What 3 things would you change about Podiatry to make it better?

John, et al.,

First I would like to apologise unreservedly for the use of intemperate language in my post yesterday. I had a long and difficult day and lost a dear friend to pneumonia during the afternoon and the evasive and dismissive nature of your reply was the final straw – no excuse, but in mitigation I hope you see where I was coming from.

John – I’m sure you realise that you are quite a controversial figure in UK podiatry, running a course for foot health practitioners in the West Midlands and its membership organisation – the Alliance - which most people consider is simply circumventing the, arguably defective, legislative framework surrounding the Health Professions Order. You have made comment on a number of topics on Podiatry Arena over the years – and in many submissions, your contributions are well-founded and worth reading. On some topics, for example on Licensing of Foot Health Practitioners or Age Concern you offer views from an organisation called the Alliance yet seek to distance yourself from it and suggest also that Podiatry Arena is no place for professional body discussions. In a comment to Bill Liggins earlier this year, you wrote:

Why the duplicity? If you really think your organisation and training establishment is worth its place in the UK profession, why not stand up and be counted and nail your colours to the mast – declare your interests at the outset and argue your corner? You go on to comment:

I’m no apologist for the Society or any other organisation, but I can well understand the cynicism many feel when you offer opinions on podiatric politics without revealing your identity or purpose. It’s rather like Brian Rothbart starting a discussion thread about infertility or diabetes whilst his real aim is to market his proprioceptive insoles…..

Clearly it would suit your cause to have some separation between chiropody and podiatry – you have argued it before.

You obviously enjoy making comment on some aspects of regulation and structure, but when asked to clarify your remarks – as Simon did yesterday, you disappear back into the ether. As I suggested the other day, you have an ideal opportunity to table your opinions and proposals from the point of view of someone who trains and represents foot health practitioners – why not open yourself to scrutiny and stand up for what you believe in – for once?

 

Mark et al,

I wear many hats, none of which is mutually incompatible. I wear them all with passion and pride - pride in my achievements and passion for my occupation. I have spent all of my working life seeking legitimacy, approval and acceptance in the course of my work in technical dentistry and technical medicine, and have done it honestly and with true integrity.

To see where I am coming from we must go into recent history, This gives me no pleasure, but I would genuinely like you to appreciate that my point of view is balanced, pragmatic and includes ambition for my colleagues.


I was a Councillor on the board of the Association of Chiropodists and Podiatrists for five years, never missing a meeting. During this time I introduced Schools Inspection of the attached private schools, examining their courses and making improvment to thier curriculae. In the position of Education Advisor to the Association, I also linked CPD to branch attendance and a points system (that's right - I had Association members attending branches and pursuing CPD long before the HPC thought of CPD - long before the HPC indeed - and I lay claim to inventing that process, introducing it and making it work).

Since my own qualification in '88 from SMAE, I have always belonged to professional bodies, firstly the BChA and then the Association. Given the chance to open a private sector training establishment and write and teach (two passions of mine), I did so, because I believed in what I was doing and my patient interface experience confirmed that I was able.

In a genuine attempt to be ethical, I determined that students that passed through my school would be placed with a professional body, (not the SMAE model) and paid £15 per member to establish them as Association members, an organisation independant of my school....up to the point where 50% of Association members originated from my school. At the point of the Joint Steering Group and talks with the Dept of Health, I was for a long time deliberately excluded from the meetings by the officers of the ACP, who refused even to report the outcome of the attended meetings back to thier Council. Thus I became aware that people that I had trained were not being properly represented, nor thier interests decently considered.

It is a matter of history that I was instrumental in taking back those members that I had put into the Association, and so the Alliance came into existance. The Association was wound up as no longer viable as a result of that action. From nothing to nowhere in 46 years.

Whilst this was in progress, A reporter was sent to my school and I and my business partner granted him a long interview, in which we put our case and showed him letters from many, many MPs, and other literature. Regrettably, he showed no interest in what we were doing, to the point that it was obvious that he had been sent to do a 'hatchet job' and finish my school. We were published at least 3 weeks running in a weekend paper, centre spread, as though we were criminals. I refer you to the links above unkindly published (again).

