Just realised why HSL is so optimistic- she states she doesnt read anything by anonymous authors. She shows a wonderful understanding as to why NHS professionals often choose to write anonymously these days. Being anonymous doesnt mean that you are making your opinion up, I wonder if she also ignores anonymous whistle blowers? If she does, is that not negligent? and if she doesn't does that not imply a degree of hypocrisy? Also if she's not reading these comments why are they moderated? She just stated that these authors don't exist in her world..... in which case can she be a bit more honest when she states she represents 52000 GPs, she certainly doesnt represent me. And as this is a pseudonym and I therefore 'don't exist' can she bring her total down to 51999?
Actually, I think her opinion is that ignoring anonymous comments isn't a powerful strategy at all, I think picking up random ones and detailing why she disagrees with them would be more useful at engaging with those GPs who as a group are disengaged from the RCGP, turning around their opinion would be an impressive mark of leadership, her current 'powerful strategy', well anyone can do that. The sticking the head in the sand is not winning over sceptics, merely reinforcing their negative opinion, not of her personally, but of their belief in her ability to make meaningful change for the better. HSL wants people to identify themselves, I understand and respect that other GPs might wish to remain anonymous, given todays political environment so why can't she?
I found the use of the phrase 'real nastiness and personal vitriol' again a reminder why I use the phrase- 'we choose to be offended'- at her level she shouldn't be taking things personally, and again she seems guilty of hypocrisy for, on one hand, not wanting frustrated colleagues at the coal face to vent in front of their juniors and telling them that they should do it at their seniors, yet on the other hand, when some contributors do exactly what she wants and they express it directly to the top (when comments are directed at her) she ignores it if the depth of frustration felt by the contributor is such that it is expressed with anger/ disrespect? (Even though she also states in this article that she appreciates some members are very angry and embittered) I was taught a long time ago that respect was earned, through action. HSLs views expressed here, and of several of her predecessors,remind me why I lost faith in our leaders and why I emigrated. I am much better off elsewhere than in the UK under the current leadership. How long was I supposed to wait for the pendulum to swing back? (I don't think it will in the next 15-20 years) If HSL couldn't inspire me to stay, how was I supposed to inspire trainees to do what I wasn't prepared to do myself? I led by example.... took action, and left. I could happily persuade young trainees to move to my current practice, I can't recommend they leave to work in the UK.
On a separate note..... if there were 3 men in that photo shoot would anyone be claiming that women were being under-represented in the RCGP? Not exactly a gritty feet to the fire interview.... more an opportunity to give her views...... again..... Dear Ed, the interviewers asked four questions, but they didn't interrogate the responses given....how about a follow up article asking her to reply to readers comments?