Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

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

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

Regulation of Podiatry

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

  1. So, in four days time a court will reconvene in Preston to hear the final witnesses and evidence in the matter with the HCPC and yours truly. It is now over three years since the case started and has spanned some eight hearings at numerous courts in London and Lancashire, including the Old Bailey and Lancaster Castle. It has been a strange experience at times - and not a little stressful - in that unpleasant way when you are dealing with people that are fundamentally dishonest and corrupt.

    Whatever the outcome of the case this week, I shall be taking a long-overdue leave of absence from podiatry having spent more than three decades at the 'sole-face' - and as they say, a change is as good as a rest.

    Can I just say therefore, many thanks to you all for the help and support and kind words Ive received over the last few years. These sort of events always polarise opinion and friendships - and this has been no exception, so I'm really grateful for all the positive stuff that's made its way to me.

    If you intend to be in court - it's listed for 10.30am in Court 8, Preston Crown Courts. If, for whatever reason it's moved or deferred, I'll post an update here.

    All the best and good luck to you all.

    Mark Russell
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Simon Ross

    Simon Ross Active Member

    Mark,

    What is the address again please if we want to send our viewpoints on how ludicrous the current legal situation is to the judge?
     
  3. Thanks, but we're fine now. Best wishes.
     
  4. Final witnesses and evidence heard on Friday and the Judge has adjourned the appeal and will deliver a narrative and written judgement in due course - probably around six weeks. Her closing remark that whatever the verdict, the outcome will have wider significant implications for both parties is one that I completely agree with.

    Thanks again to all those who trekked up to Preston and hope you found it interesting! Much appreciated as always. Timely article in this morning's observer...
     
  5. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Interesting is one word, not my foremost....but I don`t relish being threatened with contempt of court. It was a privilege to be there with like-minded supporters.

    This paragraph from the above article struck a chord..."If you dont have excellent training for people involved, particularly magistrates, they wont know the questions to ask and they wont be able to make appropriate decisions because they wont have the appropriate information. It really is as simple as that. It is very depressing."

    Yes, depressing and frustrating - how many days in court has it taken before the second most important issue surfaced; Are titles `protected` or `designated`. We shall have to wait and see.
     
  6. Pauline burrell-saward

    Pauline burrell-saward Active Member

    wondered what the outcome was to the trial??

    said 6 weeks its now 15 weeks!!!!
     
  7. blinda

    blinda MVP

    The Court admitted that titles are not`protected`, they are merely `designated`.

    The HCPC has misled all the professions it regulates by claiming to "protect titles". Anyone with a qualification in any of the designated titles can use their title so long as they make it abundantly clear that they are not HCPC registered.

    You can read a copy of the verdict here; http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showthread.php?t=106156
     
  8. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    OK,:confused: and this helps the Profession how?
     
  9. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    Whoops seems I have posted twice !
     
  10. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    As the court said, 'the purpose of the statutory regime is to protect the designated title'.

    Seems clear to me, case proven.
     
  11. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    OK. So now we have a "protected designated titles" instead of "protected titles"

    So I ask the question again ; how does this revelation help the profession? :confused:
     
  12. It'll be a difficult thing for you to understand, but it really depends on what the "profession" does with that knowledge and the other matters this case has revealed.
     
  13. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    I thought I was on your "ignore list" :D

    However, as it appears that I'm not ;

    IMO that ^^^ is just fudging it with a non-answer.

    As the HCPC haven't changed anything about "Protected Titles" on their website, I can't see any changes occurring. :rolleyes:
     
  14. As I said, it was going to be difficult for you to understand.
     
  15. Catfoot

    Catfoot Well-Known Member

    OK, so let's put it another way.

    What do you think you have achieved by the course of action you undertook?:confused:

    And if anyone else would like to chip in, feel free !
     
  16. Knowledge and enlightenment.
     
  17. You're a strange one, John. The HCPC is up there on your loathing list just behind the Society and now that you know you were lied to about the scope of the regulation, not to mention watching a colleague being persecuted through the criminal courts on a completely false prospectus, all you can bring yourself to say is some smug remark.

    A strange on indeed. Enjoy your retirement.
     
