Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
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 (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
The UK needs a united professional body
View Poll Results: The podiatry profession within the UK would be best represented by:
Simon, all that I know of you I gleaned from this site.
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...
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.
ps. Catfoot, DTT, R.E.G etc, are you real, do you have names, do I know you ?
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 ........
Funny Ive just got back from a University course and passed with 85%
Even in your time warp that must tell you something..........
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
Last edited by DTT : 31st July 2012 at 02:35 PM.
Reason: sorry Si the pc is up the wall at the moment
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
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.
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.
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 ???????????????
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
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
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
Cheers
D
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
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.
Quote:
Thanks mark, you should be thoroughly ashamed. Show me one joke list email that I have written ??? I Forward them not write them. I expect the recipient to be adult enough to delete what they don’t like and laugh at what they do. Obviously I made a mistake with you your off so you won’t be getting anymore. So you won’t have snide remarks to make about me being bigoted anymore. There gone along with any trust I had built with you - Unity?? Laughable without TRUST. As I said in an earlier reply to you what this profession is full of……………..
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.
Obviously you do not remember your intervention on my behalf when I posted a 'dubious' post on D Hollands forum, and was threatened with 'legal action'. For that I was grateful. I'm sorry your memory is impaired. I'm sure you do not appreciate my present position on the unity debate but I think with respect you are pissing into the wind. Equally on a number of occasions you have been quite rude about my postings and my judgement, I however try very hard not to retaliate. Some of us believe that Derek needs 'help'. He and others were very supportive of Belinda arguably reporting someone to the HPC, I thought that was uncalled for, however his last post was in my opinion worse than anything said about Bell. I will not be threatening legal or HPC action as I believe in #free speech'.
Please correct your lack of knowledge of me.
R.E.G
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?
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 by R.E.G : 31st July 2012 at 10:26 PM.
Reason: revision
perhaps with hindsight and a dictionary 'acquainted' with was too big a word.
No, it was the wrong word. It suggests a meeting - making one's acquaintance, for example - and infers friendship. Neither of which is applicable in our case. We have never met, Bob - only communicated online and perhaps a brief telephone call - but that does not constitute friendship. It is the same relationship I have with most other people on this forum, whom I have never met either. I wouldn't say that I am acquainted with Simon or Kevin or Bill Liggins or John Mason - having never met them either - but one can respect what they write - both in content and style. It's easy to fall back on the familiar, but if I may be so impertinent to suggest, it is not getting you anywhere, Bob - and the bickering does nothing for this board or its contributors. If you have given a critique of my suggestion, please reproduce it here, for it hasn't appeared on my screen yet - I won't hold my breath.
Perhaps the closure of TFS wasn't such a good thing after all.
Nice to see all that trust you obviously have between you chaps
Bob I expressed an opinion that was all NO I dont trust you or anyone else that has spent years trying to damage me professionaly, surely that comes as no suprise ??
Mark
You are fully aware of what I am refering to what you did was a breach of trust in my book and kindly stop quoteing from something that happened outside of the podiatry world. Your emails you sent me "privately" made your position on the matter clear there is no need to make reference to it here.
You can dress up whatever you want and however you want to say it but we both know the truth dont we.
The posts I make stand I do not make inflamatory statements and as soon as I get a reaction edit the origional post to make the whole thing "softer" thereby giving a different meaning.
As far as me leaving here Mark again you get above yourself you have not the power or position to tell me anything yes I want unity but unity for ALL not excluding anyone that is my position but all I ever get is attack and sniping and yes I defend my position when the 2 week postal course etc is rolled out again and again and again and YES Mark I am a minority , Me Myself and I so how does your bigotted stance bode there persecuting a minority??
Just a reminder 12 of us tried a start to unite this profession some years ago we met from the complete range across the board levels of podiatry , professional bodies and points of view. We all were very aprehensive but when we met and talked we found much common ground that could have started the model for unity...That was the dubbed "Tamworth Posse" the rest is history
I wish the profession well in the future and I sincerely hope unity and trust will one day happen but I dont think it will be in my lifetime...unfortunately
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
He and others were very supportive of Belinda arguably reporting someone to the HPC, I thought that was uncalled for, however his last post was in my opinion worse than anything said about Bell. I will not be threatening legal or HPC action as I believe in #free speech'.
Please correct your lack of knowledge of me.
R.E.G
Not too sure how my name has been dragged into this.....but as you brought the subject up; No argument about it at all, Bob. The result is plain for all to see.
To quote Admin;
Quote:
"Freedom of Speech" is generally a political right to criticize governments without risk of persecution.
TFS and Podiatry Arena are private and not government organizations.
The posts I make stand I do not make inflamatory statements and as soon as I get a reaction edit the origional post to make the whole thing "softer" thereby giving a different meaning.
Here's a suggestion, Derek. After you write something go for a walk. Take a break - sleep on it even. Think hard how it's going to come across to others - and consider, does it add something positive to the debate. If you're uncertain, don't post it. Don't wait until you get a reaction.
Quote:
As far as me leaving here Mark again you get above yourself you have not the power or position to tell me anything yes I want unity but unity for ALL not excluding anyone that is my position but all I ever get is attack and sniping and yes I defend my position when the 2 week postal course etc is rolled out again and again and again and YES Mark I am a minority , Me Myself and I so how does your bigotted stance bode there persecuting a minority??
I wouldn't dare tell you anything Derek. It's a suggestion. If you constantly attract sniping and personal attacks, what does that tell you about your approach?
Quote:
Just a reminder 12 of us tried a start to unite this profession some years ago we met from the complete range across the board levels of podiatry , professional bodies and points of view. We all were very aprehensive but when we met and talked we found much common ground that could have started the model for unity...That was the dubbed "Tamworth Posse" the rest is history
Please elaborate. Was this a cross body meeting? Were representatives from the principal bodies there? What mandate did you have? What were the aims and objectives and where are the minutes of said meeting?
Or was it just a group of colleagues meeting and discussing professional issues at the end of a CPD weekend who found some mutual ground together? No doubt it gave a buzz and you found it rewarding and exciting - and it is when you start something you feel passionate about - but by taking the defensive and often inflamatory approach to podiatric debate, you actually damage what goals you state you are trying to achieve.
Please elaborate. Was this a cross body meeting? Were representatives from the principal bodies there? What mandate did you have? What were the aims and objectives and where are the minutes of said meeting?
Or was it just a group of colleagues meeting and discussing professional issues at the end of a CPD weekend who found some mutual ground together? No doubt it gave a buzz and you found it rewarding and exciting - and it is when you start something you feel passionate about - but by taking the defensive and often inflamatory approach to podiatric debate, you actually damage what goals you state you are trying to achieve.
Just an across the board group that found agreement on many things, just an example of what is possible without sniping , self agrandisment and by showing mutual respect.
Now if that could be expanded......just think of the possibilities
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
The Following User Says Thank You to DTT For This Useful Post:
Having read the last few pages, I'm not sure its a united professional body we need, so much as a united profession.
"Lord what fools these mortals be!"
That is my point Rob we need to sort ourselves out and bury the hatchet sort out the differences and gremlins THEN move on to a united body with a united profession its the only way it will work IMHO
Cheers Fella
D
Oh and I'll forgive you for the inclusion of a third party in your post .....this time
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
Re: The UK needs a united professional body
Linear Mode
