Is this relevant for the HPC?

Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

Gentlepods,

while browsing the HPC site I came across a suprising number of 'Fitness to Practice' hearings, involving Podiatrists http://www.hpc-uk.org/complaints/hearings/ Some are quite straightforward, but as you read others, it seems that the HPC is being used in place of an internal discipline procedure by some employers. For example, is convening a fitness to practice hearing on an employers allegation of 'viewing websites during working hours' a relevant way to spend our fee's?, with all the undoubted costs of so doing. Should the HPC send cases like this back to employers and instruct them to set their own houses in order? Or, are NHS administrators not capable of this.

Any thoughts?

Martin

 

Hi Martin,

It is far easier for an NHS Manager to report a Podiatrist directly to the HPC.
That way, the Trust does not have to become embroiled in possible litigation.
Sadly, our fees will be spent any way the Government wants.
Cheers,
davidh

 

Martin & David

This is a serious issue for the profession and it is not just restricted to NHS employees. The HPC is legally bound to investigate all complaints against registrants, whatever the source of the complainant. I think initially it was thought that this process would facilitate the public in cases of malpractice in making redress against an errant practitioner, however the fitness to practice mechanism is being (ab)used more widely - with the example you cite whereby employers are circumventing their own disciplinary process (which can prove onerous and costly in legal fees should the case be unfounded). It can also be used to "settle old scores" between practitioners where there is a history of "bad blood". I have experience of the latter.

Almost two years ago some of my personal papers were interfered with and some contents of my own domiciliary case had been removed (business cards, dental needles, local analgesics) when I was absent from a clinic in which I was working. The following day I discovered that two members of staff had carried out a medical equipment audit in my clinic when I was away (no other employees had access to my room). As these papers contained correspondence from government Ministers and officials from the DOH, I was extremely concerned given that one of the members of staff was a union representative and, for obvious reasons, I didn't wish the contents of the correspondence to be further divulged.

When I learned the identity of the employee I contacted them by telephone and asked directly whether they had read my papers. They were extremely evasive and denied all knowledge of my file - something I found difficult to believe given that I had left it on top of my computer keyboard and it had been moved. The employee's log-on details were also on my computer when I returned. Although I was direct with my questions, I was also courteous and professional, but I finished the brief conversation by telling them I didn't believe what they said. As a result of that conversation I was notified by the PCT a few weeks later that the employee had lodged a claim of bullying and harassment against me.

Subsequently that claim was investigated by the PCT management and was proved to be unfounded. An external diagnostic review of the podiatry service, undertaken later that year, found that there was an established history of abuse of the Trust's grievance procedures by the Union representatives in making malicious and vexatious claims against colleagues and management.

Last December - a year later - I was informed by the Trust's Chief Executive that they had received a request from the HPC for information regarding myself as they (HPC) had received a complaint against me through the fitness to practice procedure. I was not notified by the HPC. This complaint primarily related to the bullying and harassment claim made previously, but also a complaint was made that an out-fo-date POM (topical antibiotic) had been found in the surgery, which I was not entitled to prescribe or use. This antibiotic had been left by a patient for disposal. The Trust initiated another investigation which also concluded (in March this year) that the claim was without foundation and a copy of their report was forwarded to the HPC as requested.

I contacted the HPC fitness to practice division when I was made aware of the complaint but was informed that they would only contact me if, as a result of their preliminary investigations, the case was to be forwarded to a formal hearing. I was not given a copy of the complaint, nor would they disclose the identity of the complainant - although I am aware that they are the same person that made the complaint to the PCT in the first instance.

The HPC holds the report from the Trust. They have not yet dismissed the complaint as they have written to the complainant inviting them to make comment. If the HPC decides there is no case to answer, I am advised that will be the end of the matter, but I will not be entitled to receive a copy of the complaint, nor will they be bound to disclose the identity of the complainant to me. To date, some eight months after I first became aware that I was being investigated and four months after the Trust formally concluded their second investigation, I am still awaiting the outcome of the investigation by the HPC. If this goes on much longer I am seriously considering changing my name by deed poll to 'K'.

Speaking generally, I am concerned that the disciplinary process at the HPC can be abused by people making unfounded, malicious and vexatious claims against colleagues - for whatever reason - without it seems, any redress being taken againt the complainant by the regulator - when such claims have been proven to be so. My feeling is that this should not only apply to fellow registrants but also members of the public. If a woman makes an accusation of rape againt a man, and that accusation is found to be malicious and unfounded, she will herself be prosecuted. The same principles do not seem to be applied to the complaints procedure at the HPC.

