From a non UKHSU member's viewpoint.

For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

From a non UKHSU member's viewpoint.

Postby PNB » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:15 am

john Ford

Post subject: Anyone About or is it Spring Already


Has everyone been told by the powers that be, to stop posting onto these boards or face getting struck off the register. Or have your wives got you all out in the garden Spring cleaning?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted, PNB

John,

I have been tied up planning a strategy for the AGM of the FRC. I will come back on line after 1st March.

In the mean time would you care to comment on the meeting we had with the WCF / RCVS that could be very constructive for the future and for me personally helpful. This, an agenda item for debate on the 1st March at the FRC - AGM!!

Sadly your contributions were put up for consideration in the debate in accord with the stated 20 day statutory period as an agenda item along with 5 other items. Your contributions and all of those of others listed below contained within my consultation area were needless to say rejected by the council secretary. The grounds were there was already to many papers for the members of council to read.

I happen to agree the agenda is overloaded and a motion will be proposed that several items are left held over to a special meeting in the near future. The matters rejected were :-

1, Mature Apprentice Training Matters.

2, Powers sought by the new farrier training agency.

3, On going craft skill development. OCSD [CPD].

4, FRC's response to RCVS review.

5, Advice requested on integration of farriers with the RCVS act.

6, Paedophile.

PNB.

Details of our meeting were posted as a LINK, by admin a few days ago.
The UKHSU report of the meeting is now published at

http://ukhsu.com/vets2.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted,John ford

Peter, my main concern at the moment is one that probably you and many others would not agree to, or wish to bring to the notice of the FRC. And that is: Before the FRC move on to other issues or broader developments in the case of joining the umbrella of the RCVS.
Could they stop and reflect on what the 1975 Act was put in place for. To protect the horse and its owner. The FRC should spend more of its finances in checking the work done on a day to day basis by us registered farriers, and not as at present having loads of verifiers running around checking unskilled apprentices. The Ministry of Transport check MOT stations on a regular basis to protect the public because there is a law that has to be policed. Why not Farriery?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted, Site Admin

Fitness to practice is an issue. A licence to practice is not going to be for life for Doctors or Vets and it may well be that farriers have to prove their fitness to practice as well. I doubt that it would be by teams of inspectors though, more likely having to retake the Diploma every so often? Anyway it is one of the things being considered under the review of the veterinary surgeons act. However whether it will come to anything is doubtful. If a farrier can't shoe properly his customers will dump him, so it's not likely to be an area that requires much intervention from on high.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Posted: PNB

John,

Regarding your concern about the 1975 Registration act. farrier-giles puts it quite well, animal welfare is very well catered for under the animal welfare acts, which includes farrier registration.

The matter of animal welfare as was pointed out at our meeting on the 31st, is at the very sharp end of the RCVS / WCF thrust to integrate farriery under the umbrella of the new veterinary services act. This perception is most probably somewhat misplaced and a result of misinformation pedaled as a smoke screen. The proving question has to be where is the record of unsatisfactory workmanship [from the animal welfare view point] recorded. Admin is quite right with his conclusion, a failure under the banner fitness to practice would lead to loss of personal client base.

The one successful recent conviction for an offence of failure of animal welfare was automatically dealt with within the farriers registration acts direction, An Automatic Disciplinary Offence [which however was totally unrelated to any act of farriery, it was if fact a domestic dispute].

This result of this last case heard of a welfare failed respondent was \ and still is that he became struck off for life. John is that tough enough??

PNB.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


john ford

Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 11:41 am

Maybe I am placeing this message on the wrong board. Feel free to place it on the correct on.