The tenets of those 'reports' were that we had been passing off as 'doctors'. The 'doctorate' was one that was said to have been conferred by Henry VIII upon his herbalists, his medics having failed to find him any comfort, giving the letters DrPhyMP. I was introduced to this by the officers of the ACP at the point of agreeing to ally my school and put in my students as ACP members, effective ly as a 'reward' for that agreement. The moment that we were advised that it was no longer legal to use such letters (post 1981 legislation) we withdrew and never used it again. It was never used in any felonious activity and at no point did I ever claim to be anything other than what I am.

The other aspersions have been taken care of by the elapse of time. Many of our predictions have come to be true and many of our students have gone on to do the BSc Hons in Podiatry following the start we gave them. No prosecutions because no wrongdoing. Some parts of the reports were total fiction - for instance, there has never been a brass plate outside our premises. There are no screw holes there to this day, just unadulterated brickwork there for all to see.

The Alliance has made very considerable progress, against a turbulent political background. Students of my College receive training that is second to none, in terms of their starting up in successful business and providing a wanted service to their clients, the public. There has never been a claim upon our insurance, indicating that they do so safely.

I believe in what I do and there is a great deal of evidence that what I do bears fruit and improves the lives of others. I do not abandon my students and give ongoing support to every one of them, both in the capacity of a mentor, and in the provision of a professional body that will represent them - to the hilt.

I make no apologies for what I am. I am comfortable with myself. I regret that you feel that you have to demolish me as a colleague, because you do not see the world from my point of view.

Under the current rules I will indeed be involved whenever talks begin again, as they inevitably must. I, and the Alliance will be pragmatic and exert such influence as we are able. If that means change, then I am ready for it.

Meanwhile, I intend to continue posting here (Admin allowing) because I believe that I am entitled to have a point of view and that I am entitled to express it.

I shall continue to do so as Johnpod. This is not the place for Professional Body politics, and I shall go no further in that direction, no matter what provocation. Those that need to know will know- when the time comes.

Finally, I would point out that your personal identification and what is effectively an attempt at cyber-bullying is expressly contrary to the stated rules of this forum.

'Stuffing, anyone?'

 

Thank you for your background synopsis. I have no intent to demolish anyone or subject them to "cyber-bullying" - you included. I am interested in your ascertion that chiropody and podiatry are materially different. You made the statement; what, in your opinion, is the difference?

 

Well said John, as one of the Ex founder of Alliance I have highest respect for you. Your passion about podiatry profession seems not understood by many within our profession. I also heard you gained degree in podiatric medicine good luck.
1. Podiatry profession need image consultant
2. Doctor title should be used by Pods
3. Education similar to USA

Somuz

 

Mark,

I have stated in this thread my belief that Podiatry should be taught at Medical School. If Chiropody does not require the same, then there is a difference. That difference can therefore be defined.

To help your thought processes, 'is what Age Concern do via their volunteers, 'podiatry''? If it is the same, then it is logical that Age Concern volunteers should be required to go to Medical School. Most of us would consider that grossly over the top, just to do simple foot maintenance. If it is not the same, then it is different, and it is not podiatry.

Since I have worked under both titles, and for the NHS, I feel that it is totally reasonable that I should be able to put forward a valid opinion. I began with a SMAE Diploma as a Chiropodist and now hold a Degree in Podiatric Medicine (and Local Anaesthesia) as a Podiatrist. Since then, my clinical, teaching and CPD activities have advanced my own understanding considerably. Taken with my relevant experience, I have a good position from which to hold a view.

As for definitions: "Those that need to know will know - when the time comes."

The Alliance will reserve its position until serious talks begin. I am not here to be 'tapped up' to allow all to discover Alliance policies. The thing that is to be understood is that the Alliance will argue for pragmatic good sense regarding the service to patients and proper recognition of the skills of all of its members, both Pods and FHPs.