Thus it begs the question - who regulates the regulators?

Mark Russell

 

Qcic

Mark, That is MOST disturbing and can I express my sympathy. I don't, nor will ever in the foreseeable future, work in the NHS. But, as all registrant Podiatrists are, I believe, perceived as one profession by the Public, if a scenario is evolving where members of the profession are repeatedly accused of 'unfitness to practice' then does it not tarnish our entire group image in the eyes of the Public?. Guilt by association, no smoke without fire, mud sticks etc - all the usual homilies. Public perception being what it is, the accusations will be remembered long after the innocent or not proven verdicts. The fact that this mechanism is apparently being abused, in all the ways your post highlights, should be ringing very, very, loud alarm bells throughout all the professional associations who collect our annual subscriptions and promise to represent our rights as individual practitioners. Until reading through the HPC site's list of hearings last night, purely from curiosity, I had no idea that such an astounding number of alleged 'unfit to practice' cases were in the system.

Regards,


Martin

 

Martin

Certainly the Society is aware of the complexity of the registrant hearings now being tabled and of the ramifications for the wider profession and the general public. We were asked to consider last year, in a consultation document on regulation, the possibility of the HPC extending their regulatory clutches to students! Can you imagine? Such is the present climate I would have second thoughts on getting rat-faced in a public place; making aggressive comments to colleagues online (who, me?); engaging in a spot of playfulness al fresco; swearing at traffic wardens - indeed anything that the HPC, government or popular press would consider unbecoming of a health professional - even though it may not have any bearing on your ability to treat patients. God knows what they would do if they found out about my twice-weekly cocaine-fueled S&M parties....

......just kidding of course (regrettably it has to be said), but on that particular subject you may recall a post on the JISC Mail site some years ago by Maire Murphy about an enquiry she received from a dominatrix who used to suspend her clients by their toes.
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/w...=01608122283F4F4A56&Y=mmrussell@tiscali.co.uk

I thought this was an interesting post for two reasons - firstly there is an issue about how long to apply tourniquets when the digit has not been adequately exsuanginated, and secondly, what ramifications are there for clinicians who give advice to third parties - in this case a dominatrix - who may then go on to cause grevious harm to themselves or others by maladministration of the original advice. It was also an unusual post on a podiatry website, so I copied the link to JISC Mail to my colleagues in the NHS department and asked them for their opinions.

Subsequently, on the basis of that email, I was reported to the PCT management for inappropriate sexual advances by the Union representative as Marie's post contained the word "dominatrix"! Crazy or what?? That too was dismissed as unfounded.

I cannot comment further at this point on my own investigation for obvious reasons, but suffice to say that professional relationships within the NHS are, in some areas, quite dysfunctional, which is just one of the reasons I am now in full-time private practice.

Mark

 

Just to add another point to the previous; I know I should not be suprised at anything in my fifth decade, but the Star Chamber connotations of what's going on are very disturbing. And most of us apparently have no idea! This subject really needs dragging out of the woodwork - if employers, and others, are (ab)using this system, how long until the public catch on and see it as a gateway to c-o-m-p-e-n-s-a-t-i-o-n?. If negligence claims rise dramaticaly, we will all see our insurance premiums rise, because win or lose such claims, it costs money to defend them.

words fail me,

Martin

 

I've received a number of emails from correspondents who enquire to the relevance of 'K' - as a prospective change of name. This relates, of course, to the story of Joseph K by Franz Kafka in 'The Trial', as I'm sure most of you literary fiends will be only too well aware.

http://www.123helpme.com/assets/16276.html

 

Mark said "Iwould have second thoughts on getting rat-faced in a public place; making aggressive comments to colleagues online (who, me?); engaging in a spot of playfulness al fresco; swearing at traffic wardens - indeed anything that the HPC, government or popular press would consider unbecoming of a health professional - even though it may not have any bearing on your ability to treat patients. God knows what they would do if they found out about my twice-weekly cocaine-fueled S&M parties...."

Never mind about "K". Where are the parties held and can we all come....

GB

 

come clean George

I have yet to go to party and receive a negative reply to my question "have you got Brandy" so can only assume your previous question was a deliberate attempt to deceive the 'Watchers' about your constant attendance at these functions (can I legally use that word?)

Martin

 

HPC Registration

Just out of interest.....has anyone else received duplicate certificates from the HPC in recent weeks? I received my renewal cert four weeks ago and another arrived this morning. Any similar experiences?

