| · Eprex
· The Journal
· Council meeting
Letters to the Editor
|
The Journal
A funny smell?
From Mr A. R. White, MRPharmS
Is it just me who has a sensitive nose, or have other members sensed
a funny smell coming from the direction of the PJ where this year’s
elections to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council are concerned?
In the issue of 24 April, there are three items which could turn voters
away from the seven candidates who are running in support of the Save
Our Society campaign. These are on the first page of the news section
(p495), the letters pages (p506) and the first of the Society pages (p519).
I had hoped that the PJ of 1 May would, at least, have included a satisfactory
explanation as to why the two letters had been published. To be told
that they were allowed because “they did not specifically mention
names” (PJ, 1 May, p543) is unacceptable. What would the decision
have been if a letter had referred to “current members of Council” who
were seeking
re-election?
What happened to the rules for letters which states that “a simultaneous
right of reply” may be given to “letters that are critical
of individuals or organisations”? The best we are given is a two-line
quote, completely divorced from the letters section (PJ, 24 April, p495),
in which a spokesman said that the SOS and the candidates themselves
had agreed not to engage in any activity that might be construed as canvassing.
I am beginning to think that the “dirty tricks department” has
a hand in this, either by publishing documents which appear to come from
those who oppose it or, perhaps, by exerting undue influence on the editor.
As regards the claim by some complainants of “concern about use
of personal data”, surely they do not believe the Society had made
this available.
Did no one appreciate that, in publishing these statements at this time,
there was a presumption that the SOS candidates had been tried and effectively
found guilty in their absence? Furthermore, was this matter really of
such urgency that a statement had to be made immediately? A simple letter
to those who had complained about the mailing would have sufficed (for
the time being); after all those (like me) who had not received the mailing
would not have worried about it.
Alan White
Gravesend, Kent
| |
We accept that the SOS candidates themselves agreed not to canvass
for support but it is clear that an anonymous supporter, or supporters,
of
the SOS group was not prepared to abide by the canvassing rules in
the run up to the Council election. The electorate, many of whom like
Mr
White did not receive a canvassing mailshot, were entitled to know
that the
mailshot existed and that the Society had received complaints about
it. Members were equally entitled to comment on it in our letters
pages if
they wished, just as Mr White has done in his letter. To suggest the
involvement of a “dirty tricks department” is mischievous, and no influence
has been exerted on the editor.
— Editor
|
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal