RCVS promotes dogfights

You wouldn't expect the RCVS to be involved with dogfights and neither would most vets, but apparently that's what's been happening. The RCVS has a record for staging 'handbags at dawn', although when that isn't possible, it appears to have developed an interest in dogfights. The motivation is seeemingly political where dogfights between vets, do boost the RCVS chances of successfully prosecuting vets, and as a regulator the RCVS is justified by the number of prosecutions it brings: ironically the RCVS prosecutes its own members. A case worker involved with RCVS prosecutions has reported that the RCVS felt it was lagging behind its human contemporary (the General Medical Council) in terms of bringing successful vet prosecutions [essentially to the public's attention].

The RCVS recently allowed one foreign vet to retain his MRCVS licence to practice, although he'd failed to tell an owner that he hadn't removed any of the reproductive tract when he'd attempted a spay. However, the RCVS 'persuaded' him that it was in his best interests to testify against a colleage. The colleague was a person that the RCVS had been chasing politically for some time - ironically, the colleague had previously refused to testify against the foreign vet.

Following recent discussions over a new veterinary regulator (to replace the RCVS), there's been a reported increase in the number of veterinary surgeons investigated and prosecuted by the RCVS: some would argue that this move was initiated by the RCVS to justify its continued existence as the veterinary regulator. The RCVS recently simplified its two-part mission statement away from improving veterinary medicine (previously part 2), and focusing solely upon the prosecution of vets (part 1). To promote its new focus, the RCVS is apparently using RCVS subscriptions. Whilst the RCVS solicits fees from companies selling veterinary equipment (ie. 2k GBP for a trade stand), it spends up to 150k GBP (from member subscriptions) to prosecute a single veterinary surgeon.

The example below typifies a case of the RCVS wasting membership funds to prosecute (vets) for political reasons.

If you are MRCVS and believe that charges couldn't be concocted against you, take a look at some of the circumstances described below - they might or might not encourage you to believe that RCVS reform could be worthwhile.

In the example below (with sufficient detail to establish some background circumstances) a maxim is suggested that numerous RCVS charges amount to 'no smoke without fire'. The converse to this appeared on a London poster which read, 'Eat faeces! One billion flies can't be wrong!' Subjectively, it could be mooted that numerous time-wasting RCVS charges amount to one thing - a significant pile of waste.

The interesting 'Mitt Romney factor' also represents a way in which facts can be manipulated to suit a particular point of view. Mitt Romney has been a Republican Candidate for the USA Presidential Nomination in 2012. His religious beliefs were cited as non-Christian and a Telegraph journalist (Alex Spillius) explained that fifty per cent of Americans view the 'Church of Latter-Day Saints' as non-Christian. What Mr. Spillius failed to explain, was that Mitt Romney's Church is in fact called 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'. Hence, it's not surprising (with this type of deliberate omission) that so many Americans don't view Mr. Romney's Church as Christian. The RCVS used similar tactics in the case cited below. [The charges and explanations are lengthy as well as tedious, so readers would be doing well to read through them. The most revealing information lies in the business and political circumstances surrounding the case, as outlined below.]

Background circumstances to RCVS complaints re vet 'A' of practice 'A':

1. Complaints re vet 'A' originated from individuals who transferred to practice 'B'. Practice 'B' opened up 500 yards from practice 'A'. Practice 'B' employed Practice Manager 'B' who had previously sold practice 'A' to vet 'A'. Practice 'B' employed two staff 'B' who resigned from practice 'A'. Staff 'B' had previously worked for Practice Manager 'B'. Practice Manager 'B' had been refused a post with practice 'A', and subsequently cancelled phone and fax lines into practice 'A', etc. Vet 'A' changed protocols at practice 'A' to conform to RCVS guidelines. Clients who transferred from practice 'A' to practice 'B' were angered by the changes at practice 'A', and the loss of services from practice 'A', when staff 'B' resigned to join Practice Manager 'B' at practice 'B'.

2. The facts in (1) above should have alerted the RCVS to unethical conduct by practice B (and its Practice Manager), and the complaints should have been dismissed.

3. Vet 'A' is supported (against the complaints) by two former RCVS Presidents and two incumbent CVOs.

4. Vet 'A' increased the RCVS membership by 35% through a prima facie legal case to gain MRCVS. The case in 2004 had involved the EU Commission and EU lawyers. The RCVS administrative workload has increased by 35% since 2004 as a result of the legal outcome of vet 'A's case.

5. The facts in (4) above gave a political motive for the RCVS to raise charges against vet 'A', and also provided the RCVS with motive for ignoring the facts in (1) above.

If the RCVS is to avoid its replacement by an alternative regulatory body, it could be argued that political agendas should be separated from individual vet prosecutions. It could also be argued that a replacement regulatory body would effectively remove politics from regular RCVS proceedings.