 

No.. but

The 'identity card' that came with mine, bearing a swanky hologram with my 'secret number' on the back has me puzzled. Can I use this to withdraw funds from the HPC............. Oh, sorry, thats already been done hasn't it? The way they are printed also suggests I can use the title LA as well as C & P. This has always puzzled me. "Today Matthew, i'm going to be a LA". Is anyone forming a Society of LA's, if I study really hard could I become a Consultant LA? So many questions, so little time.

Martin

 

No..but

Martin Harvey LA...you go for it. Phooar get those fees up with an honour like that. My words the HPC is making this private practice thing easier by the day....

Mind you, I'm a little concerned that the HPC sent me a subliminal message on my "identity card" cunningly disguised as an HPC password. Did you get one as well??

My message starts with the word "SUE" followed by a 6 figure sum.

Wooaaooww....I'd better start watching my back given my reputation.

GB

 

Just wanted to give an update on my own case with the HPC. Readers who have followed this thread will know that I have been under investigation by the HPC Fitness to Practise division since December 2005 following a complaint by a colleague in a NHS Trust. As stated previously, her complaint was citing inappropriate behaviour (bullying & harassment) towards her and others together with the illegal use of prescription only medicines on a patient. These complaints were previously investigated by the PCT and an outside agency who concluded that the allegations were without foundation and that some were of a malicious and vexatious nature.

Unperturbed by these findings, the complainant then made the same allegations to the HPC which was supported by selective documentation and the regulator then commenced a 14 month investigation of its own. I was invited to comment at the end of the FTP investigation, before the matter was sent to an investigative panel who would decide whether or not to proceed to a formal hearing.

The panel met on 24 January and concluded there was no case to answer and no hearing would be required. Given the previous history I was concerned that the complaints process could be open to abuse by registrants or the general public who sought to manipulate the disciplinary process in order to settle old scores, by subjecting practitioners to an investigation by the regulator, and in this regard I wrote to the HPC to enquire what mechanisms could be considered to discourage malicious or unfounded allegations. The correspondence with the HPC follows, but I would be interested to hear the views of the forum as to whether in cases of malicious complaints, the costs of the investigation should be recovered from the complainant - especially in light of the increase in fees proposed by the HPC to cover the projected expenditure of future investigations/hearings.

Mark Russell

 

Mark - good that its over.

A friend of mine here when through the same thing. A couple of vindictive ex-employees made a complaint to the Registration Board with a long list of allegations. The investigation took the Board a huge amount of time and resources, not to mention my friends time and resources to respond. At the end of the day absolutly nothing was found and the two vindictive ex-employees get off scot-free .... they should be made to pay for all the wasted resources for the investigation.

Maybe the Board should 'name and shame' the false accusers .... at least word is spreading as to who they are and it WILL affect there future employment prospects .... what comes around, goes around.

 

Thanks Craig - and to everyone else who has sent their kind wishes and support over the last year. It is much appreciated.

I wish I could say that the matter has not troubled me greatly, but that would not be true. Even though I had the benefit of knowing previous investigations had exonerated me, being the subject of a FTP investigation by the regulator has caused a great deal of worry, for I was unaware until I had read all the papers just what was being said without my knowledge. A great deal of the material submitted was subjective and a lot just plain lies, however I was fortunate insomuch as the PCT had a documented case history of the character in question and when clarification was sought, it shed new light on her evidence. Thankfully the investigative panel saw this for what it was and the matter was closed once my submission was made, but it is concerning all the same that such spiteful and unprofessional behaviour could be allowed to progress to this stage. Whilst I might expect claims to be made from disgruntled patients, I would have thought different from colleagues, but I guess we all know individuals whose judgement and morals may be questionable.

As you say it should be a matter for the registration boards/regulators to seek recompense for outlays when malicious claims are made, but the present environment is not conducive to protection of the registrant or the registrant body, as we are beginning to find out.

Kind regards

MR

 

Good to hear you are not down, or out. Once upon a time I complained about an employer to HPC and despite assurances all would be done to investigate the matter thoroughly. I am still waiting years later to hear of the outcome. Obviously HPC find it more convenient to adjudicate over their resgistrants than the nasty employers who engage them.

Thank Crunchie, its Friday.

Cameron

 

Hello Cameron, Mark et al

I think that there is a very disturbing point here mentioned by Cameron. In the iniquitous (IMO) operations of the HPC, Mark was 'named and shamed' for months although he was subsequently found to be blameless. In British law, the accused has the right to be faced by his(her) accuser. Is the HPC above the law? Is the accuser not to be named, at least following the accusation?

