Jiglu: Farmtalking: Discussion: RE: Senior vets voice alarm

Originally from: Pat Gardiner

Author wrote:
To 'tar all vets with the same brush' is hardly fair or just.
It is true that many signed false certificates during the so called FMD epidemic, resulting in the slaughter of millions of healthy animals.
However, it is also worth remembering the we were alerted to this fact by a veterinary surgeon, namely Roger Windsor.

Actually, with respect to Mr Windsor, that is not quite accurate.
I reported MAFF vets faking tests and declarations immediately before FMD to the police, Trading Standards and MAFF including direct to Scudamore.

I also reported the matter to the Select Committee of the House of Commons. The writer’s written evidence (M3 -11 Dec 2000) to The Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons has been placed in the House of Commons Library where it may be inspected by Members.

Other copies are in the Record Office House of Lords (tel. 020 7219 3074) where they may be inspected by appointment.

You can read all about the complaints, with the dates on http://www.users.waitrose.com/~patgardiner/

Since then I have twice had to apply to The Speaker for his protection from the antics of the State Veterinary Service – once in the last month, when we threatened to go into political asylum if the harassment did not stop.

Even in the last few days, it has become apparent that FMD was not the first occasion recently that the veterinary profession has preferred cull to vaccination because of exports. I quote from the Animal welfare Symposium November 2000

(http://www.bva-awf.org.uk/default.asp?channel_id=672&editorial_id=6138 )

“Regarding vaccination against CSF, Mr Harvey believed that this would be in the best interest of the pigs but pointed out that there would be problems in trading with other countries.”

Everyone forgets now that approaching 400,000 pigs suffered horribly and died as a precursor to the FMD fiasco. I was there and saw it. It was all human greed and fraud managed by bent vets.

Sure there are honest vets, there must be, but where are they?

Pat Gardiner

It is also true that the President of the RCVS at the time, Roger Eddy, also a veterinary surgeon, drew this matter to the attention of the Chief Vet, Jim Scudamore. Roger Eddy also warned vets via the Veterinary Record, of the risks associated with signing a false certificate.
The fact that many vets, including those from abroad, ignored the warning and the excuse that they were 'only doing what was instructed by their employers' has been used, does not make all vets guilty of the same crime.
Many vets, including Andrew Stephens, and others who contribute to this message board and/or read it, are appalled at what happened last year and continue striving to ensure such a disaster never happens again.
To refuse to consult or pay a vet for services ever again, seems to be based on a very weak principle and show a callous disregard for the suffering of one's animals.
If one of my animals is seriously sick, I would certainly consult a vet as soon as possible and be grateful for their help, advice and treatment and certainly pay the bill!
To be honest Gary – I guess you would too!
Author wrote:
British Veterinarians are a laughing-stock for sure....at least as far as I am concerned. You over-charge your services. Mark-up vaccines by 3,000% and expect the Public to patronize you. No more. Not here. I will never pay a vet another dime.
Burkie
P.S. The British Vet community can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
=------------------------------------------------
Author wrote:
Senior vets voice alarm at bullying allegations
By Robert Uhlig, Farming Correspondent
(Filed: 31/08/2002)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Sixteen former presidents of the British Veterinary Association have voiced concern about trouble at the top of the organisation after allegations of harassment, staff intimidation, bullying and possible financial mismanagement at its London headquarters.
In a letter in the Veterinary Record, the BVA's official publication, the past presidents, whose tenures date from the Fifties to the Nineties, say a lack of transparency over the findings of two independent inquiries into the allegations is tearing the profession apart and damaging its reputation.
One former president said yesterday that the crisis at the BVA's headquarters in Marylebone, London, was "turning us into a laughing stock in the eyes of the Government and the public".
Another past president of the association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, now retired from practice, said the BVA was in "fucking chaos". He added: "This is creating a loss of public confidence in the BVA and the profession, which is even worse."
The turmoil comes as outsiders are questioning the association's role, particularly after foot and mouth. While members were under severe pressure at the height of the outbreak, their representative body was accused of failing to take a decisive stand on key issues such as vaccination.
Members have been frustrated by the association's failure to sort out conflicting advice on the 20-day standstill rule imposed on livestock farmers after foot and mouth.
After concerns over staff turnover at the headquarters, the BVA Council's Internal Audit Group set up an internal investigation, which prompted an independent inquiry last year at £1,000 a day. The association's executive refused to disclose the contents of the internal report to its council, even in secret. It cited legal advice that it said could lead to the association being brought before an industrial tribunal.
The independent report detailed concerns about the management style of James Baird, the association's chief executive, and Ailsa Edwards, the assistant chief executive.
The Report to the Executive Committee of the British Veterinary Association regarding concerns held by current and past staff regarding their employment lists a catalogue of problems, including "low morale and an atmosphere of distrust, secrecy and fear".
Andrew Scott, president of the association, said lawyers had advised him not to comment on the report's contents.
The independent report was "being actioned". He said: "In view of the necessity for the process to be conducted fairly I am not in the position to say any more."
Mr Baird was unavailable and Mrs Edwards declined to comment.