  18. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Mark

    You knew exactly what you were getting in to.

    You were cautioned by a number of colleagues.

    The outcome of your escapade was predicted.

    The Judge made several observations on your behaviour !

    As is not uncommon, 'A passion for the limelight suspends reason and results in disappointment'.
     
  19. John

    My "escapade" is not yet over so best suspend your schadenfreude for a while. I always feel a bit sad and sorry for you when I read your comments these days as they usually always adopt the same tenor and in my experience it seems that people who exhibit these traits are terribly insecure with very low self esteem.

    As I said yesterday, good luck in your retirement.
     
  20. My letter to the Chair of the HCPC

     
  21. Reply to the above. I'll post my response later.
     

    Attached Files:

  22. One...
     

    Attached Files:

  23. Two....
     

    Attached Files:

  24. Three... game, set and match!
     

    Attached Files:

  25. My letter concerning the above.

    19 August 2016

    Elaine Buckley
    Chair
    HCPC
    184 Kennington Park Road
    London
    SE11 4BU

    Dear Mrs Buckley

    I write further to my letter and enclosures of 15 August. Yesterday, I received correspondence from your Chief Executive and Registrar, Marc Seale, which included copy of a reply he had sent to my constituency MP, Mark Menzies dated 17 August. In his covering letter, Mr Seale informs me that he is writing with reference to the letter I sent you. I assume therefore that you have received and read the material I sent last Monday and that you have also read the reply that was sent to Mr Menzies. Is that a correct assumption?

    If you have read the articles I sent, it will be abundantly clear that the Registrar?s version of the matters leading up to my prosecution is completely inaccurate. I have provided you with a detailed and factual account of the circumstances and events that led me to cease registration and my conduct thereafter. There is a historical record of this case online dating back to 2008 at www.podiatry-arena.com which you can access from the links on the home page. If you read the entries, you will note my account is consistent throughout.

    The Registrar?s letter to Mr Menzies is both illuminating and deeply concerning. In the penultimate paragraph, Mr Seale writes;

    ?The HCPC has never sought to conceal the ?intent to deceive? element of the offence.?

    This statement is not just inaccurate, it is a blatant lie.

    The Council has never advanced the position other than it is an offence to use a protected title without registration. It has never stated that an offence can only occur providing there is an accompanying intent to deceive. Further, it has never stated that registrants who chose to cease registration can lawfully use a designated title providing they take sufficient precautions to inform the public that they are not registered.

    I now know from all the legal argument that the foregoing is the actual position in law, which the legislation provides. The Registrar was clearly aware of the necessity of satisfying the ITD element of the offence by his wording in that statement. But the meaning and importance of that term was never communicated to the registrants or any of the professional bodies. I sincerely doubt that any registrant of the HCPC had any knowledge of the particulars of the offence before this case.

    Can you provide me with any guidance or advice statements issued by the Council that provides information regarding the ITD? The Nursing and Midwifery Council issued a policy statement following a review of the legislation in 2013 where it advised their registrants could use a designated title after ceasing registration provided they did not give the impression they were still registered by using initials such as RN or RMN and must only refer to themselves as ?nurse?. The NMC legislation is synonymous with your own. Can you provide me with a similar policy statement and tell me when it was issued?

    The truth of the matter is that the Registrar has concealed the relevance of this part of the legislation from all the professional bodies, registrants and most probably your Council too, until very recently. This misleading position was reinforced by the use of the term ?protected titles? in all the literature issued by Council since 2003 ? yet there is no mention of ?protected titles? in the legislation ? only designated titles are provided for. Whereas I would agree that one of the HCPC?s functions is to ?protect? those titles for use by those on its register, its ability to do so is significantly impaired by the inclusion of the ITD element in the wording of the offence.

    None of this was known or familiar to me before this prosecution started. Nor was it known to any of my colleagues. If I may direct you to the comments by colleagues on my website at the end of the article entitled ?An Absence of Candour? you will note I am not alone in my ignorance on this matter. I presume you have read the Witness Statement from Mr Ralph Graham, included in the documents I sent? The colleague to whom he refers in paragraph (10) is Ms Pam Sabine ? a long-standing Council member at the HCPC. She also was completely unaware of this issue. Are their opinions ?unbelievable?, ?nonsense?, ?incredible? and ?not worthy of belief? too?

    Whilst I admit that the full wording of the legislation, including the ITD element was communicated to me in various correspondence by case managers and your legal agents, my understanding of its relevance was always going to be deficient, given the numerous statements on ?protected titles? by the HCPC. The Registrar and your legal agents would have known this before commencing the prosecution three years ago. To state the obvious; I am a chiropodist, not a lawyer. I trusted what the Council and its legal agents had told me to be correct.


    Why wasn?t I informed in 2008 - when I advised the Registrar that I was deregistering but intended to continue in practice as a ?podiatrist? ? that I could lawfully do so providing I took every precaution to inform my patients and the public that I was no longer registered?

    Why was I not informed by the Council or its agents before or during the first prosecution about the relevance of the ITD element? I had made it repeatedly clear that I had acted openly, honestly and had never deceived anyone since I ceased registration. Given the significance of that information, why wasn?t I advised that I would be pleading guilty to an offence ?with intent to deceive??

    You must also consider Judge Pontius? remarks in the Old Bailey hearing:

    ?That charge [Misuse of Title], as recorded on the memorandum, does not mention any specific intent. It should have done, because it is an essential ingredient of the charge...the charge was not set out in full as the clerk read the charge?it was the wording of the charge as put that was the determining factor from my point of view that any idea he did have as very soundly reinforced by the wording of the charge as put to him?

    Judge Pontius then considered the application for my original plea of ?guilty? to be set aside, but not before making the following observations;

    ?The application was based on the Appellant`s understanding?He made his position plain throughout that he had not deceived, and I accept that he stated that [he]had no intention so as to deceive?His motive was the lacuna in the legislation that allowed the unqualified to practice??

    He then awarded the application for my plea to be vacated.

    The above comments are clear evidence that the Registrar has absolutely concealed the relevance of the intent to deceive element of the offence and has improperly misdirected the Court when he instructed the prosecuting QC to state otherwise. The evidence that was advanced by the prosecution in this case was factually wrong and has clearly influenced the Bench in reaching their verdict, as per the comments from the Judge.

    Whilst this statement from Mr Seale to Mr Menzies denying any concealment took place is incriminating enough, it is the final paragraph that I find deeply offensive and insulting. To suggest that the circumstances I now face are self-inflicted and that I am somehow responsible for the costs incurred in this prosecution is reprehensible.

    I have enclosed copies of the letters I sent to the Registrar in 2008. Had I been given the courtesy of a reply, acknowledging my concerns with an undertaking to try and address them through the channels that are open to him, then I would not have cancelled my registration and there would have been no prosecution whatsoever.

    Had I known about the intent to deceive element of the offence at any time, there wouldn?t have been a prosecution either. My only motive in defending this case was to secure an apology and a retraction of the highly damaging statement the Council issued following the first prosecution. You can have no idea the effect this case has had on me, personally, professionally and financially and it is perfectly clear from the Registrar?s remarks that it is of little consequence to him. That is, in my opinion, a disgraceful attitude not least considering his culpability and dishonesty and I sincerely hope you will distance yourself from it.

    Given the foregoing and the inaccurate and untruthful statements made in his letter of 17 August to Mark Menzies MP, I wish to formally raise a complaint against Mr Mark Seale for dishonesty, deceitfulness and gross misuse of registrant funds.

    I have to advise that I have already referred this matter to the Professional Standards Agency and I have asked Mark Menzies to request scrutiny from an appropriate Parliamentary Committee, whether that be Health or Justice or both. Naturally I will forward this correspondence to Mr Menzies and the PSA for consideration. In the circumstances, I hope that you will support my application for an independent inquiry into this affair, if for no other reason than to restore some of the confidence and trust that will undoubtedly be damaged by these revelations.

    Mr Seale is correct in one aspect; I was not prosecuted for reporting a concern, as I had na?vely thought. I was prosecuted because I had unwittingly and unknowingly exposed the lacuna in the legislation that your Registrar has regrettably endeavored to conceal. That is a disgrace.