Does anyone have the legal knowledge to answer?

All the best

Bill

 

Just to clarify, Bill, although I was under investigation by the HPC for 14 months, I didn't suffer the ignominy of being named and shamed on their website - that would have happened though if the investigative panel had decided to place the case before a formal hearing. What was concerning, however, is that the regulator can carry out an investigation without notifying the registrant that a complaint has been made. Indeed I only found out when my chief executive telephoned to advise they received a request for information and asked my permission to divulge personnel records and details of the previous investigations.

In my opinion, the regulator should advise the registrant the instant a complaint has been lodged - most other regulatory bodies do so - the GMC, GTC & etc., so why not the HPC?

Kind regards

MR

 

Thanks for clarifying that Mark.

I totally agree with the points you make. Even though it was not relevant in your case, I still feel that the accuser should be named where a formal case is to be heard - and the individual supplying the information where an accusation is made by an NHS Trust.

Finally, 14 months! As you will know, there is a television programme named 'Waking the Dead' in the U.K. in which unsolved old crimes are investigated by a forensic team. Some of the closed cases are less than 14 months old!

All the best

Bill

 

Waking the Dead

An apposite choice of words, Bill, especially when used in conjuction with the Health Professions Council and the profession of Podiatry!

Kind regards
Mark

 

hi fellow pods
i recentley posted on the scp website regarding the podiatrist suspended for 6 months for having a fight with his parents.he ended up with a caution of which the hpc was automatically notified! nothing to do with hs clinical practice! it is becoming a big brother outfit, your private life is no longer your own,and although most of us are concientious professionals, there may well be occasions when we find ourselves in a situation inadvertantly.
on balance, I would now happily renounce my so called protected title of chiropodist/podiatrist for a private life. when the hpc actually look at hands on clinical skills I will have more respect for them.
Look thro the fitness to practise section of the hpc site. it is daunting- but a lot of our members are totally in the dark because they do not keep aware of what is going on in the profession.

heather

 

Hi All
Is the HPC just another arm of the governments "secret police" ??

We are now told what we can do , say, think, see.
What we can watch ,listen too, where we can go and all the time we are watched our voice, internet usage, lifestyle and personal details / habits are monitored.
The nanny state is all powerful and secretive and the Government so blatantly corrupt.

Is this not communism under another name ??

Extreme? possibly but....

Cheers
Derek

 

Mark et al

>What was concerning, however, is that the regulator can carry out an investigation without notifying the registrant that a complaint has been made.

I wonder how that would go if challenged legally? Under the laws which govern freedom of information there may be a very serious breach. It would be interesting to get a legal opinion.

In my own case sometime after I complained about my employer I wrote to the HPC requesting I receive all correspondence referring to my name under the Freedom of Information laws. I received by return copies of communications from my ex employer to HPC (none of which I was aware of previously). The contents of the letters contained both misinformation and innuendo. Until this time I was unaware my professional reputation had been brought into question and by not being so informed (by HPC), was prevented from a right of reply. I wrote back with clear evidence to counteract all allegations.

I am still waiting an outcome of HPCs enquiry nearly 18 months after I contacted them with my concerns. To the best of my knowledge the last meeting on the matter was over 12 months ago.

It must be easier for HPC to police their registrants rather than the employers that employ them. Yet to do so must leave the system open to potential abuses.

Time to rethink
Cameron

 

There are plenty contentious issues here, Syd. The fact that an investigating team can gather 'evidence' without seemingly any corroboration and submit it for consideration to a panel comprised of partners, which may include lay persons, who will then decide whether or not to proceed to a hearing (and in the process, publish the registrant's name on the website), is deeply troubling. Of course, the registrant is given an opportunity to comment before the panel convenes, however, in my own case, the volume of submitted material was substantial and much of it fabricated. This takes time to rebut and some of it - such as uncorroborated statements from third parties - is almost impossible to do. For example, the complainant who lodged allegations against myself included a supporting statement from a friend - an assistant who was party to a collective grievance - who wrote:

There was no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and in all the time I worked with this PCT (indeed at any time throughout my 24 years in practice), I have never had any allegations of this nature made against me. This assistant had never previously made any such statement during the previous investigations and it was a blatant attempt to blacken my name. To rebut this accurately would have meant going back to my caseload and obtaining statement from all patients previously seen by myself - a difficult if not impossible task - but instead I had to rely on character statements from colleagues, staff and supporting letters from some patients who kindly wrote during my employment. In my opinion, the regulator should have insisted on evidence from the complainant to corroborate the veracity of her statement, and if none could be produce, I believe they should have been held to account for making false accusations. But it doesn't work that way.

