Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

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

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

Regulation of Podiatry

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

  1. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Or even 'voluntarily de-registered', on the basis that our colleagues from the States will recognise from 1776: 'No Taxation Without Representation'. However, I think that John's point holds good, if you have used a title, and practiced according to that title for over 10 years, can you be prevented from using the title if you continue to practice according to the title?

    I look forward to the HCPC explanation on Mark's case and their explanation of the HPO in the light of the judge's remarks.

    Bill Liggins

    Bill Liggins
     
  2. I am delighted to receive a letter today from Dr Dan Poulter MP, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health regarding the case for functional protection - and I'm equally delighted to see that the government, inadvertently perhaps, by implication supports our position too. Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 are the really important ones!

    Before I write back to Dr Poulter and his boss I would like to check my facts and would appreciate if someone in the know can furnish me with the following.

    1. Total number of registered podiatrists on the HCPC register
    2. Total number of podiatrists employed in the NHS
    3. Total number of podiatrists in private practice

    Many thanks

    Mark
     

    Attached Files:

  3. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Seems that they are using the argument that I previously described, that protection of title is sufficient as it would be difficult to protect function. The public would know that anyone using the title were regulated.

    It's worth bearing in mind that Medics don't have protection of function or title, just Registered Medical Practioner is protected. The title Doctor, is used by many non registered medical practitioners, including pods. The problem is the same for Pods & Medics, what procedures/therapies are you licensing for a specific professions ?
     
  4. I don't read that. I do read that there are exceptions to the POT only approach where the professions are private sector providers. It isn't difficult to protect function either or impose restrictions or exclusions. It is actually quite straightforward.
     
  5. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    "It isn't difficult to protect function either or on restrictions or exclusions. It is actually straightforward."

    So, fire away Mark! I'm not being sarcastic by saying that!
     
  6. Use your imagination, Charles - read the legislation.
     
  7. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Simon

    I'm not sure of your thinking but although I'd like to see functional closure it would take someone much abler than I to formulate something effective.

    At present we have protection of title but still it hasn't stopped individuals circumventing it, calling themselves Dr, Consultant and practicing without indemnity. There will always be some who seek to mislead for for gain or vanity, I doubt that the likes of the HCPC could do much to control them. A General Podiatric Council, with 50% of Council Podiatrists, would have a better chance, with intimate knowledge and the will to see their profession 'cleaned up'.

    Regards

    ps. Is their an SCP member out there that can confirm that their insurance would not be invalidated by the failure to be HCPC registered ?
     
  8. I just had this fleeting image pass through my mind of you sitting there in the big leather chair, John - carnation in the lapel and a bookshelf equally laden with the legal and surgical tomes on podiatry as all the current and past editions of Janes' Military Strategies. They probably compliment each other. If you like, I could work it into the next volume of Festive Fules.....You would even have your own 'execution' chamber for all the guilty miscreants - like me, no doubt - and the bustards at the SCP. The undertakers of Gravesend would never be busier! ;)


    I'd vote for you..:empathy:
     
  9. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark

    You have an unusually imaginative mind. Sorry leather chairs and carnations are not me.
     
  10. You have no idea! No denial the execution chamber fits though - you didn't say that - before you say it!
     
  11. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Time for me to leave these threads, getting too silly......l
     
  12. down trodden

    down trodden Member

    Hi Mark,
    It seems very odd to me that you would effectively martyr your professional self for something so meaningless.
    The situation you describe is prevalent all over the developed world, wherever Podiatry is a protected Profession.

    These days anyone can pick up a blade, debride a callus or corn and work under any number of lesser titles. That will always be the case.

    I am shocked that you would effectively ‘give up’ your professional self-esteem and livelihood to make such 'impotent' points that you described in your letter.

    The rules state, that to call yourself a DPM or Podiatrist that you have to be registered with the appropriate body. If you practiced as a Pod or DPM without being registered by the state L.B or HPC you are failing to meet a basic standard placed by the Government to protect the public.

    Did you inform your insurers that you were taking this course of action? If not, you were probably practicing without public indemnity insurance. If so, risking your patient’s and your own wellbeing, in which cace, I agree with the HPC.

    I suggest that you grow up and take your responsibility to the public more seriously: Registering with a mandatory bodies such as SLB's or the HPC as little as $60 -£40 is nothing. I can't understand why any medical professional would not register with their own regulatory body unless they had something to hide. Surely protecting the public from substandard c
     
  13. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Nope, protection of title is peculiar to the UK. Thus, the profession and, more importantly, the public is NOT `protected` from former podiatrists found unfit to practice by our regulatory body and struck off by the same, only to continue practicing to the unsuspecting public under a different title.

