Misleading Statements.

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.

Misleading Statements.

Postby PNB » Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:55 pm

Dr Holtom expresses his concern.

Giles
Location: SW Wales


There seem to be some statements coming from the WCF and the FRC and it’s offshoot that find to be misleading and illogical to say the least. They may well not be to the issuer’s of these statements, but I find them seemingly deliberate. If they are not, then perhaps someone could explain them to me, something the powers that be signally have failed to do.

The first one is that they are there to protect animals and their welfare by ensuring that all Farriers are qualified and registered. Now that shouldn’t be that was hard should it, though they seem to make heavy weather of it, by taking on board the prosecution and judgement of welfare issues that are covered by the animal welfare acts of Parliament. I should have thought the only time they could be called in are as expert witnesses at the Magistrates or County Court, which are there to judge these sort of things. The prosecution of these cases could and should be carried out by the various bodies i.e. RSPCA etc. or by the owners of the animals. So why have the WCF and the FRC got involved in something which has nothing to do with them and is costing a lot of money, to both parties.

The only thing they should of course judge is the standards of the examination which they of course have set up, that shouldn’t be so hard should it. If you ask the question, then you should find the answer easy This they seem to find difficult and need standards to be altered and restated at intervals. After all the exam should only judge whether the student/trainee/apprentice whatever to be able to shoe horses of various types and disciplines competently, and know the theory of this action. So what is new, except possibly the manufacture of jobs for people to oversee the detail of this. To pass this exam you need to be apprenticed for 4 years, attend college, if you live in the UK. But if you don’t then it seems easier as long as you have a piece of paper saying you have worked as a Farrier for a couple of years and you take the Dip.WCF and pass it, away you go. legal. Why doesn’t this apply to UK citizens as well. As long as the training is under the supervision of a suitably qualified farrier then this should apply to all, why not. Jobs again do you think, I do as it can’t be anything else, and it costs more money as well!!!
_________________
Giles
www,farrier-giles.co.uk

Dyn deallus gwybod pryd dim i siarad.

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

Has farriery taken the wrong route??

Postby PNB » Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:16 am

Giles,

I agree the training system has become over complicated, bureaucratic and vastly to expensive. A view of the balance sheet will when it becomes available demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the system, advance notice presented at the induction meeting seems to demonstrate a massive book loss.

The questions:-

The acid test must be is all this complexity, bureaucracy and expense education beneficial??

Does the cost, control and effort actually enhance the knowledge the student is able to glean through the NVQ system??

Does the current new entry hold benefit over those trained before NVQ??

Conversely have NVQ's depleted the practical skill level of newly qualified craftsmen in order to create a paper mountain of checks and balances??

Personally I have serious doubts there are many if any beneficial elements to NVQs for a tradesman who will trade as self employed, he needs no transportable medium to demonstrate a skill level save DWCF after his name. In fact it could be argued it NVQ has had a negative effect, the exam pass out failures seem to make that point.

What it seems has happened is there are a newer younger group of ATF's currently employing trainees, so many of the senior ATFs must have walked away, definitely the senior ATFs have reduced the numbers they train. I doubt that the reason for this is that the NVQ system is employer friendly, but is it student beneficial??

PNB.

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:05 pm

peter

Is it just possible that finally the standards are being raised.....!

The NVQ system stops those apprentices who are struggling from being put up for the Diploma too soon.. It gives the whole system structure and a base for all ATFs to work from....!

It does create paperwork, and from a selfemployed point of view we dont need the extra qulifications... but from an atf point of view...why I have an idiots guide of what my apprentices should be achieving at any given point during those four years...

Cliff Barnes

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:07 pm

last sentence of the previous post should have read

Why NOW i have an idiots guide of what my apprentices should be achieving at any given point during those four years....

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

Postby PNB » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:21 pm

Cliff,

I am listening to what you are saying, keep talking!!. You know I will put and defend your view point at council and here, that is why I am here, that I feel is why I was elected, but you have to tell me what you want me to represent.

It was good to see you at FRC today, have you any comments / observations on the meeting you would care to share with the readers of these boards.

PNB.

PS, Out of interest, I am able to edit my own spelling, grammar and word omissions. I have to seek a special code from admin to delete porn and obscene postings, which I have had to do three time recently when admin cannot get to his own screen to do so, this action was taken at the request of John Ford which he made due to the extreme nature of the pornography posted by some idiot. You can always take it up with him.