    I would greatly appreciate if you could personally acknowledge receipt of this letter and enclosures by telephone or email. I would also be happy to meet with you this week to answer any questions you may have about these submissions. I realise that this is a difficult matter and I am sincerely sorry that it has happened under your chairmanship, but I ask you to carefully consider all that I have provided you with and take whatever steps you can to have this unjust conviction set aside.

    Can I also please ask that you reply directly to the issues I raised in my letter to you last Monday?

    I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

    Yours sincerely
     
  26. blinda

    blinda MVP

  27. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I`m sure my friend Bill has worked this one out, but just in case there is any confusion on anyone elses` part; Yes. The High Court confirmed that the titles `Chiropodist` and `Podiatrist` are NOT protected. Anyone with a qualification - be that a 2 week long-distance correspondence course, diploma or degree qualification - can use the title quite legally without registration, so long as they make it abundantly clear that they are not registered. The word `protected` does not appear anywhere in the legislation. Moreover, the more astute will note that Marc Seales` recent and personal rant does not include the wording `protected titles` either. Back peddling springs to mind.
     
  28. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Bel

    I'm sure it would be useful if you would let us have the text of this high court confirmation, or point us to where it can be found.

    Regards
     
  29. As requested.
     

    Attached Files:

  30. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Bel

    Having read both the transcript and later ruling I fail to see how you come up with your assertions. I suppose if you are selective in extracting from the text you could hope to argue your conclusions but they are dashed by the ruling !

    'By implication' is surely a catch all, telling a few individuals why you are not registered does not exonerate, intent is not necessary.

    Regards
     
  31. Right, John. Back to the toy soldiers and slippers. Intent is the offence.
     
  32. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    correction: express intent is not necessary, implied will do !

    Bel, have you deserted us. If you have something specific to confirm your claim, other than heresay, it would be useful to us.

    Regards
     
  33. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Well, I admit that I don`t have a lot of time for Pod Arena nowadays, for a variety of reasons. Not least the negativity...but, no; my "claims" are not heresy, or even hearsay.

    I may, or may not - depends if I can be arsed - make a more detailed reply upon my return from sunny Romania.

    Here`s to Ian & Andreea :drinks
     
  34. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Seems to me that Mark has indeed unearthed, at great personal expense, some important issues with many Podiatrists not now fully aware of the exact detail of the governance. I have a recollection to HPC transition and the promises then made and I seem to recall that quite a few members expressed dissatisfaction, for various reasons, but including the limited effective protection that was made available. I also seem to recall a sense of inevitability insofar as that it was going to happen irrespective of what the larger registered podiatry community wanted. Was there ever a referendum to poll the members? I don't believe so. So what to do now? I surmise from the correspondence the HCPC enacts but does not set the laws. The HCPC assumes the policing function of the laws set by parliament. How can a Podiatrist effect a change in the law? I posit he cannot. Can the profession make a collective effort to effect a change? Maybe .... but that would require a huge coordinated effort. Podiatry has a poor track record in collective action. Can the consumer effect a change in the law? Much greater likelihood of success but how can you mobilize public effort when the majority likely still think of the profession, to this day, as a medical pedicurist. We are, as always, between a rock and a hard place.
     
  35. W J Liggins

    W J Liggins Well-Known Member

    Hello Deiter. Thanks for that considered reply; of course, you have the advantage of observing from both the UK and the USA perspectives. You will recall (I trust with some fondness) the early days of the Podiatry Association who just 'got on with it' with the assistance of some distinguished USA podiatric surgeons and the entrenched opposition of the Society of Chiropodists, one of whose leading members wrote to the British Orthopaedic Association to request their help in "protecting the chiropody profession from these 'podiatrists'". While there is a will there is a way and a draft Parliamentary Bill was agreed by all the major bodies for the total independence of the profession. For reasons which I have never been able to discover, the Society pulled out of the agreement with the result that the Minister of Health at the time stated that if the profession could not agree internally, how did it expect to persuade parliament to pass legislation on its behalf? I can quote that great American man of aphorisms James Freeman Clarke that a politician thinks of the next election and a statesman of the next generation. He also said that true courage is obeying your conscience. I fear that the selfish sycophants who led us into the current miasma possessed neither statesmanship nor conscience and sadly, that appears to be the status quo.

