Kent Vet. struck off for false export certificates

Originally from: frances fish
                        
On www.rcvs.org.uk site today I read with disbelief that a Kent vet had actually been struck off the vets register for falsely certifying that horses were fit to be exported by stating that he had received satisfactory blood test results from a Weybridge Vet. lab. when he had not. How does this equate with signing a certificate saying that animals had FMD disease when they had not ? Is this not also a false certification ? How could a member of the SVS inform us that blood tests on our sheep were negative for FMD when, in reply to a Parliamentary question, Mrs Margaret Beckett stated that no blood tests other than those at the infected premises had been carried out ? (we were unlucky enough to be in a 3 Km illegal firebreak cull ). If any vet perchances to read this, would you let me know because I remain flummoxed by these double standards. Why were the vets who signed false certificates during the FMD epidemic not struck off ? Frances

Originally from: frances fish
                        
On www.rcvs.org.uk site today I read with disbelief that a Kent vet had actually been struck off the vets register for falsely certifying that horses were fit to be exported by stating that he had received satisfactory blood test results from a Weybridge Vet. lab. when he had not. How does this equate with signing a certificate saying that animals had FMD disease when they had not ? Is this not also a false certification ? How could a member of the SVS inform us that blood tests on our sheep were negative for FMD when, in reply to a Parliamentary question, Mrs Margaret Beckett stated that no blood tests other than those at the infected premises had been carried out ? (we were unlucky enough to be in a 3 Km illegal firebreak cull ). If any vet perchances to read this, would you let me know because I remain flummoxed by these double standards. Why were the vets who signed false certificates during the FMD epidemic not struck off ? Frances

Originally from: Burkie
                        
Dear Frances: Oh, this is good....compared to your Dr. Shipman. How long did it take your stupid government to strike hom of the list as a licensed Dr.? After all, it is said he only killed some 400 other human beings while licensed to practice in the U.K in Hyde. But then, you are the U.K. and you do things differently than we do. To say you are more tolerant of your hierarchy would be a total understatement and not a credit to my own opinion.

Burkie in Kansas

Originally from: Burkie
                        
Dear Frances: In my opinion, your "falsifying" vets "falsified" because they were told to do so...or else lose their precious license to practice veterinary medicine in the U.K. In other word, "they were intimidated by your own government agencies, ie, MAFF and DEFRA, and furthermore, they were "bought" by those very same agencies, to do just that. Can't you see that the goal of your Labour government is to eliminate livestock production in your own country?

I remain....in Kansas....still disbelieving the things that have happened to your own people in the

U.K.

Burkie

Originally from: Joyce

Originally from: coleen
                        
Just a pity Joyce that fmd did not open the eyes and ears of the people who's livings are going to be taken away. It would seem (yet again) that they cannot or perhaps they do not want to envisage a Country without animals and farmers to look after those animals. It very much reminds me of the miners – when they thought that we could never ever run a Country without our own mined coal and thousands of miners mining it! Look what we have now, imported coal. Maybe the economics on that issue do add up, and to import is cheaper. But to destroy 40 million sheep on a lie – then what next? Do the farmers think they will get the pay outs that fmd was providing, and then they will be able to just go back out and restock. Yet again as with fmd – where is their wake up call going to come from?
The few who did fight last time, cannot even do that this time round. Anyway there was not enough of us to make a difference – it would need every sheep owner to stand and refuse. They would only do that if they had the full facts, and like you say – there are plenty out there peddling the myths.

Coleen

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
Just to put the record straight!

MAFF/DEFRA had and has, no powers over veteriary licenses to practice in the UK.

Vets are regulated by The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Vets who signed 'False Certificates' during 2001 did so because they chose to do so, unwittingly or not! Ignorance is no excuse!

During 2001 many vets and farmers chose to follow 'blindly' the advice of MAFF/SERAD/DEFRA and regarded the information received from agencies such as the NFU to be accurate.

Therefore they agreed to and allowed the mass slaughter of stock, both infected and healthy.

Some of us did our level best to indicate the alternatives but with the best of our willingness were unable to inform everyone or collaborate with eachother in a co-ordinated and far-reaching manner. As with most human beings, personal agendas and egos tend to reign supreme at the expense of the common good.

It is well worth remembering that there were a few vets who questioned the policy and others who refused to have anything to do with the Govt's slaughter policy. We should also remember that it was a vet, Roger Windsor, who alerted us to the issue of False Certificates, a matter confirmed by the then President of the R.C.V.S.

Although a number of farmers and pet owners made complaints to the College in this regard, it seems the R.C.V.S. has chosen not to discipline the vets responsible. This decision rests with the R.C.V.S. and has has nothing to do with the Govt.

It is also worth remembering that a few farmers chose to challeng the Govt/MAFF through the Courts and in every case in which the legality of the policy was challenged, MAFF withdrew their action.

Thus the actual legality of the Slaughter Policy was never tested and decided in a Court of Law. Hence the need for an Open Public Inquiry remains.

There can be no doubt that the Govt was extremely concerned that the Policy adopted during 2001 was not completely within the law and therefore chose to amend the Animal Health Act last year.

In our frustration and anger at what was our personal experience and what some of us perceive to be continued threats to our livestock, it's important that we don't lose sight of the facts as they were then or indeed as they are now.

The media are often extremely useful in alerting us to all sorts of stories and possible situations that concern us but it is extremely unwise to 'believe all we read in the papers'!

If a story grabs our attention it is helpful to post a link to our friends and this board, but at the same time it's foolish to make judgements without extensive research and obtaining confirmation from as many reliable sources as possible!