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.

The UK needs a united professional body

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Simon Spooner, Jul 20, 2012.

?

The podiatry profession within the UK would be best represented by:

  1. A single, united professional body

    29 vote(s)
    74.4%
  2. A number of disparate professional body's

    10 vote(s)
    25.6%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I have just emailed Alison Wishart at the SCP the following - hope to hear her views in due course....
     
  2. Shall not hold my breath. However, from a political perspective here in the UK a general election must be called within five years. What if we ran a similar system such that we had one party "in power", voted in by the electorate (viz. registered chiropodists/ podiatrists) every 3-5 years? So, at the moment the election table, by number of members eligible to "vote" should be what? i.e. how many registered members do each of the professional body's currently represent? The one with the highest number should be deemed to be "in power", and make the decisions for the profession, so long as they have a majority. Hence forth, the controlling "party" should be voted into power following an election which should be voted on every 3-5 years.

    Just a thought.
     
  3. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    'What if we ran a similar system such that we had one party "in power'

    Why would anyone in their right mind want to have a group to 'make the decisions for the profession' Fine if you happen to be the 'we' but about as undemocratic and unrepresentative as any totalitarian state !

    Surely it`s better to have a system where differing views carry weight, where officers are delegated rather than representing. Otherwise you`d end up with another Society where the members get what they deserve.

    If you cannot devise a truly representative single body better stay as we are; the BMA have only 60% of medics because 40% don`t think much of it and the Government take notice only when it suits !
     
  4. WE call that democracy within the UK. That's exactly how the country is politically governed, in case you hadn't noticed.
     
  5. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    'WE call that democracy within the UK

    There you go again Simon with the WE.

    Democracy comes in many forms and there is probably a consensus believing that the form we have at present is far from perfect.

    I believe that the Podiatric profession is small enough to take account of individual views, that's the best way to really progress. Sorry to use the example again but it certainly worked for the Podiatry Association.

    I think the system you suggest would be doomed before it started, replicating the existing situation. Depends how high you set your sights of course !
     
  6. I use the term "WE" to describe those eligible to vote in the democratic political elections we hold here in the UK. And there you go again without the balls to post your name against your statements, Jason or John or whatever your first name is Mr Mason. The process of political democracy has worked for "some time" in the UK, Mr Mason. With a majority of the UK population presenting their votes for many, many years. If there was a consensus that the present system did not work, there would have been a majority vote, in one form or another, to change the system. Or, a minority returning their votes at the time of election. This has not been the case. One example of why such a system might be helpful to UK podiatric politics is that it should derail extremists, Mr Mason. For the record, the "Podiatry Association" has not existed in the UK for "some time". Isn't it time you looked forward, John, Jason, Keith, Vim, Ajax or whatever your new name is?

    "Oh, I get it. Alan's name is Vim and your mom is dead"- Bad News Tour
     
  7. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Simon

    My name is John Mason, no problem with anyone knowing this; I thought most on this site knew this.

    You respond as if a view different from your own constitutes a personal attack, it doesn't.

    Self rightousness, sarcasm and offensiveness does nothing to encourage debate on this or any other site.
     
  8. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Who needs TFS when we have all the academics slugging it out verbally on this site? ;)

    This is even better entertainment :D
     
  9. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    AT LAST !! A Troll coming out !!
    John my congratulations at having the balls to admit to your rel name :empathy:

    Many of us did not know your name or have a clue who you were.

    Thank you for your honesty and I hope that will go someway to move this thread on.
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  10. Mhmm. Nice thought but who's to say the largest 'party' would be the most dynamic? On current form that would be the Society and there is little evidence of that to date. The mainstream political movement is divided on ideology - to mirror that in podiatry you would have the NHS pods, private pods and all the rest represented seperately. Interesting but not that effective I would think!

    The other thing about a new body - if it had a viable plan - it would create momentum in itself. Which I guess what carried the PA in its early days.
     
  11. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Careful CF you have no "fall back"position now.

    If the cesspit is closed where will you go ?

    You will have to stay and defend your insults and inuendo:rolleyes:

    Times change..........:cool:

    Cheers
    D;)
     
  12. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Catfoot

    Now, now; that really is past the limit, anymore of that sort of talk and I'm off this site.
     
  13. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    But where will you go ????????? :D:D:D:D

    Cheers
    D;)
     
  14. But an electoral system would put the power back to the electorate. I only suggested those with the most members as a starting point, after that, leadership would be voted for. Surely this is a democratic system. If the electorate found that the "party" in power had not met the majority of the registrants expectations, then they would be voted out. This is how democracy works in governance.

    I'm not convinced ideology divides how you describe it, Mark. To me, we need to start with democracy, rather than private companies and a "dictatorial, communist state", which seemed to be your idea, Mark. At least to me.

    BTW, in my model the HPC become the civil servants, which is what they were supposed to be all along.
     
  15. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    DTT

    There are far, far better places than this to go to, I know ! I'm tired........

