PJ Online | PJ Letters | Annual General Meeting

Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 275 No 7356 p18
2 July 2005

This article
Reprint Photocopy

PDF 76K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Annual General Meeting
· Registration
· Pharmacology
· Controlled drugs
· Technicians
· Birdsgrove House
· Registration examination
· Revalidation
· Supermarket pharmacy
· Dispensing
· New pharmacy contract
· PCTs
· The Society

Letters to the Editor

Annual General Meeting

Discrepancies in public statement

From Mr A. J. Burr, MRPharmS

Having had my questions “unresolved” by the then president, Nicholas Wood, at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s annual general meeting (PJ, 4 June, p686), I hope to receive a full and transparent response to the reasons for the discrepancies in the public statements made by our new President, Hemant Patel.

According to the Society’s annual review 2004 (p39), the then vice-president did not include the information that he was a member of the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. Despite this, his biographical details for the Council election in January 2005 clearly stated one of his current positions was as a member of the PSNC. Both cannot be correct and so I would ask that the President confirms when he ceased being a member of the PSNC and, more importantly, why?

Contrary to Mr Wood’s view that this should simply be an issue between two members, the fact of the matter is that the membership as a whole were informed in January 2005 that Mr Patel was a current member of PSNC.

Save Our Society campaigners promised us more transparency. Surely we deserve it. I look forward to reading the President’s comments in The Journal.

Andrew J. Burr
Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

HEMANT PATEL, President, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, replies:

I think first and foremost as a pharmacist, and practise as an administrator and a community pharmacist. I am also a member and secretary of the North-East London Local Pharmaceutical Committee and an elected member of the National Pharmaceutical Association board Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (although membership of PSNC is a matter of dispute because of a major, and hopefully about to be resolved, row between the LPC and PSNC). I hope this now clarifies the position pending the resolution of the dispute between the North-East London LPC and PSNC and I wish to apologise for any confusion or misapprehension that may inadvertently have been caused.

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Registration)