I do think that many of you are missing my point on this subject of checking registered farriers day to day work, and are hiding behind words and events that mean nothing. At the moment we are left with a system that requires the some times ignorant horse owner to lodge a complaint to the FRC. This doesn’t happen with a garage that carries out MOT testing on cars, nor do they wait until an accident happens before anything is done.
Peter, I gather what you are saying that this would lead to farriers being ditched by their clients if someone mouthed off about the work the farrier was doing on a particular horse.
Well that depends on how you go about checking the work done by all of us, I don’t hear about garages loosing their licence for poor work. It is simple if carried out in the right way, and I will give you my example of how it could be achieved without anyone being hurt or their business being damaged in anyway.
First let us establish one thing. We are not looking for show shoeing or just a smart finish to work, just normal basic shoeing that we have all been taught over the years.
We could have maybe just two official persons to work the whole of the country, just walking into private yards, riding schools etc: with a questionnaire attached to a clipboard. Questions such as: Name & address of horse owner: Name of horse: Address where horse is stabled: Name of Farrier: Date of last shoeing: Period between shoeing: (Get confirmation on this by seeing a cheque or diary) Where horse was shod, for example in a field, stable, hard covered standing, or in poor conditions all round. Check that horse is good and quiet to shoe: Plus any other questions that may be important to establish a true reading as to the work done. Note: These people could also find and prosecute unregistered farriers at the same time.
Naturally in every case the horse owner will ask the question like, Are my horses feet shod well. And in every case the answer would and should always be yes with no problems. And that the person carrying out the checks is just doing his job for the FRC as the law requires. The standards checker could also advise the horse owner if they felt the horse should be shod more frequently.
If after a period of time or visits in an area, a farriers name keeps cropping up (with, in the eyes of the person doing the checking) is persistently doing poor below standards of shoeing. Then that farrier is contacted either by post or telephone, and if they can’t explain why they have a problem, then he/she will be required to attend one of the Schools of Farriery for a week at their own expense, to relearn their basic skills. Either that or face Disciplinary that could lead to being struck off the register.
We have to understand that horses are not lamed by shoeing once or twice poorly, yet continually shoeing poorly over a long period, results in the horse finishing up at the veterinary surgeons. Much of this could be avoided if we had a system introduced as outlined above.
Please remember I am a farrier as well as all of you, and I’m not the best by any means of the imagination, and I would raise my standards greatly if I knew that someone one day would be checking my work.

Back to top

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted: PNB

John,

Maintenance of a client base has little to do with policing and nor should it. Maintenance of a client base is all to do with client satisfaction irrespective of "Ignorance" [your quote] which is from a satisfaction viewpoint a non issue.

It may simply be down to bedside manner, and not skill levels, but my feelings are farrier police should do nothing to influence the clients trust in his chosen craftsman which will happen under your system. Congratulate the best, the others will tow along.

We hear time and time again things such as complaints based on persistent loss of shoes, a pricked horses feet, discipline of a horse which is violently beating up a farrier. That's where the farrier police should come into play to investigate, then establish or mitigate the claims of the disavowed and uninformed. We have to ask however are
farrier police the wrong people to investigate, we hear of them being subversive, watching craftsmen as they leave their homes, sneaking into stable yards to spy and hiding in stables, is that what you want John??

Investigating complaints should be down to someone who knows and understands how it is in the farrier's world, understands what is unacceptable, can collect and collate evidence and present it in a form that protects the respondents legal rights, something that is currently deficient in the current disiplinary system.

I will give you an example, in a recent case a very eminent senior farrier wrote a letter to support an accused farrier, to support his defence, the senior farrier could not attend the hearing. The prosecuting council would not allow the letter to be entered as evidence as it was not in the prescribed legal format, I suppose it would have kibosh-ed the case if it had been allowed. It actually mattered not a jot, the case got chucked out, however the accused farrier had a £14k legal fee to pay.

Prosecution, if any need exists for it other than in very few instances, most could simply be a figment of imaginations, I DOUBT the need abounds. When identified any actions should / must be undertaken by the major welfare agencies, the follow up disiplinary actions are laid down in the current registration act.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

History speaks volumes.

Postby PNB » Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:46 am

John,

Your quote, "I do think that many of you are missing my point on this subject of checking registered farriers day to day work, and are hiding behind words and events that mean nothing"

SORRY JOHN I AM AT ODDS WITH YOU HERE. "Means nothing", To be struck off for life means an awful lot!! Specifically when this complaint which was a result of an attempt to accommodate an inter family domestic dispute made by a person starving a horse towards her farrier step father and the subsequent [inappropriate] action he took. Yes, the RSPCA were involved and seemingly did nothing before the event!! [A formal complaint was made to RSPCA by UKHSU].

Some of the craft who were at the hearing simply feel this was an instance of the step father's poor judgement, not something that required the permanent taking away of his livelihood!! it was unrelated to the job. I have little doubt that with the correct legal team both the hearing and most probably the appeal to relicense would have been non events.

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

c.s.c

Postby csc » Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:42 pm

in a perfect world i would agree with john.but in reality the diciplinary procedure goes against the accused
vast amounts are spent to justify the system when in reality abritration might have been more constructive
i was ther at the case mentioned, it was nothing to do with farriery but a publicity spin for the f.r.c. NOTE THE PUNISHMENT FOR BEING UNREGISTERED IS MENIAL compared to that of a registered farrier ,

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:02 pm

Ok guys, but you couldn’t have taken in all that I posted. You are talking about a farrier being struck off for life, which is the system in place at present. With my suggestions it would never come to that point because the farrier would get the opportunity to refresh his skills for a week at one of the Schools of Farriery, which is no more than a short break, which farriers take in a normal year of their business. Look at the cost of Solicitors, Investigating & Disciplinary Committees at present, plus the awful slur on the farriers character, and what effect the present system has on his/her family.
With my proposals no one would know if a farrier had to attend a week at College to refresh the basic skills. Craig I am not trying to look at, or make a perfect world, just trying to get people to see common sense for all concerned. That being the farrier: horse owner: the horse: and getting the FRC to do its job for the right reasons. I have always been against any farrier’s name being published in the Farriers Bulletin by the FRC for what ever reason. I have ***ked up many times in my life whilst shoeing a horse and have been lucky enough not to have been reported. I though have been fortunate to recognise my failures and seek help from my peers, others my not be that way, and need pushing or encouraged to relearn the basics. And not being taught a lesson in a court of law or by the FRCs courts of law, as at present.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:43 pm

John,

Point make and taken. Re-validation then, but selective re-validation not blanket up skilling. Shall I attribute the idea down to you.