    '
     
  16. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    ps. Catfoot, DTT, R.E.G etc, are you real, do you have names, do I know you ?
     
  17. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Rosherville,
    I am real, but I can't speak for the other herbs !

    Sorry but I don't know you, ;)

    Catfoot
     
  18. Never heard of you.

    Indeed.

    Catfoot = Heather Magill- Lymington, Hampshire; DTT = Derek Harland- Croydon, Surrey; R.E.G. = Robert Golding- Newquay, Cornwall.

    Don't you all feel a little more like grown up's now? The age of anonymity on websites is coming to an end, as a 17 year old in Dorset found out this morning.
     
  19. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Simon, all that I know of you I gleaned from this site.

    Thank you for answering on behalf of the others, I only know of Bob Golding.
    I take it on trust that the others do actually exist.
     
  20. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Rosherville,
    "It's life Jim, but not as we know it"

    If you aren't a "Trekkie" you won't get the joke.

    regards

    Catfoot
     
  21. Good. I've still never heard of you though, even on here. But really, how many of the last half a dozen post have moved this thread forward? If I was as paranoid as some, I'd think you guys were trying to derail this thread for you own ulterior motives...
     
  22. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Oh dear Simon,

    With every post you dig yourself deeper.

    R.E.G was 'outed' years ago, I do not know how to change my 'identity' on this site so R.E.G it stays.

    DTT, also was outed many years ago, you must ask him why he thinks DTT and D do not constitute trollism.

    I have only just become aware that Rosherville was John Mason, but I have been acquainted though never met for a very long time. I have always found his postings well thought out and polite and he contributes very well to TFS.

    Catfoot is a mystery.

    My opinions on pseudonyms are well known, while I have no problem with anu of my postings I do not want a 'internet presence', I'm a tad paranoid.

    Simon you and I are acquainted!

    I have also over many years been acquainted with Mark Russell David Holland Robert Issacs, Belinda, Twirley and many others. Most of the time on a one to one basis there has been mutual respect.

    This thread however IMHO is probably the most divisive threads ever posted on a Podiatry forum.

    Bob Golding
     
  23. It's not the thread that's divisive...
     
  24. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Just look at our profile ( some of our profiles) we are real people and not afraid to stand up for what we believe in.

    You wont know me only probably as a smae trained registered podiatrist that qualified 25 years ago. Someone who acccording to you trained on a 2 week postal course that you wouldnt sit in the same room as ........:eek:

    Funny Ive just got back from a University course and passed with 85% :rolleyes:

    Even in your time warp that must tell you something..........

    Cheers

    D;)
     
  25. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Catfoot

    'Boldly going forward, and things are getting worse........'
     
  26. Certainly wouldn't drink a descent claret nor smoke a fat Cuban cigar with you Harland.
     
  27. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Bob


    Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeezze if you want to know who I am...look at my profile :rolleyes:

    I use the DTT and D as an abreviation only.

    All the details are there anyone only has to look...unlike a lot of your mates :hammer:

    Cheers
    D;)
     
  28. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    DTT

    What on earth are you talking about ?
     
  29. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    The fat cuban cigar you can keep mate but the claret...I'm sure I can change your mind:drinks



    Be Lucky
    D;)
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2012
  30. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Just read the thread Rosherville its very easy.
    I quote you from a reply to David Holland earlier in this thread.
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  31. Ok I can see where you're coming from. Perhaps it was the "run by the profession for the profession" comment that suggests a communist doctrine - and notwithstanding the merits of such a doctrine and its off-shoot, socialism; both corrupted by the human factors of greed and power - I think that's where the comparison ends. And it need not be anti-democratic - far from it. What's wrong with giving members full access to the decision making process - it can be done with interactive technology? From the first "consultation" to elections and executive meetings like AGMs - there is no reason why the proceedings cannot be broadcast live through the internet - isn't that what podcasts were derived for?? ;)

    As far as dictatorial - it's only a suggestion (and to date, you are the only one who has taken the time to challenge it!) - and I would hope whatever strategy or body is formed, it would be done through debate and consensus - as far as possible. If, on the other hand, I win the EuroLottery tonight and decide to invest the money in a commercial venture myself - setting up the BPMA and building a practice network which I will then franchise to new graduates from a school which I will fund and staff - and do so, keeping the profits for myself and not paying a blind bit of notice to anyone else in the profession - then I think that might be dictatorial. Or capitalist. Very often, they're interchangeable.

    I don't think the dental profession could be described as undemocratic either. All the BDA did was to offer a different vision - the membership funded the improvements themselves with the aid of schemes like denplan. The podiatry plan is just taking it one stage further.
     
  32. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Rosherville,

    Excellent question many of us have been asking for a long time.

    Del congrats on your university score.

    Bob.

    ps I did explain my reluctance to have an 'internet presence', just do not trust all those information gathering sites.

    Simon, no not trying to scuttle a 'thread' you and Mark are doing a brilliant job of that without my help, your naivety about political systems is scary and Marks proposals are ???????????????

    Bob
     
  33. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Bob
    thank you very much for your wishes...what question exactly are you talking about ???

    The trouble with this thread is the likes of you and mark the political activists is...you are not trustworthy IMO and having had experience of both of your morals and principle I would trust neither of you further than I could spit:rolleyes:

    You have so many faces between you the rest of us never know which one we are talking to.

    Any unity will have to be built on TRUST of all parties involved which rules out you and Mark so its dead in the water AGAIN aint it.....not NEGATIVE just REALITY which is the whole point of my posts REALITY just read em and try to understand....if you can:bash:
    Cheers
    D;)
     
  34. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    Derek,

    Pure slander, please retract with an apology.

    R E Golding
     
  35. DTT

    DTT Well-Known Member

    Just an opinion that all, and one with experience to which I am entitled

    oooo your soooo touchy:rolleyes:

    Cheers
    D;)
     
  36. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    No Derek,

    Far from an opinion, you have gone too far this time.

    Re read your post sleep on it and take this opportunity to retract it.

    R E Golding
     
  37. Derek

    I am fast coming to the colclusion, despite on overwhelming desire to promote and protect free-speech, that you would do the profession and this forum a great service if you were to discontinue with your subscription forthwith. You wrote to me on Friday after you were pulled-up for the bigotted comment to John Mason.
    At the risk of repeating what Simon said to you last week- to the best of my knowledge, I have never met you - other than your online comments and emails, I have had no communication with you. Unlike yourself, I try to reserve my personal thoughts about colleagues and their writings - and try to see, wherever possible, their perspective. I will make an exception in this case.

    To say you have a chip on your shoulder would be an understatement. Go back and read some of your comments on this and other threads today. You espouse unity, but you are the most volatile of contributors; the most ready to revert to the snip and growl. What you do and what you say are very often a glaring contradiction. You sent me an email once, then followed it with a joke - which was fine. You then asked if I wanted some more and then included me on your email circular. Out of politeness, I accepted. Sometime, if I have time, which is increasingly rare these days - I might open one. Sometimes they may be funny - but very often they are tasteless and offensive and usually target the muslim or some other minority. Perhaps I should have been more circumspect at the time, but I am grateful to you for removing me from your list as they were becoming increasingly tiresome.

    Now I am sorry if this constitutes a breach of trust in your eyes - a week ago you were all support; this week it's all doomed. If the future plans for the profession rise or fall on such frivolity them the future may indeed prove arduous. At the end of the day - whoever and how many lead the profession forward might be debateable - it won't be me - but whoever they are they will have to exhibit meticulous professionalism and diplomacy - for that is the only way to conduct affairs.

    You might do well to remember that.

    Bob - or R.E.G. - as far as I am aware I have never met you either or been associated with you in the past other than reading your submissions online. If I am wrong, please enlighten.
     
  38. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    DTT

    'I quote you from a reply to David Holland earlier in this thread'

    Then you're a poor witness, show me....
     
  39. Bob - you sent me this as a private message.
    Please don't send me messgaes like this again Bob. I have no desire to engage in gossip or rumour or malicious mudslinging. And there is nothing wrong with my memory. We had a short email exchange after one of your previous outbursts elsewhere. We have never met, discussed anything other than what we have online. Whilst I may be flattered by your want of association, I would have to say, Bob, that if you expressed unstinting support of any venture, I would be extremely dubious of its chance of success. You were a management consultant in a former life, Bob? Wow! Then use some of your undoubted intellect to deconstruct the proposal - or is "crap" the best you can manage?
     
  40. R.E.G

    R.E.G Active Member

    So Mark you never made a telephone call to me on a Saturday morning warning me that Ian Linnane had taken offense at one of my postings on David Hollands form, I forget which one.

    I then apologized and requested the post be removed. It took 2 to 3 days for it to be removed, I believe you intervened on my behalf.

    Your new habit of posting PM's for all to read I think is a breach of etiquette.

    Please don't send me messgaes like this again Bob.

    I have no idea what 'like that' refers to.

    I have no desire to engage in gossip or rumour or malicious mudslinging.

    Please explain those accusations.

    And there is nothing wrong with my memory. We had a short email exchange after one of your previous outbursts elsewhere.

    See above


    We have never met, discussed anything other than what we have online.

    That is true I have never suggested other wise.


    Whilst I may be flattered by your want of association,

    I have no desire to associate with you, I was at one time prepared to contribute to a fighting fund if you were prosecuted by the HPC.

    I would have to say, Bob, that if you expressed unstinting support of any venture, I would be extremely dubious of its chance of success.

    Unnecessarily rude.

    You were a management consultant in a former life, Bob? Wow! Then use some of your undoubted intellect to deconstruct the proposal - or is "crap" the best you can manage?

    I have spent some time deconstructing the proposal you just cannot understand.

    Enough, time to leave this Unity debate.

    Bob

    ps perhaps with hindsight and a dictionary 'acquainted' with was too big a word.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page