Just to make it transparently clear, my expressed opinions are not necessarily those of the Alliance, and should not be taken as such. I am not an elected spokesman. The Alliance is a true alliance - an alliance of many others.

Somuz - thanks for your post

 

I think your answer - or rather lack of - illustrates why we are unlikely to achieve any form of either unity or professional potential here in the UK. Simon asked a simple question. Why the prevarication?

 

Funny - looks like that from where I stand - I share your pessimism. As for further questions, you can answer them as well as I, including your last one. For the answer, look above.

 

I don't know that this line of discussion will take us anyplace useful. Perhaps we should start a new thread for "should podiatry be taught at medical school" and get this one back to the op. It was a good idea for a thread, be a shame if it got completely derailed!

The medical school question is an interesting one mind.

 

Robert

Correct. These discussions are a waste of time - whether it be with the Society, who have their own multi-faceted and conflicting vested interests, or representatives of the private training establishments. None of them can see further than their own backyard - or bank balance. There is no altruism, no common desire for the greater good of the profession. Ask a simple question - and all one gets is evasivness, prevarication and self-righteous nonsense. That is the primary reason I resigned from the Society Council - and why I ceased comment on professional matters on Arena a couple of years ago.

Goodbye and season's greetings to all.

 

Not so, Mark. This is to ignore or mis-represent what I said above. What you and the Dept of Health must learn to accept is that commercial organisations cannot be laid open as you would wish, because their business is their business, and they would have no business if their inner workings were free to all. However, business and commerce can be ethical, altruistic and operate within the law. Profit may well be one motivation, but only comes to those prepared to put in effort. There is nothing cynical about making profit from delivering services to others.

You might consider government to be open - the HPC Council itself holds meetings 'in camera' i.e. in secret, so that their discussions are not for the public (or even registrants) to see. What difference?

What could be improved is the relationship of one body to another. There is need to co-ordinate their intentions so that all pull in one general direction, instead of against each other. The Alliance has made as many approaches towards others as any other has made towards the Alliance, times two. We will not sublimate into the Society whilst the sun still shines. The General Podiatry Council is the obvious solution, but we will meet as equals, not with the Society dictating anything.

 

So this is the Society that some would wish the other bodies to give up to.... directly from the mouth of an ex-Councillor who gives us the inside view. It could be said that some of our present ills originate from the advice given to the Dept of Health by the Council of this organisation with 'multi-faceted and conflicting vested interests.'

By contrast, the Alliance has no inner conflicts - all practitioners are members - because they are all in practice and have the same needs in terms of practice support.

If the Alliance were to announce a preliminary meeting with a view to forming a General Podiatry Council, it is almost certain that the Society (and, no doubt, others) would refuse to attend.

The Society may well have a greater number of members, at present. In its very make-up it has a greater number of almost insoluble problems. It is, therefore, not a good pattern to build upon or a good model for the future.

The Alliance will never 'go in with' the Society. If a General Podiatry Council ever becomes possible, the Society will not even be allowed the choice of the venue. They have failed their members and thrown away opportunities. From a position of considerable control and influence they now offer no more than any other body. There are, and must be, alternatives.

 

Indeed it must be easier to avoid internal conflict when your membership is comprised of a single group with similar aims. The society has for years had to balance the needs many disparate groups. It is a true saying that you cannot please all the people all of the time. This should not be seen as a negative reflection of the organisation.

To compare the society, with it's larger membership and varied makeup, with the alliance, is not a fair comparison in this context. By your own statement john the alliance has no inner conflicts because the members all have the same needs! Would a GPC have such a homogenous makeup? Of course not.

The challenge facing any gpc would be to emulsify many groups of involved parties. If such an undertaking were to be possible one could argue that the organisation best placed to undertake such a task would be the one which was most used to balancing the needs of disparate groups rather that the one which has never had to.

