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.

The HCPC require you to be open and honest when things go wrong

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by NewsBot, Apr 30, 2016.

  1. NewsBot

    NewsBot The Admin that posts the news.

  2. Re: The HCPC require you to be open and honest wen things go wrong

    Ha ha ha - yeah right!
  3. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Will this also apply to our leaders in Parliament, the Police Force (in Sheffield, for example) and ..... the HCPC?

    Bill Liggins
  4. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Do the HCPC think they have the authority to revoke a standard principle of law in this country

    English and Welsh law[edit]
    See also: Right to silence in England and Wales
    The right against self-incrimination originated in England and Wales. In countries deriving their laws as an extension of the history of English Common Law, a body of law has grown around the concept of providing individuals with the means to protect themselves from self-incrimination. As with other features of Scots criminal and civil law, both common and statute law originated differently from that in England and Wales.

    Applying to England and Wales the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 amended the right to silence by allowing inferences to be drawn by the jury in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an explanation (in other words, the jury is entitled to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he or she refused to provide the explanation during the time of the police questioning). The jury is also free not to make such an inference.
  5. blinda

    blinda MVP

  6. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    Having heard a barrister talk at Glasgow conference as well as a leading barrister on a course, as well as SCP PP officer, my understanding is this.

    If you have made a mistake, admit it, we all make mistakes, it's how you deal with it.

    If since the mistakes, you have sought peer review/opinion, and / or undertaken further CPD to improve your knowledge/prevent it from happening again, that goes a long way. You may even prevent a case going to a full hearing.
  7. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Stating what may be the best thing to do and constructing an arbitrary moral code backed by legislation that says this is what yu must do are two very different things. The whole point of morality is that it comes from conscience not from enforced duty.
    You might say that this is an ethical argument not moral and ethics do come under duty.
    Well then that would oblige the one who sets the standard to at least be equal to that standard, clearly the HCPC has deceived both the public and and its registrants and have not only not owned up to the mistake (assuming it was a mistake, which seems unlikely) but actively engaged in covering up their mistakes.

    Further, as I pointed out earlier, it is a legal precedent that one has the right not to say anything or say anything that might be self incriminating. It seems that Mr Guthrie and the HCPC have the view that they are a higher authority and can rewrite legal precedent.

    On top of that you have the implications that apply to insurance - if you go around admitting, without consideration of the whole case and circumstances, that 'it was my fault' then its likely the insurance company will not pay out or support you in a case.

    Here's some quotes giving legal advice about not admitting liability

    "Immediately after the accident, the best thing you can do is gather as much information as possible. While it may be obvious who is at fault, you will need to provide your insurance company with clear evidence if you want their support."

    Even if you feel that you were responsible for the accident, you shouldn?t make an admission at the scene. A driver is not legally obliged to admit that they are liable, so make sure you?re not pressured into doing so, and avoid pressuring other drivers into doing so even if you feel they are at fault.

    "Most car insurers will advise you not to admit liability at the scene as it could invalidate the policy. Even if you think it is the right thing to do, it?s still better to let the police investigators and insurance companies consider all the evidence first to decide who was at fault and take an appropriate course of action."

    you can't go around willy nilly admitting liability until you and the proper authorities have considered all the evidence otherwise you circumvent all the correct procedure and proceed straight to jail - do not pass go, do not collect ?200 - as Mark found out to his cost. (and I know Mark didn't go to jail but the principle is the same, once you've admitted liability it's hard to withdraw undamaged.)

    I would say that it is probably illegal to pressure someone into admitting liability (even when it is their fault) such as this HCPC legislation tries to do i.e. it enforces you to admit liability, which is contrary to legal precedent.

    Regards Dave
  8. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Further more, writing a legal statement requiring honesty in the face of liability is ridiculous.
    If someone is lying then they know they are lying or evading the truth - a written statement that they should not do this is pointless because anyone lying is doing so because they believe that it is to their own best advantage and will not get caught out - if they thought there was a reasonable possibility that they would be caught out then lying would be no advantage. The legislation saying 'don't lie' doesn't change that in any way. This is a natural principle that everyone understands (except maybe for the psychopathic/sociopathic personality and it that case ethic and morality outside their own authority has no authority))

    If the HCPC stated that they expect honesty and openness during and investigation and that if the opposite is true then harsher penalties would apply - that would be fair enough.
  9. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    I knew and was involved with a sociopath for some time and when challenged about his blatant lying he would say I never lie.
    But to the outside perspective he was obviously doing and saying untruths - his answer to this was that this was not lying it was acting and I'm a good actor. If I enter into a situation as an actor then that becomes the truth, I make people believe who and what I am so that I can get what I need, what I need is the highest truth, therefore I am always working in truth.

    How does legislation that requires us to be truthful help here, it doesn't and there is a little bit of this reasoning in most of us - truth is what is best for us, when it's convenient for us. If you do not have the knowledge and understanding of absolute truth then it is always easy to circumvent some convenient or cultural convention of truth.
  10. As the HCPC so aptly demonstrated..
  11. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    "clearly the HCPC has deceived both the public and and its registrants and have not only not owned up to the mistake (assuming it was a mistake, which seems unlikely) but actively engaged in covering up their mistakes."

    And used our, (the registrants money), in order to do so.

    Perhaps the representatives of the HCPC who we know follow these threads, would care to enter this discussion to explain their 'Openness and Honesty' in this regard. To an outsider it appears covert and dishonest; indeed, in some jurisdictions, criminal.

    Bill Liggins

Share This Page