EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues An opinion

I was disappointed to see that Huw had closed the thread on the APS issue being debated recently.
I saw no malicious intent or slanderous reason to close a discussion that is close to all of us.

I read with interest both sides of the viewpoint and agreed with points from both perspectives.
Was the thread closed because it endangered the business aspect of EBME plc or is this subject taboo and not to be debated.
I have read, over a number of years, that this subject is important and, in some opinions, singularly important to the future of us as Healthcare workers in the public sector health environment.

I choose my wording carefully.

VRCT as an umbrella organisation of IPEM does not seem to want to engage with me as a healthcare worker but would like to lobby on my behalf because I pay them £10 per year.

I have never been asked my opinion, I have not been asked for support, to be perfectly frank the only correspondence I receive is the request every December for another £10.

Like others have stated in the APS thread, this is my last year of providing this fee to VRCT(IPEM.

Is this a protest vote? Maybe
Am I worried about the threatening letter VRCT will send to my employer? Absolutely not

VRCT needs to engage, convince and support its intended target group before it goes off lobbying 3 MP's, 2 back office staff and some cat with a blue/red/orange rosette on.

My MP was one of those lobbyed and I know him too.
Maybe I need to speak to him to see what his view point is

I too was disappointed, Dave.

But who knows what "complaining" goes on behind the scenes.

I fully support your viewpoint, and your right to express it Dave. The actions and tactics that the VRCT are employing in an attempt to garner support for statutory regulation, are to say the least, questionable and demand answers.

The use of our own professional forum's to seek these answers and exchange viewpoints is very important. I would hope that Stalwarts such as Huw, realise how valuable this exchange is and within the bound of site rules for posting, not moderate too harshly upon subjects of interest to the Biomedical community as a whole.

I don't believe I moderate too harshly. I do my best to not interrupt at all actually.

I have to listen to both sides.

Yes. And (or should that be but) you'll hear no complaints from me, Huw.

I agree with you Huw, I don't believe you moderate harshly at all.

However, you did close the thread without explanation.
Who complained, about what and is that what they asked for.

I don't care about naming names, if you've got a pair (or if you're female and haven't got a pair), put your name here and say "I felt I was being abused"

Otherwise let's carry on and debate amongst ourselves an issue that demands discussion.

All view points accepted, as long as it stays business like and civil.

Don't hide behind Huw

Huw, I have to say - don't know why the thread was locked either. This is an important issue. Puts me in a certain light as I was the last poster before the thread was locked. I am a big boy and can look after myself, but I would like an explanation as to why it was locked.

For all to know - Mike had nothing to do with that thread being locked. (Mike, you weren't the last poster in that thread.)

I am not going to explain why I locked that or any threads. A considerable amount of correspondence goes on behind the scenes and many of you do not see the posts that have to be deleted.

Please keep the debate friendly.

Absolutely right, Huw.

"Never complain; never explain" (the old British Public Schools maxim).

It's your site, and you can do what you like with it. If folk don't like that, then they can always start their own!

But writing as someone who has had more than his fair share of posts deleted from this forum, I think it would be far more "interesting" if you blanked the post (marked "deleted" or some such thing, but retaining the poster's name) for all to see and admire.

That way blokes like Mike wouldn't be falsely suspected of being a whinger.

Meanwhile, now we're all wondering who the mysterious "last poster" was. Why not "name and shame" (flame, blame ... whatever) and then send the poster to the "naughty step" for a day or two (or as long as you see fit); you know, a bit like a "cooling off period"?

If you take the ratio of the number of posts deleted divided by the total number of posts as the ratio of posts deleted. As the denominator increases so the value of the ratio tends towards zero. I think your ratio must be close to zero so perhaps you have had less than your fair share.
But I do agree that on a lot of forums only the content of a post is deleted leaving the name and details and not the whole post
Robert