I beleive however that the argument is moot. Were such a thing to happen, and I'm not sure it could or even should, I think ALL the existing organizations carry too much baggage in terms of entrenched ideas and personal animosities.

 

So take the NHS out of the equation and all that remain are practitioners. Practitioners with special interests can be accommodated in their special interests, but they all remain practitioners.

The Alliance has no difficulty whatever with Podiatrists and Foot Health Practitioners - and we are forever being told that they are very different. How different, and how difficult do you want to make it?

I don't suppose the Society had too much experience of balancing disparate groups when it started back in 1915, and we must look objectively at what it has achieved with all of its 'experience'. Nothing to nowhere in 95 years?

It also follows from your argument, and your personal declared outlook Robert, that experience equates to little more than 'baggage'. The Alliance is business-like, quick to take action and feet on the ground if you'll forgive the pun, but it means what it says. The Alliance has known nothing but times of strife, thanks to those 'sages' that went before. It's not all that difficult to do better.

 

I have no animosity toward the alliance.I'm actually rather glad it exists! There SHOULD be an option for those who do not wish to be a part of scp. That said I suspect all is not so rosy in the garden as you make out...

Part of the baggage I referred to is contained in the comments you made. You are, of course, entitled to your view, however your comments could well be considered inflammatory to people who have worked hard in the scp to make it the largest podiatry organisation in the UK.

For a moment, john, put yourself in the mind of a podiatrist who is a proud member of the scp and who thinks that they have done well in supporting you and their profession. Now read your comments. Are you now more enthused by joining forces with an organisation whose spokesmen take such an evalgelical view of the rightness of their organisation and the uselessness of the other?

If a gpc is ever to happen, it must start with an atmosphere of mutural respect.

 

For a moment, Robert, put yourself in the position of one who trained at a chiropody school, was taught by chiropodists and won a Diploma in chiropody by examination. Then your world is changed, your use of your title threatened or the title removed from you, due the machinations of the Society, Dept of Health and the HPC. There has always been a feeling that private sector trained people have been 'stitched up' and presented with a fait acompli.
This is not just my own story and feelings, but that of hundreds of others. Many of those belonged to organisations that claimed to represent their best interests. Well, it didn't feel like it!

Now the title that was taken is now unwanted and the Society would like to throw it away. It seems totally wrong that a title should be taken from those legitimately working beneath that title by dint of then ligitimate training, only to be thrown away 5 years later.

The effect is that a descriptive word that was well understood by everybody living in the UK has been effectively taken out of the language. Don't want it themselves, but nobody else must use it. The words 'unfair business practice' are about to be added to 'human rights abuse' in many minds.

Robert, I could go on trading points with you. Mark's assertions about lack of altruism and vested interests are held by many, and yet are manifestly untrue - that's why I am sitting here at Saturday lunchtime pounding the computer.

The industry needed something new. It got something new in the form of the Alliance after the event. The Alliance will continue to grow (enrolled 3 ex-Institute members this last week - all pods).

To end on a more upbeat note, there is a common cause that all professional bodies should be united in pursuing. If co-operation were ever needed, it is now. If we keep on discrediting our own willing representatives, how are we to go forward? And why would new people in every post have any more mutual respect than that presently demonstrated by present encumbents? The answer is to stop questioning the herald, but rather to hear the message!!!! -and stop posting that scurrilous cr*p!

It's beginning to feel a lot like Christmas......

 

Whoa, somebody call the



I've tried being nice and reasonable. Doesn't seem to be working. So lets try plan B

Sunbeam, you are not representative FOR me or OF me. Nor I suspect many here. The Alliance MAY be the something new which the profession needs, but I doubt it. Your "answer" seems to be that we will all get along fine so long as we heed THE message (which is of course YOUR message).

Ever so ever so sorry old bean, but if you are looking for people to docilely agree with you without questioning what you say or why, you've got your parties mixed up. This is the OTHER Podiatry arena.

Marks comments regarding vested interests may or may not be true, but your slightly shrill protests of "human rights abuse" are not exactly adding to your cause IMVHO.

The tragic story you tell of the clinician who had their title cruelly ripped from them and cast aside by an uncaring and elitist profession is as you are well aware only one side of the story. The flip side is that if you have your wish and the chiropody title is given to those who carry out a course at, for example, the West Midlands College of FHPS, then a title which is still used interchangeably with podiatry by many / most will be granted to people who have completed 11 WHOLE days of clinical training.

YOU say that chiropody and podiatry and Podiatry are different. You may even believe it. The Oxford English dictionary says they are the same. So you propose that a title which one of, if not the, worlds leading authority on language says is exactly the same as Podiatry is granted to practitioners who have seen all of 40 patients in their training!

I can't for the life of me think why people are not "heeding the message".

Here is a suggestion. If you truly believe that Chiropody and Podiatry are completely different, try convincing the good people at the Oxford English Dictionary to change the entry for podiatry to something besides "another term for chiropody". When you've done that, launch a PR campaign to inform the public of how you changed the language and what a chiropodist NOW means. When people KNOW that the two are not the same thing you might have more luck convincing people that the chiropody title can be given to people with the lesser training requirement. Until then it ain't gonna happen no matter how much you pout!

Here's a thought, why not start at home? Go change the website So it no longer reads "In the UK to become a Chiropodist / Podiatrist you must attend university for 3 years and follow a Chiropody / Podiatry course.". Because of course Its not Chiropody / Podiatry is it? They are two different things right?

Good luck in rewriting the dictionary. Come back when you're done.

Kindest and Fondest Christmas greetings.

Robert

 

I will deal with all the issues in your last few posts after I return from the weekend - however, I think we can all see why you would like to be a difference between chiropody and podiatry but you still have not answered Simon's question as to what you think the difference is. I would be grateful if you could apply yourself to this and look forward to reading your response on my return.

Meanwhile - Robert - it's bloody cold up here - how's Kent?





sent from my iphone

 

Thanks for showing your true colours, guys. There is little point in further trading of attitudes.

See you when someone that has the power decides that the time has come to meet and try to sort it out.

Oh!, silly me. You won't be there, will you?

 

minus 20 when I went to bed last night in Stockholm...Nice photo mark. Just thought I´d add even though you asked Robert so you both feel warm.

 

John

I am grateful to Craig for reopening the thread and for your replies. As Simon remarked earlier, it been very illuminating. I note you still have not explained why you think chiropody is different than podiatry in the UK – you can’t – but I think it’s abundantly clear from your posts and from your background why you would like others to think that might be so. Please allow me to explain why I think you are wrong.

You write about someone who trained at a chiropody school, taught by chiropodists and examined and awarded a diploma. The person writing these words fits that description. I gained my diploma from Edinburgh in 1983 – taught by people like Cameron Kippen and Bill Donaldson, who write on here, and many others of whom I still have the greatest respect. I did the three year course and received a prize and distinction for surgery and clinical chiropody in the final year. We trained five days a week, three terms a year for the duration and it was still tough. I don’t know where you did your degree but I would be surprised if it was the four year degree at one of the established schools – for if it was then you haven’t learned much about chiropody – at least that’s how it appears to me.

I still think I have a lot to learn about the foot and how it works and how it goes wrong. That’s why I and many of my colleagues read and contribute to Podiatry Arena – life is one big learning curve and so is our vocation. I guess that rings true wherever you are in your journey regardless of your training. College provides the grounding; the good clinician uses it as a springboard and keeps on the curve until the close the surgery door for the final time.

There have always been distance learning and correspondence courses in chiropody and there may always be. I don’t have a crystal ball but I’d wager the likelihood is that your establishment will be around for the near future at least. In my view that doesn’t make it right or ethical and there might always be some “need” insofar as there will be some folk, who by circumstance, cannot gain training and experience in the four year BSc course, yet still desire to work in form of foot related practice. I’m pragmatic about that; even think it’s a failure of the established schools to enable access for more students so that the requirement for a places run by people like yourself need not exist. This thread started by asking what three things could improve podiatry in the UK. One thing I would do is to break the ties between the “established” schools and the NHS so that the profession could develop its clinical knowledge and practice on a level unhindered by the Department of Health’s advisors and political “visionaries”, some of whom are, regrettably, influential in the Society. These new schools could then consider different training platforms and different access routes to clinical practice for students in much the same way as the legal and accounting professions have alternate training and qualification routes. All of whom are open to scrutiny and subject to professional agreement and consent. Unlike your own. Just because your business exists doesn’t make it the right or proper place to train students to become competent chiropodists; you circumvent weak legislation and exploit the flaws in the market. That’s what always happened as far as I can recall.

You mention the Society a number of times. Yes I sat on the Society Council for a couple of years. Yes the Society has many flaws. As Robert correctly points out it represents many churches within the profession and yes that means it pulls in many directions, often to its own disadvantage. It doesn’t mean your Alliance is any better or offers better representation. If you think it does then your are extremely deluded in my view.

Let’s just remember – before the HPC came along and legislation was passed to protect the titles of chiropody and podiatry – your establishment was turning out “chiropodists” and “podiatrists” through correspondence courses and part time residential courses with something like 44 days training. (If colleagues from foreign parts wonder what this nonsense is all about try thinking of someone opening a podiatry practice next door to a DPM’s office in New York or a podiatrist’s office in Sydney with less than two months training claiming to provide the same care as yourself. I think most might be a little surprised and concerned). And yet some of your students undoubtedly go on to learn more about their vocation – as we all do – and become competent clinicians in time, but be under no illusion, their springboard is at a far lower level.

I could be mistaken, John, but I get the impression from your writing and your history that you are just a bit dishonest. If I were still influential in the Society or the HPC then I probably wouldn’t want to discuss anything with you about your role on clinical training either. There are a few people who are registered chiropodists or podiatrists or DPMs that I wouldn’t want to discuss practice with either – Rothbart for example and one or two people that I’ve met on my journey over the years. We can’t do much about them, just like we can’t doo much about correspondence or part time courses or people who circumvent legislation for primarily their own gain or people who purport to be surgeons by “training” at Colleges of Minimally Invasive Surgery etc. etc. etc.

It’s 4am – I’m not long back from a day in the hills and these are my thoughts. What you do for the profession in the UK is similar to having someone really unfit in your party when you go up into the hills. You slow the progress down – for everyone. Regrettably that will always be your legacy and in that respect I fully agree with Simon’s first recommendation for improving the profession in the UK.

No doubt you disagree but I have nothing more to add to this diversion in this thread and look forward to reading some more views to the OP initial question.

Goodnight.

 

Hi John

I have to confirm the views held by a number of people here, namely, that I cannot differentiate between a chiropodist and podiatrist unless, as an attempt to do so, I was to redefine the two titles and job descriptions and place a limit of practice on one of them. This would create a possible differentiation.

If you are going to take this approach then it is essential to clearly delineate those differences and whilst you can argue that as long as those working in the limited field work within their remit they may be safe and good, they are markedly limited.

This then opens the can of worms as to how they should be marketed and if any comparisons in marketing should be drawn between them and those who qualified as podiatrists post HPC. As well as man other cans!

As someone who originally trained with SMAE, eventually did a top up degree and eventually joined the Society I listened recently to Michael Paynton (Chairman of the BCHA) addressing a group of SMAE trained Pods and FHP's at one of their branch meetings, I had also just given a talk to. A good many of the questions (fair ones at that) came from the FHP's and when I listened to the questions and then Michael's response it simply felt that I had travelled back 15 or more years in time to the same issues regards registered and non-registered (pre HPC) being debated. Essentially, (politically and career wise) it looked as though the horizon had not changed for these good people. Is it because they have been led into a form of training without full understanding or being made fully aware of the limits?

My reason for coming out of SMAE lay in that after HPC registration (and despite being encouraged to push for it by the SMAE) the SMAE then continued training people in foot health care. I found this a hard pill to swallow and, whilst I can understand that this is business, found the approach distasteful.

As a SMAE trained Pod I can assert that the original training cannot come close to the pt exposure that was (and possibly still is) far greater in the hospital context - as I have learnt from close NHS trained colleagues. Equally I would argue that the original theory correspondence course, whilst it can be good and worked for me (added to by huge amounts of post grad work and training elsewhere) cannot match the amount of theory training that I have understood my NHS trained colleagues to undergo. That said there are skills that none NHS people bring to the work that is not possible to attain through certain training techniques.

I still encounter occasional animosity from some NHS trained colleagues - their problem not mine - but on the whole (to my face at least) most I now encounter have moved on and got on with it. I am fortunate to have some NHS colleagues who are also good friends and a wealth of resource to me as well.

My concern with your posting is that, possibly like SMAE, you are training people who may have a false expectation and idea of their their role and potential scope of practice because it does not seem you can delineate the difference between chiropodist and Podiatrist for us - so can you do it for them (?), if so, then it beholds you sharing here as you initially have raised it.

If you respond by saying these things are laid out for them please can you do that for us here?

That you indicate that such an organisation as yours does not have the broad church issues and that if it ever grew very large that it would not develop the broad church issues is, to my mind, naive and loses credibility in the eyes of any with a broad working background experience.

I write this with no axe to grind on either FHP’s themselves or Pods. But how you avoid and evade the more fair and simple questions raised by some here, sadly seems to undermine your cause.

Ian

 

Ian

I would just like to qualify my remarks on the earlier post in that many SMAE trained (and others) clinicians practise to a very high level and often have a better understanding of clinical matters than many of those who took the degree trained route. Training is but the start - the springboard to lifelong learning - and some from whatever background jump off the end and sink, irrespective where they were educated. Others never look back.

Best wishes

 

This has been a very illuminating thread with some splendid contributions from Mark and Simon.

If nothing else it has shown very clearly where our resident FHP trainer Johnpod stands and his attitude to the profession of Chiropody/Podiatry. ( I also am waiting for him to explain the difference)

Did he really think that none of us knew who he was?

He hovers on the sidelines like a hyena circling a dying warthog, just waiting for the day when the SCP will discard the title of "Chiropodist" so he can seize it for his minimally trained students. How sad to aspire to be a collector of cast-offs.

He may have a long wait.

FHPs will never be Chiropodists or Podiatrists unless they retrain via the degree course. End of.

Dido

 

On the BBC's Today programme at 8:00am this morning, John Humpries presented an article on the Review of university fees and funding.

Picking up from the conversation, it seems that Lord Mandelson has said that the culture within universities must change. They are to lose 'hundreds of millions' (his reported words) in funding and they will suffer staff cuts that must result in less contact time with students.

They must become more focused on providing for the needs of business and the economy. There is to be a squeeze on fees and going to university is expected to become more expensive.

Lord Mandelson has called upon the universities to reduce many of their 3 year undergraduate degrees to '2 year fast track degrees' to save money.

I remember the time when many polytechnics were made up to universities. Is it not interesting that the wheel of history is turning right around and that they are now being asked to return to their original role of preparing folk for business and commerce?

If the same squeeze was to be applied to the NHS, they too might have to recognise the folly of funding the undergraduate training of many whose skills will never be available to them.

On the charge of 'circumventing' legislation - not guilty. If the legislation allows the work to be done under any other title, (and it does - HPC Grandparenting rules 2001), then people can be taught to do that work and work under any other title - within the rules. This is not 'circumvention', just because you wanted something different! Weak legislation? - yes, I agree -flawed consultation.

I have never before thought of you as a 'dying warthog' Dido, but I now can think of you in no other way. I cannot cast this off. I am sorry to learn of your end. If this is the sidelines, where have you been all my life?

