The editor of the PJ had written on 4th Aug 2007 (page 116)
“However, compared with most other healthcare professions (with the exception of the Nursing, where the economies of scale of over 600,000 registrants enable the Nursing and Midwifery Council to keep their fees low) the fees for belonging to a single Royal Pharmaceutical Society still compare favourably with the fees required to be registered with a regulator and be a member of a separate professional body.”
Well, if this is not biased it displays poor knowledge. The General Optical Council charges a mere £169 and has a fraction of members of the RPSGB (no economy of scale). I feel her statement was misleading, inaccurate and nonsensical and some would suggest deliberately misleading and biased. The editor should have known this to be the case as I have submitted letters in the past demonstrating very this point. I feel there is little impartiality in the PJ.
Did the PJ even provide a link for the recent petition appearing on gopetition?
Do you think the PJ is biased?
“However, compared with most other healthcare professions (with the exception of the Nursing, where the economies of scale of over 600,000 registrants enable the Nursing and Midwifery Council to keep their fees low) the fees for belonging to a single Royal Pharmaceutical Society still compare favourably with the fees required to be registered with a regulator and be a member of a separate professional body.”
Well, if this is not biased it displays poor knowledge. The General Optical Council charges a mere £169 and has a fraction of members of the RPSGB (no economy of scale). I feel her statement was misleading, inaccurate and nonsensical and some would suggest deliberately misleading and biased. The editor should have known this to be the case as I have submitted letters in the past demonstrating very this point. I feel there is little impartiality in the PJ.
Did the PJ even provide a link for the recent petition appearing on gopetition?
Do you think the PJ is biased?
Comment