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.

HCPC -v- Russell

Discussion in 'United Kingdom' started by Mark Russell, Aug 8, 2014.


  1. Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    A trial date for part three of this case has been confirmed for 17 September 2014 at City of London Magistrates Court . Those with an interest in these matters may wish to make to make suitable arrangements. It's going to be a very interesting day!

    Mark Russell
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 15, 2014
  2. blinda

    blinda MVP

    The HCPC perserverance is admirable. Although I`m not so sure that registrants would laud them if they were aware of the costs (ie their paid fees) incurred by the HCPC thus far....

    Meanwhile, I`ll be suitably arranged at the aptly named Perserverance post proceedings :drinks

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  3. Admin2

    Admin2 Administrator Staff Member

  4. Or stupidity. Yes it would make an interesting FOI request at the conclusion of proceedings -and that does not neccessarily mean this hearing.

    Perseverance it is. Just as well - aren't we barred from the last place?
     
  5. Mark can I/we have a bullet point of where we are at.

    I got lost alone the way :)
     
  6. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

     
  7. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

    Yes Mike Weber

    Sometimes it is like being lost AND alone the way......(that Podiatrists must walk!)
     
  8. blinda

    blinda MVP

    What happens at The Jampot, stays at The Jampot ;)
     
  9. Yes, of course, but later in the week, if I may. Hope you're well.

    Kindest
    Mark
     
  10. I know, I know, I know. It was the peanuts.....:empathy:
     
  11. There was a pre-trial hearing today at Hammersmith Magistrates Court to determine the admissions in the case - as the Hoochie-Coochie Pogo Club have been consistent in their obstructive practices in recent weeks. The trial date has been fixed for 17 September 2014 at the City of London Magistrates Court which is situated next door to the Mansion House and across the road from the Bank of England.

    If you are interested in such matters, I would be delighted to see you there.
     
  12. markjohconley

    markjohconley Well-Known Member

    there isn't a 'Good Luck' button so, Good Luck!
     
  13. Whilst not wishing to appear presumptuous, especially as legal proceedings are still active, I would suggest that those of you who hold HCPC registration and are engaged in private practice, may wish to consider the position of the NMC on the use of titles. I will clarify the position with our own profession in due course.

    http://www.nmc-uk.org/Nurses-and-mi...-qualification-after-registration-has-lapsed/

     
  14. Well fancy that, you might say. Obviously the significance of the foregoing link to the NMC has not yet registered, if you excuse the pun. The NMC and the HCPC legislation are one and the same. It means, of course, there is no such thing as protected titles - like chiropodist or podiatrist - or nurse or midwife. The law does not allow it according to the Nursing Council. There is a clear difference between registration and qualification and both confer entitlement. That means, as stated previously, it is perfectly legal to call yourself a chiropodist or podiatrist - but you should not call yourself a HCPC Registered [title] unless you are registered with them. Goodbye to FHPs and good riddance to the HCPC. What does it mean?

    It means the HCPC have been acting out-with their remit for the last 13 years and have been telling you- the professional - and your patients - a lot of porkies. Aside from putting the public at risk through their FtP process, it's taken an erroneous view of the legislation and pretended they had legal ownership of the professional titles. It doesn't. If you hold a qualification in podiatry, you have ownership and entitlement. Expect SMAE and the other training schools to start advertising 'chiropody' courses in the near future - as well as those on a voluntary register, who can quite legally refer to themselves as A. Registered Podiatrist - A. = Alliance for example.

    You might wonder why the professional bodies like the Society and the Institute have not looked at the legislation more closely and advised its members of the implications for those in practice, but it leaves the UK profession in quite a strange predicament. Do I recall some murmurings for a General Podiatry Council? Do I care? Does anybody? Close the door on the way out chaps.
     
  15. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Could just be that, like me, many don`t always believe their eyes. I certainly had to read the NMC position statement a few times last week before the enormity and implications thereof, set in.

    Or maybe, people are not prepared to comment until the waters have been fully tested.

    Either way, the next couple of weeks are going to be very, very interesting.....
     
  16. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Hi Mark

    ...The NMC and the HCPC legislation are one and the same....

    Is this because when the HPC was founded (now changed name to HCPC) it used the NMC model as its framework or because it is identical? I ask because I am ignorant of this? Would there be a difference between using something as a framework as compared to using the identical positions with identical statements?
     
  17. Hi Ian

    The legislation is the same. They were enacted on the same day - one following the other in Parliamentary process. There are differences - such as terminology - but the relevant parts are exactly the same. No doubt some similar announcement will appear on the HCPC website after next Wednesday although probably not along the lines of "Fcuking Hell - we got it completely wrong and we've been misleading everyone for the last 13 years...sorry". But they have and they will be.

    Mark
     
  18. Ian Linane

    Ian Linane Well-Known Member

    Then if this is the case, Mark, might it not only impact upon more people using a title, albeit not claiming a certain registration, adding to further confusion for the general public. But in addition, and I am not ofay with the legal ramifications of such a situation, for those who have had a conviction against them under this supposed act will it mean this has to be over-ruled? The implications, if this is correct, might take a lot of working out!!!
     