A report of the meeting will be posted here shortly. Feed back is requested.

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

Postby PNB » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:32 pm

Cliff,

Your Quote "Why NOW i have an idiots guide of what my apprentices should be achieving at any given point during those four years"....


I had to fight for years for that, I suffered as did my lads by the fact there was neither a syllabus or stage guide until there were NVQ's. I clearly remember a quote from H Cooper at the time the standards for NVQ's were being formulated, [we had about 30 meetings, 29 which I attended]. The quote, " It doesn't matter if we get NVQ's or not, we will at least end up with a syllabus".

PNB.

cliff barnes
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 5:24 pm

Postby cliff barnes » Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:40 pm

Dear Peter

With out question a syllabus of any sort to assist both ATF's and apprentices has been a great thing.

The meeting on Wednesday... Very interesting... good for me to be able to see how things work. As for feed back where should I start...

Defra Issue: According to the vet from the comittee then they are looking long term before the new vet act will come in..."about 2 yrs"
this all still seems very vauge, it would be nice to believe that we do have a couple of years to organise ourselves...If thats the case then we really can take the fight to them if we can all unite on a common ground.. WCF, FRC and NAFBAE will all have different stances on the subject due to thier different rolls in the farriery community. But with some carefull integration we can and will be a strong and determind force.. If the ukhsu can organise them selves to be recognised by the FRC then they also should be allowed to have an input, but in fairness if the view of ukhsu and NAFBAE differs then we have problems...

FTS/FTA:(the split of the frc into two parts, split off of the Training side) I need to look into this more before I could comment. but from what i understood from the meeting then the split is being tried but if it fails then back to the drawing board. But the FarriersTrainingAgency could end up as a self funding unit that would answer directly back to the frc.

The other issue that is of real interest to the man on the street was regarding retention of complaints on the individuals permenant record... I agree that if not charged with the complaint then it should only stay on your record for three years. The reason for this is that if more complaints are made in that three year period that are similar then a pattern can be seen giving the disiplinary the chance to decide if its a one off or a more regular offence..
If convicted then I agree it should stay on your record.
The next step that I intend to put in to action is to put a time limit on the period in which a complaint can be raised..? Not sure if i explained but the complaint that was made about me last year was from FIVE years ago (2001). I t took five years for this ex client to make this complaint, due to the length of elapsed time I was unable to prove or disprove her claims.
No other profesional body that i have spoken too has an open ended complaints time. Even in the health service it is up to a maximum of three years, but normally only two years...This needs to be addresed, but we have made some progress..

Iam looking forward to the next meeting.

Cliff

Ps Thanks for the clarification of the posting issue. It was not explained to me in that way.

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

Postby PNB » Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:47 pm

Cliff,

Thanks,

Firstly FRC have had the location of the details they say they need in order to acknowledge our existence, it has been outlined to them many times. Search ukhsu.com you will see for yourself. UKHSU made a conscious decision not to be the Joe Boy of an autocratic, non democratic organisation, a decision made on principle.

We speak for our craft when requested or when we feel it to be necessary, we give the craft a voice, then communicate any responses. The declaration made at council is simply an example of FRC posturing, maybe because UKHSU are perceived as a problem, which we are in regards that we have questions, which we need answers to and will share those answers.

UKHSU are acknowledged by DEFRA, WCF, RCVS, The Scottish Executive, LANTRA name most other farrier / animal welfare organisations and we are able to show we interact with them, with most in a consultancy capacity. Come to one of our meetings to check us out, 22nd March 2006, Blacksmiths Arms, High Wycombe is the next date and venue.

You are welcome to attend as my guest, we are open truely democratic and further more we are not solely interested in animal welfare but more so how things will affect the craft.

I think there is statutory limit of proceedings of 6 months laid down in the registration act. My gut feeling is that FRC were out of order even bringing to your notice a complaint the result of an incident some five years earlier. If you belong to the Countryside Alliance or UKHSU you get 30 Min's of Mathew Knights time free, which may if he confirms to statutory limit enable you to have the complaint expunged from your record. If you wish to take this route speak to secretary@ukhsu see our web site, he will advise you how best to use your 30 minutes. I will in the mean time research the statutory limit.

Keep Posting, hope to see you on the22nd.

PNB.


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests