Fascinating exchange:
Why did the GMC want to have a right to appeal?
Because they lacked confidence in their OWN MPTS system.
That's why they wanted it!
And now the debate has been moved along quickly by @sarahwollaston. Didn't want to explore that point then, Chair? Hmmm..
#HSC
Possibly, in terms of their ability to control/influence the hiring & firing of MPTS panel members who fail to demonstrate appropriate judgement (however you measure & act on that). But could also be elements of machinery out of their control, perhaps?https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/1052229128982814720?s=21 …
-
-
Well. The solution is in their hands. If the system is not working then surely it needed to be changed rather than asking the courts to second guess it.
-
That's where the surreal notion of MPTS being part of GMC, but independent of GMC comes in, no? GMC have to be seen to be independent, so use the courts as independent opinion bs arbitrary action. Massey might argue the new power was that change to the system you suggest?
-
Hmmm. But to lose confidence almost ab initio in the system as set up is nothing short of bizarre.
-
Guess it depends on perspective? As someone who's long since lost faith in that system it actually doesn't jar too much with me. He can't dictate to PSA, so he's found a way he can control. And I'm with him on the GNM conviction affecting public confidence in the profession point
-
From the other side it’s hard to have faith in a system that performs so appalling badly. I don’t know if you followed the case of John Walker Smith? I suppose that was the start of my disillusionment with the GMC.
-
I didn't actually. I'm necessarily selective in what I can follow and clearly missed that one. Have you a link please? What was it about that case in particular that disillusioned you?
-
I’ll get it for you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.