  19. Ian

    The public don't give a rats asre about the HCPC - I would think that 99.5% have never heard of them. No one has a conviction either - I did briefly until my appeal but that was the first. There have been a few registrants who have been struck off and still continued in practice under a different name - clinical director, fhp - spring to mind. But the reality is they didn't need to - they could simply have said chiropodist or podiatrist. As long as they didn't claim to be a HCPC registered C/P. Even SMAE and the rest of the private trainers didn't really have to change the name on their courses.....
     
  20. blinda

    blinda MVP

    This is the statement taken from the H[C]PC and recorded on the CHRE (Council Healthcare Regulatory Ecellence) Professional Standards Document Feb 2010;

    http://www.professionalstandards.or...ered-practitioners---good-practice-report.pdf

    The CHRE are the Council that scrutinises and oversees the work of the nine regulatory bodies`, including the NMC & HCPC who, as Mark has pointed out, are bound by the same legislation.
     
  21. blinda

    blinda MVP

    I understand that many colleagues are taking the time to show their support for Mark this Wednesday 17 September at the City of London Magistrates Court, which is nice. If anyone needs to contact me by phone, please PM me here for my temporary mobile number, as my usual phone is at the menders:eek:
     
  22. Here we go again....:morning:
     

    Attached Files:

  23. Good luck, Mark. Fight the good fight!!!:drinks:drinks:drinks
     
  24. Kaleidoscope

    Kaleidoscope Active Member

    Bel

    I'll be right alongside you, as always, to support Mark and its heartening that others will be coming along too!

    See you at 9 outside the Court

    Cheers
    Linda Russell
     
  25. Tkemp

    Tkemp Active Member

    Wishing you all the best and hoping for a successful outcome.
     
  26. Sorry I don't have anything else to report but the case has regrettably been adjourned until 26 January 2015. Many thanks to all of you who came along today - I think we might need to issue tickets for the next session.....
     
  27. So, Mark, what happened? Did the HCPC see you swinging that slingshot and taking aim for a head shot and then suddenly remembered the words from 1st Samuel, Chapter 17, and decided that they didn't want their head paraded around as a trophy?!;):boxing::cool:
     
  28. Mark are you still working as a Pod ?

    Jan 2015, seems a long ways off
     
  29. Wendy

    Wendy Active Member

    Mark, I am disappointed for you that it has been adjourned but I am really hoping to be able to be there in person with my daughter (studying Govt & Politics A level) next Jan.
    Wendy
     
  30. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Be great if you can, Wendy. It`s heartening to see the growing support and if anyone would like to know how they can help further, please PM me.

    Bearing in mind what the HCPC`s statement was in #20 of this thread, namely; "the HPC recognise that the threshold for pursuing prosecution is high and the cost of pursuing prosecution without the ‘realistic prospect of success’ is an inappropriate use of registrant fees." I`d be very interested to hear what costs for registrants has been for this case, thus far.

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  31. Kevin, et al.,

    I'm afraid I can't give commentary on the proceedings as the case is still live and anything I say may be sub judice - and I don't want contempt proceedings at this stage! I can say that the prosecution have finished their case and the defence will present their case when it resumes in January. There will be another hearing after that when the judge will deliver his written verdict.

    I can make comment about the costs of this case, Bel. We received a costs application from the HCPC after close of business on Tuesday with a claim of over £20,000 for yesterday's hearing and the two preliminary court hearings in August and early September. There will be another two hearings after that with similar costs. The costs for the initial case were some £4,800 and of course there is still the matter of the Old Bailey hearing which we don't yet have but will likely be similar to the initial case last November. These are the counsel costs - for the barristers and QC. Their solicitors costs will be an additional liability. My own legal costs so far are just short of £10,000. In answer to Mike, no I am not working. I closed my practice last December following publication of the HCPC's press release alleging I had been convicted of a criminal offence with intent to deceive - dishonesty, in other words. My loss of income this year is around £70,000 so far. At the end of the day the costs will likely be in excess of £150,000 - for an attempt to secure a conviction with a £270 fine.

    I'm not a registrant, obviously, but if I were, I think I might me asking the chair of Council whether that represents good value for the money - never mind the enormous risks of a failed prosecution....

    Many thanks for the kind wishes and to everyone who turned up yesterday - it was hugely appreciated.

    Mark
     
  32. Pauline burrell-saward

    Pauline burrell-saward Active Member

    Wondering why the trial has been adjourned??

    The pre trial review is supposed to iron out any issues so that a trail does not have to be adjourned on the day.

    One assumes you didn't ask for the adjournment as you appeared keen to go, so the other side must have done so.

    If so, did you( or your council ) argue to go ahead or were you over ruled??
     
  33. Can't say, sorry.
     
  34. blinda

    blinda MVP

    Hi Pauline,

    Why don`t you pencil in 26th Jan 2015? Then you can join us and witness first hand the trial as it unfolds? I`ll even buy you a pint of nun`s delight at the Jampot post proceedings :drinks

    Cheers,
    Bel
     
  35. Pauline burrell-saward

    Pauline burrell-saward Active Member

    So the case wasn't adjourned, but part heard!!!

    Still 4 months is a long time

    Whilst you are proper not to make comment at this time,it is a public hearing and not secret.

    We will all wait , what a saga, you could write a movie based on your experience and pay off your debts ( if you have any)
     
Loading...

Share This Page