Is the PJ biased?

[Cherrypicker999]

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?

[Fat Rafa]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

of course they are...never heard of the monkey and the organ grinder !!

[admin]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

You are attacking the editor of the PJ personally here. Stop it, or change it, or I'll pull it.

If you want to put links to articles in the PJ for discussion then fine, but your posts are coming across as a personal attack on an individual.

This is looking like a one issue trolling exercise and we have had a couple of attempts at this before. Neither was very successful.

[the old merlin]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

Just be careful, Admin. As I understand it cherrypicker is making a valid point, given what has been openly posted in the past.

I don't agree with what I believe cherrypicker is saying, but I will defend his right to say it. And as I read the posts, it wasn't him who started quoting names.

[Jeff]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

The General Optical Council charges a mere £169 and has a fraction of members of the RPSGB (no economy of scale).

You are not comparing like with like - the General Optical Council is regulatory only

About Us

"The GOC is the regulator for the optical professions in the UK. Its purpose is to protect the public by promoting high standards of education and conduct amongst opticians. The Council currently registers around 22,000 optometrists, dispensing opticians, student opticians and optical businesses.

We have four core functions:
1. Setting standards for optical education and training, performance and conduct.
2. Approving qualifications leading to registration.
3. Maintaining a register of individuals who are qualified and fit to practise, train or carry on business as optometrists and dispensing opticians.
4. Investigating and acting where a registrant’s fitness to practise, train, or carry on business is impaired. "

For representation they have things like
Welcome to ABDO

Jeff

[Cherrypicker999]

Is the PJ biased?

"The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) is the professional and regulatory body for pharmacists in England, Scotland and Wales. It also regulates pharmacy technicians on a voluntary basis, which is expected to become statutory under anticipated legislation.

The primary objectives of the RPSGB are to lead, regulate, develop and represent the profession of pharmacy.

The RPSGB leads and supports the development of the profession within the context of the public benefit. This includes the advancement of science, practice, education and knowledge in pharmacy. In addition, it promotes the profession’s policies and views to a range of external stakeholders in a number of different forums.

The RPSGB has responsibility for a wide range of functions that combine to assure competence and fitness to practise. These include controlled entry into the profession, education, registration, setting and enforcing professional standards, promoting good practice, providing support for improvement, dealing with poor performance, dealing with misconduct and removal from the register."


The above statement is just more detailed.
Optometrists don't have any other body.

What is the difference to the RPSGB and GOC?

They also set standards for education and training (CPD) as RPSGB.

They have exactly the same role and they don't support contract limitation.
Also, they stop pre-reg students in Boots stacking shelves. Yet the RPSGB is happy for pre-reg pharmacists to do that. 4 years education to stack shelves.
So are pharmacists glorified shop assistants?

ABDO is for dispensing opticians (non-graduates) and not and Optometrists (graduates).
An Optometrsit would not join. They have no other body.

Ask an optician!

[Cherrypicker999]

Is the PJ biased?

Dear Admin

How do I post a link to the relevant PJ?
I have simply quoted what was written. It is one and the same.

I thought this site was for open discussion and not censorship.

I have not named the editor. How else can we discuss what the editor wrote?
How is this a personal attack.

I did not state "Is the editor biased" although this is a a fair question.
I asked is the PJ biased.

Please explain this to us all.

[Trebor88]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

I agree with Old Merlin, he is so wise. I also believe the PJ is heavily biased towards the RPSGB. I am very clear about its stance on technician registration, contract limitation and similar topics. Admin, if the PJ is perceived to be biased, the Editor rightly bears full responsibility; but that doesn't mean we can't even say it or discuss it.

[Jeff]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

Optometrists don't have any other body.

Not true.

About the AOP - Association of Optometrists
"THE AIMS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF OPTOMETRISTS

The principal activities are to:

1. Represent individual optometrists, whatever their mode of practice. The Association also represents a small number of dispensing opticians.
2. Promote the professional and clinical independence of its members and the profession.
3. Encourage and assist in the development and promotion of high standards of practice.
4. Establish suitable arrangements for the defence, in disciplinary and professional matters, of all members, whether in practice as principals, assistants, employers or employees.
5. Advise on commercial, economic, legal and administrative aspects of practice.
6. Represent the interests of all of its members in negotiations for fees, other remuneration, conditions and terms of service, where appropriate.
7. Represent and promote the interests of all of its members to Parliament, Government and other institutions in the United Kingdom and the European Community."