    All the best

    Bill
     
  36. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Blinda,

    I used to think so too, about the occasional negativity expressed on the Arena. Well, until I discovered "The Podiatry Post" website. That forum is best navigated with the fortified shield of prescription medication, or a large volume of alcohol, or both. After a courageous foray it becomes clear that our Arena is indeed the epitome of civilized discourse. As always, everything is relative.

    Best,
     
  37. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Hi Bill,

    Thank you for your informed post. Much is lost, to antiquity. It might be worthy of a scholarly analysis to trace those steps and to publish those findings. Would this work count towards a degree? A roller coaster ride, is my visceral sense of recollection, of those days of transition. You find yourself man-handled into the wretched apparatus, along for the ride. Scream and yell, all you like, there is nothing to be done. Feel free to wretch, during or after the ride. The government focus, set on an agenda, as a knee jerk reaction to outcry over 'medical' blunders and mass murder. I blame Harold Shipman for this predicament. What was Podiatry's gain : nothing, right? The previously unregistered got invited along for the ride, and are happy about that I guess. That's about it? Perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps I am not. The professions did not get invited along to gain anything. The purpose is to scrutinize and regulate professions, in the vice-grip of a regulatory body and under the microscope of governmental regulation.

    What is a professional body to do, faced with the inevitable? The consumer might say "fine, we deserve to be looked after" by government. Mark's discovery (or re-discovery) puts a spot-light on the law & government, that exposes flaws to render their intention somewhat impotent. Will this change anything? I doubt it. To the impartial observer the 'system' will appear to work well enough, most of the time. And any remaining flaws hardly worthy of the law-makers to revisit.

    Perhaps SOCAP simply wanted to make the best of a bad job and offer their membership a ray of sunshine amid the oncoming storm. Was there 'intention to deceive' by our caretakers? On balance, I suspect not. After all, what choice is there, except to conform and assimilate. Podiatry UK is under ever greater pressure, or so it seems from across the Pond.

    But rest assured, Podiatry US doesn't fare much better.

    With Old Blighty often on my mind
    Nostalgic Best Wishes
     
  38. blinda

    blinda MVP

    So. The Health Select Committee are going to discuss the deceptive behaviour of the HCPC -- namely their concealment of the `Intent to deceive` element for `misuse of title` from all the professions it regulates - at its next accountability session. Please feel free to email them if you too were lead to believe that titles were protected. It doesn`t need to be a lengthy email (unlike mine!). Their email; HEALTHCOM@parliament.uk

    This was their reply;

     
  39. rosherville

    rosherville Active Member

    Belinda

    I can't help feeling it's wishful thinking or you're engaged in misleading spin.

    i) the Health Select Committee are not going to discuss the deceptive behaviour of the HCPC. Your e-mail is simply being passed to the Committee, you are choosing to suggest that they have accepted your interpretation.

    ii) your quote of the HCPCs QC is selective and not the qualified version.

    As the Judge said 'It is a matter of common sense. If someone represents themselves to be a practising podiatrist or chiropodist by using that word, a member of the public is entitled to assume and would undoubtedly would assume that person is qualified so to practice and has some sort of qualification allowing him to use that particular description'.

    This was was confirmed at the most recent hearing. You disagree with both judges !

    Bon chance and tread carefully.
     
  40. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Where have i said the HSC have accepted anything? They have agreed to discuss the issues raised at their next session "when the Committee holds its next accountability session with the HCPC".

    You accuse me of being selective - sorry i don`t recall you being present at any of the hearings, where "designated titles" were discussed at length - yet choose to utilise a quote from the verdict, completely out of context. Read your quote again. The Judge stated that use of a title could infer that they are "qualified so to practice and has some sort of qualification allowing him to use that particular description", which is true. She also said that Marks` qualification was not in question as he was clearly qualified, but whether he had acted with deceit in continuing to use a designated title on de-registration.


    On that derogatory and untruthful note, John. I will say goodbye to you.
     
Loading...

Share This Page