In addition, the HPC are presiding over a considerable number of allegations submitted by employers against their employees. It is less of a risk for PCTs than to instigate the normal disciplinary procedures against staff - a difficult employee or where there has been a breakdown in relations between management and staff - report them to the HPC for ineligible handwriting, poor communication, incomplete case histories or any other minor matter - and they might just get lucky and get the desired result.

Remember - the HPC partners who make up an investigating panel, are ordinary members of the public and some health professionals who are likely to have no experience of presiding over investigative procedures, in what has become an increasingly complex and convoluted process.

Kind regards
Mark

 

i was at a HPC listening event last week, had been aware of this practice it is certainly a question i would have raised.

 

From The Times 21/2/07

Doctors lose the right to police themselves under tough reforms

 

What if a complaint is made about me?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What happens when you receive a complaint?

Once we have correctly identified the registrant the complaint is about, and confirmed that it is a complaint we can consider, we will:

ask for more information if necessary (for example, we might ask for further documents from an employer or ask the police for the circumstances of a conviction);
write to tell you about the complaint, enclosing copies of all the documents we have; and
invite you to respond in writing to the complaint within 28 days of our letter.

These quotes are taken from the HPC website therefore it would imply that registrants are informed when a complain is made.

The HPC partners have in fact quite a lot of experience in dealing with investigations and legal work - a number of the Lay partners are GMC partners also, some have been in the judiciary and are also ex lawyers etc. I think that registrants are unaware of who sits on panels both as registrant and lay partners which may go part of the way to allowing confusion - there seems no way of being advised as to what background the partners have when they apply. This year Partners are being asked to reapply for their places on HPC and this will take place some time this month with a ne contract being active from July.

 

That is incorrect. The HPC will inform you when they have completed their investigation and have gathered all the 'evidence'. They will then write to you and invite you to respond. In my case, a third party informed me that the HPC were seeking information and I approached the FTP team who confirmed they had received a complaint two months prior. If my employer had not notified me I would not have been informed by the HPC for 12 months.

That is not the opinion of many legal teams who have direct experience of the HPC and its process for dealing with registrants, in fact, quite the opposite.

 

That may be their case but perhaps if the opinion has not gone their way they are biased. I also am a Registrant partner and have been on Investigative panels as well as conduct and competence therefore I speak from actual experience of events from an 'insider' viewpoint which is something so far none of the parties seem to be able to!

 

I'm reassured you feel that your colleagues and lay people have sufficient experience of the legal process, Gordon, but I can only make comment from what I have observed and what others have reported to the Society. There is an interesting article in the BChA Journal this month from an experienced barrister who makes a number of comments regarding due process and the apparent failures within the organisation. I suspect it's only a matter of time before one of the professional bodies makes a legal challenge, however, much of the problem lies not with the regulator but the government, who appear to have over-reacted after Shipman, Bristol, Alder Hey et al., in trying to assuage the public mood in light of sensationalist scandals.

The recent publication by Foster on medical regulation does little to redress the situation, with balance of probability being proposed for registrant FTP hearings and regulation for students. If the latter is adopted by the HPC you'll be chaperoning in George Square on Friday nights from now on!

Best wishes
Mark

 

We are now being asked to elect a registrant HPC council member and I have been looking at the profile of candidates. I believe there should be an HPC rule against cadidates twisting the facts.In his statement Mike Payton for instance claims the thing that divided the profession prior to HPC was private and NHS.This of course is utter nonsence. The devision was between proper podiatric education and quicky courses as sold by his organisation. The majority of state registered chiropodists were involved in private practice anyway so Mr Paytons claim just doesnt hold water even at that level.Its not suprising that Mike Payton's statement has no mention of podiatric education or CPD and I wonder what on earth he thinks he can contribute unless he he is deluded into thinking that twentyfive years as chairman of an organisation is a qualification. I personally would suspect any organisation who would want a chairman for that length of time or indeed a person wanting to serve in one position for a quarter of a century. All we can hope is that he is not elected

 

"enclosing copies of all documents we have" backs up what Mr Russell has previously stated regarding when the HPC actually informs you of a complaint i.e. not at the time a complaint is made.

do you not also feel it is a little unfair that the HPC can take as long as it feels necessary to gather evidence (12 months in Mr Russell's case), then when it contacts the registrant a time limit of 28 days is imposed for reply

 

It appears that the HPC are now adjudicating in commercial disputes and can be used by trade suppliers to chase up slow payments and bad debts. Is this really relevant for the HPC?