    That is true, but irrelevant to the issue.

    That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. Nothing more.

    Poppycock. Are you privy the standard at which Mark practices? If not, why do you consider yourself to be in a position to provide comment?

    Again, irrelevant to the issue. You assume too much. Anyone can obtain PII without being HCPC registered. Insurers require proof of qualification/scope of practice, not registration.

    I have no idea who you are or whether you are a UK or US based practitioner. Again, I`m not really interested. You are amongst the few posters who do not have the courage to post under their name and assume you can behave in an unprofessional and malicious manner under the cloak of anonymity. I would `suggest` that you try a little harder to grasp the fundamental principles involved here as you have blatantly missed the point.
     
  14. anthony watson

    anthony watson Active Member

    hi
    I know of many tissue viability nurses trained by pods to do debridement.

    I seem to remember many years back some trust in Scotland training foot cares to do scalpel work!

    think someone stopped them! as not seen since
     
  15. Podess

    Podess Active Member

    Anthony, you would need to ask Mark Russell and/or David Holland about that, as I believe they both trained and worked in Scotland.

    regards

    Podess
     
  16. foot rott

    foot rott Banned

    I think the use of scalpels was deemed to be the difference between chiropodist/podiatrist and foot care assistants

    Ed
     
  17. With the referendum on Scottish Independence taking place on Thursday - a Yes vote will ensure that statutory regulation of health professionals will fall under the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Informal discussions have taken place recently to seek support for a dedicated Registrar for podiatry in Scotland if and when an independent Scotland becomes reality in 2016. It is proposed that a General Podiatry Council (Scotland) will be formally inaugurated in the coming weeks and will present to the Scottish Parliament a draft paper on regulation and the legislative requirements needed to secure effective regulation for this profession.

    It is also likely that a similar body will be inaugurated in rUK following the conclusion of the case with the HCPC - and I shall post further updates on Arena at the appropriate times.

    Best wishes
    Mark Russell
     
  18. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Heads up for a fund raising event;

    :drinks
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

  20. blinda

    blinda MVP

  21. Can I just say an enormous thank you to all those who braved a bitterly cold Sunday night to make the trek to Winchester. Really enjoyed meeting you all and I'm quite overwhelmed by all your support and generosity - it is hugely appreciated. Thanks especially to Bel for organising the evening and for your unstinting support throughout the case - you know how much it means.

    The final day's hearing takes place next Monday 26th January at a different venue - Hammersmith Magistrates Court, 181 Talgarth Road, London W6 8DN. Proceedings start at 9.30am with the defence case. :butcher: It's going to be an interesting day and as always, anyone wishing to attend will be most welcome. Nearest tube station is Hammersmith.

    Best wishes

    Mark
     
  22. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Mark,
    Don't we get a group photo of the event with all those smiling faces?
     
  23. Attached Files:

  24. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Verdict; 'guilty of use of title with intent to deceive'.....




    We'll see.
     
  25. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

  26. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Be fair

    The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause


    Bill Liggins
     
  27. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    I am sure Mark will appreciate a contribution to his legal expenses from one so fair-minded as yourself, Bill....;)
     
  28. Thank you Bill, that is most kind and gracious although I will be the first to admit that I fall far short of the man Theodore Roosevelt was referring to in his speech all those years ago, but thank you all the same. Your comments and the many dozens of other messages I have received today bring much comfort tonight.

    Yes, it was a hugely disappointing day and we are still at a loss to understand the judge's reasoning - but that is for another day once we have some time to reflect on what he had to say. I have another criminal conviction and I have to decide whether or not to appeal - but this time the case was put on an honest basis and the QC for the HCPC was exemplary in his case conduct, unlike his predecessor. There are many unanswered questions that the case has highlighted, but for me the most important one remains; what is the point of statutory regulation if it directly puts the public at risk?

    The sentence is a fine of £200 and a contribution to the HCPC's legal costs of £800.

    I don't know what the HCPC's total legal bill is - the cost of the hearing today for the QC and counsel was just over £27,000. A reasonable guess would be a six figure sum for all the hearings and their solicitor's bill - you might be able to get a more accurate figure by asking them as a registrant and I think you will be entitled to do so - given the fact it is your money that will be used to pay for it. Sorry for that, Catfoot - or is it Alex? But I'm sure you'll think it money well spent!

    So who won at the end of the day? Not me I guess - I've lost my practice, my savings and have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty (deception) whilst doing exactly the opposite. Not the profession - for all sorts of reasons. And not even the regulator, who will come under much scrutiny, deservedly so, in the coming weeks. But the biggest losers - the public, who are still at risk every day from those who should not be in practice. That is the greatest regret.

    Anyway - thanks to all of you who have been truly supportive and incredibly generous over the last seven years - and especially in recent weeks. It has been a humbling and quite overwhelming journey at times - and incredibly enriching with all the new friendships one makes along the way - and in that respect alone, it feels like a winning ticket!

    All the best and good luck.

    Mark
     
  29. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Thanks

    I will be happy to match your contribution.
     
  30. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Well Bill,
    You said

    well, that will be zilch as I have no intention of encouraging Mark Russell's apparent Walter Mitty tendencies and his perceived need to encourage the HCPC to spend Registrants' money.

    However, you Bill, have supported Mark's action and described them as "Magna cum Laude", so I thought you might like to throw a few shekels into the pot? :D
     
  31. Another day, another court and early Monday morning saw the conclusion of the case brought against me by the Health and Care Professions Council amidst the unremarkable splendour of Hammersmith Magistrates Court. Walking through the entrance with Counsel shortly after 9am, we were confronted by an agitated Indian – of the native American variety, resplendent in his feathered head-dress, but with a curious and furious Cockney accent. I wondered if it were a premonition and if so, what kind…..

    The hearing on Monday was the defence submission against the prosecution case – which had been heard last September. We had some months to prepare and were very confident that there was no evidence to support any charge levelled by the regulator. The offence under article 39 1 states that a “person commits an offence, if with intent to deceive, either expressly or by implication, he uses a title to which he is not entitled. The offence is labelled by the HCPC as Misuse of Protected Title.

    I had taken the HCPC at face value regarding protected titles and had thought that by simply using the title podiatrist without holding registration with them was an offence in its own right. But of course it is not. Your entitlement to use the term podiatrist or chiropodist comes from your qualification and entitles you to register with the HCPC if it is a recognised qualification. What you cannot do is use the title and mislead the public into believing that you are registered with the HCPC – either by claiming that you are – or implying that you are. This is the position the NMC have taken with respect to identical legislation for Nurses and Midwives – and it was the view of the Judge during his summing-up. The simple truth of the matter, there is no such thing as protected titles – unless there is an accompanying deception.

    The statutory requirements of the offence requires a timeframe and in this case it was September 2012 through to March 2013 when I received the summons for the first time. Only evidence from within this timeframe was admissible and this was strictly enforced by the Judge. I have never sought to mislead or deceive anyone over my registration or motives and we knew there to be no credible evidence of deception an any of the evidence tabled by the HCPC.

    However, I was convicted on one piece of evidence. During 2012 I set up my own blog www.mark-russell.net and laid out the issue with the HCPC in a number of posts and articles – essentially to keep an online and public record of the case. It is a simple blog and not a business or commercial website and contains only my views and opinions. It does not advertise my practice. For a short time I had a light-hearted introductory paragraph on a sub-menu accessible from the main page called “About Me”. It started, “Hello, My name is Mark Russell and I’m a Scottish Podiatrist of thirty years experience….” and continued with a brief and irreverent description of myself.

    The prosecution argued that the use of the title in this paragraph was potentially misleading to a member of the public who just happened to come across this page on the Internet. There was no narrative after that sentence to explain my registration status and as such, a person might infer that as I was using what they thought was a protected title (even though such a thing doesn’t exist) and thus the risk was that they might be deceived. On that evidence alone the Judge thought there was an intent to deceive by implication - and thus, in his opinion, the offence was committed.

    Having had a couple of days to digest the verdict and his reasoning, we are no further forward in making any sense of it! To reach the offending page on my blog – a member of the public would first have to navigate the home page, which contains all the articles and posts on registration and regulation. Quite how someone could be misled from a statement on a sub-menu of a website set-up to promote the issues in the case is beyond me.

    Notwithstanding that, the introductory page used in evidence was only on the blog for a few weeks before I changed it to a correspondence page (it has some fabulous poetry from Linda Russell btw). I wasn’t sure when it was changed so we asked the web-hosting company and they ran a check through Google Wayback – and we discovered that it was created in May 2012 and deleted in June 2012. This, of course, puts this “evidence” – as flimsy as it is – outside the relevant dates of the offence - which means that for the second time, I have been convicted of a criminal offence where the prosecution has relied on inadmissible evidence - and that evidence was the only reason cited for the breach!

    I’m going to have a long think about an appeal – it is a perverse verdict in so many ways that I think it might be more of a problem for the HCPC in the coming weeks and to be perfectly honest, I have become tired and weary of the whole business. The cost of this case to date will be well in excess of six figures and has seen the unusual and improbable appearance of a highly paid Queen’s Counsel to prosecute a minor matter in a Magistrates Court. The Law is certainly an ass at times and Justice has become a commercial commodity – readily available to those with the deepest pockets. But at what price and for what reason?

    My sentence was a £200 fine plus a contribution to costs of £800. Which was £5,000 less than the last time. The HCPC’s costs for Monday’s hearing alone were over £27,000 and will be well over £100,000 by the time you factor the costs of previous hearings and their solicitor’s fees. All to avoid answering a question. Why are you putting the public at risk?

    Apache Joe was still in the downstairs foyer creating mayhem and was threatening to scalp his brief and some court ushers who had been called to help. I should’ve asked him a favour...

    Will keep you posted regarding an appeal.

    Best wishes
    Mark
     
  32. Lodged. :butcher:
     
  33. Pauline burrell-saward

    Pauline burrell-saward Active Member

    "The statutory requirements of the offence requires a timeframe and in this case it was September 2012 through to March 2013 when I received the summons for the first time. Only evidence from within this timeframe was admissible and this was strictly enforced by the Judge"

    "created in May 2012 and deleted in June 2012"

    this doesn't make sense, either the judge enforced it strictly or he didn't!!

    when are you going to stop!!

    you have said you have no job or income and sometime in the past suggested you have no assets, so one could ask how you are paying for your barrister??

    how are you going to pay your fine or your/the prosecutors costs, one assume you now have two sets of costs to pay.

    you have a criminal record and have lost two cases now so give it up.

    Just who are you doing it for ? Joe public doesn't care, nor does the HCPC or your fellow professionals, as no one else has put their head on the block to support you apart from some words of support and sitting in the public gallery.

    I suggest you get a life, but assume you wont as you don't have any other life.

    by the way making fun of others who are in the criminal system is not a very good trait ( I refer to the gentleman in the foyer )
     
  34. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Nothing could be further from the truth, Pauline. I won`t disclose how much was raised in monetry terms to assist Mark, but both the financial and professional support was overwhelming.

    I `ll let Mark reply on the rest of your incredibly condescending and rude post, should he feel so inclined.
     
  35. Pauline

    Thank you again for your kind words. May I suggest you read posts 228 and 231 carefully again, Pauline. I have to say that if this is an example how you consider evidence in your other 'life' as a lay magistrate then it is hardly surprising so many lower-court convictions are overturned on appeal! As for support from colleagues is concerned, I am eternally grateful for the generosity shown by many colleagues - morally and financially - over these last few months, some of whom I have never met. No danger you will ever be one of them.

    Best wishes

    Mark
     
  36. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Thanks Pauline B-S for your most erudite post.

    I was beginning to feel like the little boy in the Hans Anderson story - "The Emperor's New Clothes"....:D

    What evidence Mark? We have only your version of the evidence.
     
  37. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Having returned last night from a long weekend in Copenhagen, I`d be more inclined to associate your remarks to that of "The Shadow"; claiming to have seen all that is in the world, but does not own a soul himself, which is, of course, his overall desire.

    Caustic comments from a couple of benighted people hardly constitute `uncaring fellow professionals`. Quite the opposite has been clearly evidenced by the enormous support that has been afforded to Mark.
     
  38. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    If we can just take this away from Mark and the right or wrongs of the situation, for a moment.

    I suspect that any individual, where it is within their power to do so, would exercise their legal right and privilege to exhaust any and all legal provisions to demonstrate, in the case of that individual, what they believe to be their innocence.

    It might annoy us, frustrate us, we might consider it wasteful of resources, if that was our opinion. Equally we may be concerned for their well being and prefer they desist and argue they should give up. However, if it remains within their rights to pursue the courts to its end, whatever the outcome, then we cannot deny them that.

    I'm not sure I can think of any poster on here (though I stand to be corrected), so far, who would simply roll over if they felt so passionate about their innocence, whatever anyone else's opinion. There can be a time to desist (for many reasons) but that is for that individual to decide.
     
  39. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Ian,
    Your post is exceedingly charitable, however, I prefer the quote attributed to Albert Einstein ;-

    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. :bang:
     
  40. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Catfoot, i really do not believe your quote applies to Mark.

    The outcome of the latest hearing came as no surprise to me, indeed I expected it and earlier in this thread predicted it.
    I also believe Mark, particularly with his experience of the law, expected it too !

    John Mason.

    'with age I've come to realise that all brains are not wired the same'
     
Loading...

Share This Page