Author wrote:
No, we do need the kind of state licensing system common to all normal countries, that is exactly what went wrong.
As the RCVS has failed to discipline members guilty of offences which would earn a gaol sentence anywhere else in the weorld, the have forfitted their rights in the matter. The honest memembrs have failed to institute reform, so they have to have reform imposed on them.
What on earth is the Privy Council doing being responsible for their regulation too? This is supposed to be a democracy.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it – but it is broke and has to be fixed. This is a democracy and we have the right to insist on change.
Regards
Pat Gardiner

Author wrote:
I fully understand and sympathise with what some of you are saying and in many ways am inclined to agree with you but...
I do think that above all we have to keep a sense of proportion here.
Some of you may remember that in the past the way vets are self regulated by the RCVS has been explained here and elsewhere. The alternative, a State Licensing system could and almost certainly would be far worse, both for us and the veterinary profession.
There is no doubt that the RCVS has much to do to put it's own house in order in many respects, nevertheless it would seem from this report that some of them are on our side and are trying to do this wouldn't it?
I'm sure most of you would agree that there are some very good vets out there and I doubt if any of you would not hesitate to call your vet if your animals were in trouble. To damn them all is both unfair and unreasonable and is hardly likely to persuade them to our way of thinking and put matters right.
I have not for one minute forgotten the conduct of some members of the profession during 2001 which was quite unforgivable, but we should also remember the vets who supported our cause and continue to do so.

Author wrote:
Isn't the boot on the other foot ? Isn't it the Government warning vets ? If the RCVS will not put its own house in order, it will, apparently, have it done for them. For a vet to say that "The integrity and validity of a certificate signed by a Veterinary surgeon has to be regarded as fundamental " sounds very good but, in actual fact, is a travesty of what really is going on. The guilty are going unpunished , transgressers are still free to practice their trade. The value of a signature appended by a vet is in serious decline. Why would it be regarded as "fundamental" when we know they falsify blood tests and false certificates despite denial were most certainly signed during FMD ?Have they finally realised the danger their profession are in ? By collaborating with Defra to profess that no vet was guilty of any wrongdoing during the holocaust of 2001 in a futile attempt to stave off swinging change, they have surrendered their collective integrity. They cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, sympathy is in short supply in this particular household. If 2 members of the State Veterinary Service had not signed a paper stating falsely that my sheep had FMD,they could not have taken and slaughtered them. They have much to account for and much to atone for. Unless or until, they humble themselves to do so, their decline will continue.
Frances