I refuse to make enemies of you all, and would rather ascribe your attitudes and stances to your basic insecurities. Interesting again, that the world has less need of academics when the going gets tough.

For these reasons I still find myself able to wish you all the happiest of Christmases.

Johnpod

 

Johnpod: "I refuse to make enemies of you all, and would rather ascribe your attitudes and stances to your basic insecurities."

Now, like your assumption about our "insecurities", I could assume that the above comments arise from supreme arrogance. No need to though because based on the above comment everything you have said previously has been completely undermined by your self.

Fortunately it is Christmas and I feel in a generous mood even towards those who will not or cannot answer a simple question - so seasons greetings John and please do remember those of us less fortunate in measures of self-con-fidence.

Ian

 

Cheers Ian! I have no problem answering any question whatever - in the right place.

I am sure your confidence will increase as you learn to hit the right keys.

 

"I am sure your confidence will increase as you learn to hit the right keys."

 

Nope - Ian's key strokes were spot on. You sound more like a used car-salesman specialising in insurance wrecks each time you write, John. As I mentioned earlier, I only hope any prospective candidates to your FHP course have the good fortune to peruse these pages before handing over their cash so they can judge for themselves the rather repugnant calibre of person they might be dealing with.

 

Just because something is "within the rules" does not make it right, proper or good. Most people find the same excuse proferred by dishonest MPs frankly distasteful and regrettably they tarnish the reputation of others by association. That is why most people within the UK profession regard you as someone best avoided; whose views and motives are deceiptful at best and of no material benefit to the profession or wider society generally. Thank you for confirming our suspicions.

 

To the "preacher stealing hearts at the travelling show, for the love of money, money, money, money, money, money" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWHWl949kIo&feature=related
Merry Christmas, John.:drinks
This is probably more to the point and easier for you to get:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7urYyNoU6ZI

 

In your non-informed opinion, Mark Russell! And it is not dishonest because you and a few supporters choose to find it distasteful. Your collective suspicions are subjective and foundless. For 'within the rules' you might substitute 'perfectly legal and lawful'.

I work to support and promote my podiatry colleagues. I also train FHPs. This is simply using my professional abilities to the full to do some good and offer the road to improvement for my colleagues, and others. The lives of many hundreds of people who now make good stable livings and contribute directly to the community have been changed as a result of my enterprise, Pods and FHPs alike. The general public benefit as a direct result. This is absolute fact - not opinion, supposition, or wishful thinking. The accusation that somehow, prospective students are 'hood-winked' and blinded from the truth is yours - and is totally uninformed and without foundation. I utterly refute your allegation of dishonesty and deceit. All is transparently obvious from my websites, open for all to see, and from my business literature. All who know me have a very different opinion of me than that which you seek to establish.

You might well feel frustration with the status quo. Me too. But it is you who resigned from a position from which you might have changed things. I have not resigned from anything, and am still involved in the promotion of our industry, by which I mean podiatry. If podiatry cannot survive in its own right and podiatrists feel threatened by FHPs, why? If they are that different, where lies the threat?

 

Which brings us back to the nub of the argument in this little diversion. You made a statement that chiropody and podiatry are different - and a week later - have still not explained why, in your opinion, this is so. You state that podiatry should be taught at mediacal school and chiropody not. That is not a difference. Clearly we agree to disagree on your actions and intent, John, and the role of minimally trained clinicians in foot health services and the impact on the profession generally. No surprise. But it's a shame that you cannot answer the most basic question on something that is a pivitol part of your raison d'être.

 

J F-H

Would this apply to all those who signed up for a Chiropody Diploma from the WMS and ended up with an FHP one?

Do you have any published statistics to support this "puff"?

Warthog, (not terminal but feeling a bit queasy.)

PS. I am also interested in your reasoning that makes you think that chiropody and podiatry are different?

 

If only there existed some sort of reference book containing firm definitions of what words mean. Then we could settle the difference once and for all!

Happy Christmas to you too john.

 

Funnily enough, I was in Lichfield on Monday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson