From Mr U. B. Patel, MRPharmS
SIR,-I have read the stunning news that you are to leave The Journal after over 30 years of service (PJ, July 1, p34).
The whole profession knows that the implementation of the Banks report has made Lambeth an unhappy place to work, where people are jockeying for places (usually at the expense of others) and pay rises rather than serving the profession and the public interest. If it were not my professional body's staff involved for a lengthy period in such constant in-fighting, the goings-on at Lambeth would be an intriguing melodrama to follow.
Not one to pick up a pen and write to the press, I find myself angry and frustrated and so, before writing, I rang Hemant Patel (Immediate Past President) at the beginning of July to find out what was going on. I have known Hemant since we were at the school of pharmacy in Sunderland some 20 years ago. Unusually for him, he was reserved in his comments and I sensed a degree of frustration. Normally he is direct and says exactly what he means but on this occassion his replies were generally short and revealed deep sadness at your departure.
That is understandable as we both come from Uganda where, many years ago, the first thing to go in the process of establishing dictatorship was an attack on freedom of the press and gagging of politicians. For this reason the profession should know of our sensitivities to an attack on free speech and reporting and undiluted commitment to preserving what is best in British society. Without free speech and a free press we would not enjoy democracy in the way we are used to in Britain. Hemant shared with me his memories of the process of limiting democracy in several countries where editors had paid a high price for not conforming to the views of the owners of the press or the politicians. While exchanging views on historical events, Hemant was back to his normal style of conversation, which is direct, serious in content and punctuated by the unexpected joke.
The next day, after having spoken to a number of pharmacists and friends, I rang him again and told him that having reflected on the matter I was concerned enough to write to The Journal with a specific intent of making sure that pharmacists were aware of the sad and deteriorating situation at Lambeth. When I visited the Society's headquarters both as an observer and a branch representative it appeared to me that there are severe problems there which need urgent action. I have said this before and I say it again - the Banks report and a lot of Pharmacy in a New Age implementation is a curse on our profession. We, as members of the Society, have to take a keen interest to stop this nonsense destroying what is good and what gives us a feeling of common purpose and destiny.
I quote further from a Chemist and Druggist report about your departure: "[He] has fought consistently to preserve the editorial integrity of the PJ, sometimes in the face of pressure from the Society's establishment, which finds it difficult to understand that the PJ is editorially independent and does not necessarily toe the official line. Two years ago he also successfully fought off proposals under the Banks management reorganisation plan, which would have seen the post of PJ editor downgraded within a general publishing directorate headed by a lay publisher."
The large majority of the membership, I believe, will not tolerate downgrading or changes detrimental to the status of the editor and so the membership must be fully consulted on this issue before any changes are implemented, or else we must all act.
In all this secrecy and confusion, it is easy to forget that you have worked hard and sincerely for the benefit of our Society for a long time. I wish you well and pledge to take appropriate action if The Journal's standing is adversely affected.
Umesh Patel
Sunderland