Jeff

[Cherrypicker999]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

The membership figure is?

The RPSGB does not do this.

The RPSGB supports contract limitation (CL).
Most pharmacists are employees. CL is not in the advantage of employees
hence not in the advantage of the majority of members.


What does the NPA do then?

2. Promote the professional and clinical independence of its members and the profession.

3. Encourage and assist in the development and promotion of high standards of practice.

4. Establish suitable arrangements for the defence, in disciplinary and professional matters, of all members, whether in practice as principals, assistants, employers or employees.

5. Advise on commercial, economic, legal and administrative aspects of practice.

6. Represent the interests of all of its members in negotiations for fees, other remuneration, conditions and terms of service, where appropriate.

7. Represent and promote the interests of all of its members to Parliament, Government and other institutions in the United Kingdom and the European Community."

[Jeff]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

[QUOTE=Trebor88;6919 I also believe the PJ is heavily biased towards the RPSGB.[/QUOTE]

People need friends of all political colours - so where was pharmacy?

"Our representative bodies should be doing all they can to make sure that key opinion formers are well-briefed on the issues. We need to do much, much better. "

Doesn't sound that much like a fan club for our representative body

Jeff

[Cherrypicker999]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

AOP provides the benefits below ---- does the RPSGB?

Hence one cannot say GOC + AOP = RPSGB


GOC = RPSGB
AOP = NPA

That is the closest comparison. Ask an Optician!


All members are automatically covered by the AOP’s Pro-Guard legal defence package, which includes:

Professional Indemnity insurance
Product Liability insurance
Tax and VAT investigation insurance
Free legal helpline (24 hours a day, 365 days a year)
General defence assistance
Disciplinary hearing assistance (GOC, employer or PCT/NHS Trust)
Criminal prosecution defence
Fraud investigation assistance
Defence of civil proceedings
What are you covered against?
In brief, the AOP gives its members an unrivalled defence service, which gives assistance to members in just about all the eventualities which an honest practitioner could expect to encounter during his or her working life. In the event of a patient making a civil claim against you for malpractice or negligence the AOP’s insurers will pay any compensation awarded against you up to a maximum of £2 million. This sum will include both the patient’s and your own costs. The policy also covers the work done by optometric advisers.

The Tax and VAT insurance cover offers additional reassurance (and cost benefit) to the practice owner and the free, 24-hour legal helpline offers advice on any topic (personal or business), all year round.

Whatever your mode of practice, Pro-Guard offers you a real, tangible benefit and is explained at great length in the following pages of the handbook. If you are unsure of anything regarding your cover, please contact the AOP. We will be delighted to help.

Your insurance is given on a “claims made” basis; this means that while you are an AOP member your insurance will cover you, even for events which took place before you were a member. The downside of this is that if you cease to be a member, you will cease to be insured – even for events which took place while you were a member.

Retirement: if you are an AOP member when you retire, we will give you run-off cover for a one-off fee. In other words, when you retire, you will remain in AOP membership without having to pay us an annual subscription fee to cover you in your retirement.

[silnarnin]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

I think it is biased towards the views of Lambeth. They only seem to say their side of the story, or what do they want to happen. It might be only a feeling, because I can't think now of examples besides the raise in fees question.

I also had the impression that the PJ was sponsoring the idea of a Royal College for pharmacists and technitians. What do you think?

However, I thought that the PJ was the voice of the society. I didn't know that it was supposed to be independent.

[Cherrypicker999]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

To keep the admin happy

A well known editor of a well known comic being discussed claimed that the comic is independent of the organisation we are discussing and has editorial freedom.

How pathethic this sounds. Surely, all hidden names are obvious and they are in the public domain. Can't I state the editor's name, the comic and the organisaton.

It does not take a genius to work them out.

Come on admin, what do you say?

[Linnear]

Re: Is the PJ biased?

I believe that the PJ is independent.

The question is, is the editor?


That may be a different matter. Cherrypicker you can make some really good points but you have a tendency to hide these points within half a tonne of what appears to be highly emotive rant.

Calm down a little put your points across more concisely and you might get people to listen a little more.

Just a thought.