Hope it won't become an exercise in revenue collection.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:45 pm

As I have said Peter if things were made simple it would work. For instance, if a shoeing checker was found to be running down a farriers work to a horse owner, then he should be up before disciplinary the same as any of us. This can be achieved in a very simple and professional way, and could stop the FRC from using their dictatorial methods in things they know nothing about. At the moment the FRC don’t achieve anything constructive towards the standards of farriery being educated in the long term for all of us qualified registered farriers, only on a voluntary basis. Wasting money to put farriers out of business rather than educate, is not only pointless but criminal in the highest degree. £24.00 on the registration fee would put one man in a car to check our work, and save time and money catching the unregistered farriers.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Mon Feb 27, 2006 9:30 pm

John,

In real time how then will you select those that need selective re-validation?? How do you feel leads should be established?? Will it be by random visits to the work place?? or maybe visits to places where horse owners and their animals gather, equine events and horse shows?? or simply will it be when horse owners raise informal complaint?? maybe you are suggesting all of these places should be targets??

Your idea seems to you fine in theory, your costings stack up, in fact the savings if this system engages maybe would let it be self funding, a great chunk of the money currently used for formal disiplinary actions would be saved, which must be a good thing. Maybe the re-validation route could even be offered as an alternative to a disiplinary hearing.

There is a bit of a conundrum however ever for others viewing your ideas, we need a slightly broader view of just how you feel it will in practice be done and how it might work, further still who will under take such investigations [brave men they will be].

PNB.

.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:26 pm

My way would be random visits to livery yards, horse shows, anywhere that there are horses shod. But only select horses you come across with the owner or person in charge of the horse who orders the farrier to shoe. You could have the same person visit a client whose complaint was against a farrier for poor shoeing, but not for anything else.
As to how one can determine a good fair standard against a very poor one is not that difficult. Although I am against the NVQ system, many factors can be drawn from this, and I am not talking about nails being driven in a straight line, or shoeing with width or length, because as we all know there are different stiles of fitting to the work that the horse does. I can go into far more detail with a simple conclusion on how and what one should be looking for in a normal day-to-day job, if you are interested enough.
Who should be the poor blighter to do such a job you ask. Well there are plenty of retired farriers at FWCF & AWCF levels around who wouldn’t mind travelling around the country and being paid for the privilege. And with my plan they would have set rules to abide by. Just remember that most of us are not very happy with veterinary surgeons making comments about our work, when most of them can’t even use a hammer. That said just remember what I stated in one of my last postings. I would make it illegal for any shoeing checker to comment on bad shoeing to any horse owner or interested party, other than the officials running the show. Again as you can see all ready with my plan we can cut out vets making ill judged comments to horse owners on shoeing very quickly.
I have had my mentors slag off a job to my face in private, with advice to correct it, which I have been very happy to accept. But if they had done it in front of a client or another farrier, I can assure you that I would be very upset and would have learnt nothing from the experience. This plan could work with sensible organisation by the right person. Give to the likes of MWN and his crew, and it wouldn’t stand a chance of working.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Checks

Postby Giles » Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:36 pm

That would suit me, and I would be happy to do it, so much for being afraid to do it. I dare bet I would be at the back of a very long queue.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Feb 28, 2006 7:32 pm

How about this Giles & Peter. I have just sat down and made a draft questionare for a Shoeing Inspector to use when making radom checks.


(1) Establishment visited: Date & Time, Name & Address
(2) Name of Horse Owner and Address
(3) Horse: Name: Colour: Breed: Age: Height/Size.
(4) Work done with Horse
(5) How long has the Horse been owned by present owner
(6) Farriers name and contact number
(7) How long has client been using this farrier
(8) Date when Horse was last shod, and date if known of next shoeing
(9) Where was the Horse shod
Stable: Check size?: Field: Hard Standing or not: Under Cover or not: If not Weather Conditions at the time of shoeing.
(10) Check that Horse is quite to handle and shoe.
(11) Carry out inspection of shoeing using Official Guide Line Form
NOTE: At no time should client be shown comments or notes made on form.


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest