believe both UK Law and my personal ethics and morality allows me to do this?:empathy:

    I have done three pieces of work for SMAE; the first was writing a basic interactive CD-Rom Biomech Course, the second was running a one-day Biomech Workshop and the third was writing part of the SMAE/ARU top-up degree course. I was paid for all three. All three, to my mind, contributed to better podiatry practice. FHPs were not involved at any time.

    Prior to this I was a Director of Professional Proficiency Ltd, a company specialising in CPD. the other two Directors were an MA (also a School of Pod Senior Lecturer), and a PhD, both Uni of Durham (Dunelm). We would have been very happy to undertake work for the SCP (and this was on the drawing board) but unfortunately it did not happen, largely, I believe, due to policy changes within the SCP.

    Subesquently I have done no paid work for SMAE, and do not receive any pay whatsoever from them (in the form of retainers, benefits in kind etc).

    BTW I rather like the idea of "selling myself to the other side" - it smacks of devil worship and dark satanic rituals.
    Mike Batt does not, as far as I know have horns - mind you, I've only ever seen him in daylight!:D

  28. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member

    Hello David

    Its a point of view, but it is a minority point of view.That is all that can be said on the subject.

    regards Jack
  29. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello Jack

    Bearing in mind your admission that FCAs undergo Society training from the beginning, I would still be obliged if you would answer the questions:

    i) from where did the statement that FCA's were imposed by the government arise

    ii) what percentage (in your view) of members of the Society believe this to be true

    In view of your later postings, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer:

    iii) what percentage (in your view) of members of the Society believe that FCA's work purely as assistants to registered podiatrists, and when carrying out nail and scalpel work do so under the direct supervision of a registered podiatrist

    iv) what subjects are covered in 'CPD' training for FCAs carried out by or under the aegis of the Society - which now includes ACCO

    Many thanks

  30. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello David

    I had the pleasure of having dinner with Mike Batt about a year ago. Co-incidentally, this was at a restaurant named 'The Old Devil'. Even so and even at night he did not gow horns. Mind you, his canines looked a little prominent when he attacked his rare steak!

    Bill Liggins

    cc MB
  31. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member


    Surely you must see the difference btween training an assistent grade and training on a short course for independent practice. I believed that FCAs were inposed on the profession by the NHS which ever way it happened I have never had a problem with FCAs. I have worked with them over the years, and found them to be a helpful part of NHS practice under supervision. If individuals set themselves up as chiropodists and are found out they are sacked Its as simple as that. It is by no means a perfect situation, but in most cases it works. I believe you are on the Institutes education commitee why then did you tell us that the Institute does not and never has trained FHP when that is simple not true. Look on your own website the Institute takes FHPs and provides training to Lch membership. My remark about the future, which you didnt understand is simple.The Institute will not attract podiatrist coming out of university they may attract FHP so the future must be bleak. How will you feel as a podiatric surgeon being in a organisation which by majority one day will be run by FHPs?. The other organisations we can dismiss they are only in it for the money and Iam sure will be happy whoever provides it and whatever they are called. With the amalgamation, and with many of the people you and I worked with over many years either on council or faculty the Society is driving the vast majority of the profession foreward, and Iam no doubt its the place to be.
  32. Johnpod

    Johnpod Active Member

    From the Institute website:
    This course is open to all members of The Institute and non members and is designed for chiropodists, podiatrists and foot care professionals who practise in both the public and private sectors."

    If this is not the case, any FHPs currently with the Institute would do well to understand that they will forever remain Associates within the Institute and would be well advised to examine their alternatives.

    Do you care to explain this, Bill? Does the Institute take FHPs and offer them Licentiate status after training?

    As for you Jack Golding, 'Sir', take care with your assertions that 'the other organisations we can dismiss they are only in it for the money'. This comes very close to slander, and in any event is untrue , certainly of at least one organisation. Just what are you in it for? Personal vendeta against anyone not Society orientated? It seems unlikely that you are in it for your patients due to the frequency of your contentious posts on this and other forums.
  33. jack golding

    jack golding Active Member


    Your splitting hairs as far as what the Institute do in the way of education and anyone looking at that site will easily see your problem By the way the written word would be libel however l dont believe they believe they are any more than commercial companies, and there is nothing wrong with that. Although as you say one might not be. No I do not have a vendeta against anyone who is not in the Society. I do however question the motives of those who promote FHP.Is asking the question from where will organisation such as the Institute recruit new members nasty, no but trying to find the answer might be a shade uncomfortable.Dc is with me and running surgical sessions on my behalf so Iam not short of time
  34. davidh

    davidh Podiatry Arena Veteran

    Hi Jack,
    Podiatry in the UK is a minority profession. The SCP has, what 8/9000 members, SMAE have a little over 4000 I believe. The Institute has around 2000 members - I don't know about the Alliance but perhaps John could coment?

    Here in the UK we seem to work hard at keeping our profession weak, by having factions within factions each fighting each other.
    The SCP has two factions - PPs and NHS.
    SMAE have two factions (but generally we get along with one another quite well) which are Pods and FHPs.
    The Inst and the Alliance have the same.

    The answer to closure, as any Aus Pod will tell you, is for everyone to come together, present a fait-accompli to the Government which consists of another Grandparenting, but with full closure after this time.

    Not acknowledging the existence of FHPs, and their place in the foot health industry, is tantamount to hiding one's head in the sand. They are there - more are being trained as we speak. There is nothing you or I can do about it (I don't think FHPs are a bad thing BTW, but I accept that is only my view).

    Those who insist that FHPs are "bad" and undermining our profession are simply perpetuating professional infighting:bash:.

    Can you see where I'm going with this:rolleyes:?

    Infighting between the UK Pod professional bodies is keeping us weak.

    It is also maintaining the status quo.

    I can only think of one reason why any professional body would want to maintain the current status quo.

    Lets see now, 8/9000 members at £300 a year..........
  35. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member


    Point taken.

    It does however suggest that what could or could have brought the profession together was a General Podiatric Council (or equivilant) to regulate all levels of the profession. This would needed to be comprised of a balance acceptable to all those levels within the profession. The HPC is not acceptable to all and has further fragmented the profession. There are now more professional bodies than under the CPSM.

    The moment was there but it was SOCAP that threw the opportunity away. We could have all refused to have anything to do with the formation of the HPC (others have) but although objecting to it the Chairman of SOCAP took a position on it ! It is this 'need to control' by SOCAP that is the achilles heel of the whole profession, there will never be accord within SOCAP. The Camden Accord was nothing of the sort; the PA and ACCO never had much time for SOCAP but saw it as an opportunity to 'take over' and we know that the factions are still there and the agendas and in-fighting are still as strong as ever. SOCAP is 'dead in the water' as far as uniting the profession of the future.

    There's nothing wrong with having different professional bodies representing different interests, it`s one regulatory body that is necessary.

    SOCAP will gradually, over a long period, diminish in size as some of it`s members go elsewhere for a better deal in professional indemnity cover. It`s only insurance cover that has kept it`s membership up. This is exactly what has happened to the BMA who`s members became fed up with it, they of course don`t supply insurance so the process is happening more quickly than with SOCAP.

  36. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello Jack

    Sadly, your last post to me was yet another mistake. Your answer was to the posting of Johnpod.

    I will be very grateful if you cease to obfuscate matters and simply answer the questions that I put to you, otherwise the debate becomes sterile. As you see in the next paragraph, we are already repeating ourselves.

    Johnpod. I thought I had clearly explained the Institute training in an earlier post. I also acknowledged that the wording of the statement to which you refer will be looked at. Please check previous postings.

    David. I agree. Money is power and the Society have always been careful of their finances. Nothing wrong with that, but has the largesse taken from members always been used in the right way for the benefit of all the membership?

    Rosherville. You are, of course, totally correct. I have learned a great deal since leaving the Society. One of the things that I have learned is that all the professional bodies with the exception of the Society were in favour of a General Podiatry Council; it was the Society which let the profession down.

    All the best

    Bill liggins

Share This Page