 

Yes I think it is relevant to the HPC. As HPC partners we look at the booklets for standards of conduct (generic and professional) when making decisions to see if there MAY be a case to answer.

If you look at the generic standards of conduct, performance and ethics (the red booklet) on page 5 standard 14 says: "You must always behave with integrity and honesty".

Page 13 adds: "to keep high standards of personal and professional conduct at all times".

I only sit on Chiropody panels but I can certainly see the logic behind this decision.

Would you be happy if a Chiropodist bought stuff off you for Chiropody, agreed a contact and then failed to pay?

 

No, it is not relevant to the HPC at that stage. The HPC is not a court of law.

We have seen numerous cases of employers using the HPC to avoid extensive and expensive hearings. We now have a commercial company manipulating the system in the same way - with the conivance of the HPC who clearly love to build their power base. There are clearly defined legal ways for a company or an individual to take in a case of breach of contract. If an individual (in this case) was found guilty and an order made against them, then the HPC might wish to follow up with a fitness-to-practice hearing.

How wide can the interpretation of HPC powers become? As mentioned earlier, the situation is becoming Kafkaesque.

Bill Liggins

 

Robin

I am afraid I disagree with you also for the reasons outlined by Bill. I also have difficulty with "keeping high standards both personally and professionally at all times". Please define "high standards".

Speaking of which, here is an interesting point. Almost two years ago I changed my bank account and sent a new direct debit mandate to the HPC. I made the first installment of my registration payment - £30 - with my debit card. Last week I received a letter informing me that my name had been removed from the register for non-payment of the balance of £90. When I contacted the accounts department I was advised that they had no record of the direct debit mandate and therefore could not present a demand to my bank during 2006 or 2007. I was further advised that a letter was sent demanding the outstanding balance of £90 two weeks ago, but this was not received as it was sent to an incorrect address. Given the fact that the HPC hold all my contact details - home and practice address, telephone, facsimile and email details - one might assume a less draconian approach could have been employed. Granted my name was restored the the register once their mistake had been pointed out, but given the "high standards" expected of registrants, shouldn't we expect the same from the registrar?

I am fast coming to the conclusion that the real question here should be - Is the HPC relevant? - and giving serious thought to calling myself a podologist from this June. In whose interests exactly do the HPC represent?

MR

 

netizens

In the eye of the beholder.

As an adjunct to the on going conversation.

I sympathise with the situation you describe Mark where unsubstantiated allogations are made based upon the intend of remarks or a conversation. When I moved to New Zealand I was warned by well meaning friends not to show my Scottish wit in general conversations in the workplace as this would be taken as offensive. I soon learned this to be true and literally had to take a vow of silence. In the two years I worked in NZ sadly I did experience elements of xenophobia, which included a failed attempt to maliciously wound my good self (others had experienced similar events, some over many years). We really enjoyed our time in NZ but I was also aware of subversive elements (minority) keen to malign.

It is no secret that I study the psycho-sexual aspects of shoe design and am aware over the years I have offended quite a few people (unintentionally) just taking about my ligitimate research. It is also fare to say I have entertained millions with the fun elements as a broadcaster and public speaker. In public my policy now is to only reply to direct enquiry but even then this sometimes causes eaves droppers some concerns. On one memorable occassion a third party travelling on a train as part of our party was sleeping and took offense at a conversation that was taking place between colleagues on the subject of foot binding.

toeslayer

 

Something we have discussed on many occasions, Syd. Given the somewhat evangelical and righteous approach adopted by the HPC it will be interesting to hear Robin's definition of "high personal standards" and how they square with your own particular professional interest.

 

Hi Mark

"....calling myself a podologist from this June"

Assuming you are able to come off the register!

After being "disciplined" a friend of mine, who disagreed with the view the HPC took upon his matter, wrote to the HPC offering his resignation which would have made him unable to practice as a physiotherapist. This was refused, as I understand it, because he was under proceedings so was not allowed to resign.

Of course we may or may not agree with this. But despite having made it clear he wanted to resign and no longer practice as a physio they would not let him. Instead he is listed as suspended (having not been allowed to resign he refused to conform hoping it would get him struck off) and is listed as "lacking insight".

So there we go, if you disagree with their decision you "lack insight" about what they are saying.

Ian