Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:35:49 GMT

Sounds interesting! Well done for doing this!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 14:28:19 GMT

Louise B - thought of you this morning as we've decided to focus on providing veterinary surgeons and nurses who have been on the receiving end of unfair criticism or abuse online, with a new private group on each of the sites where you can give each other support and where we will be developing new resources to help.

Then someone said: "Hang on, why just online - usually abuse or criticism doesn't just happen online", so we've decided to increase the scope to cover any unfair criticism, abuse etc, online or offline, and from wherever it comes.

I'll be setting it up on VetNurse very shortly ... more news as it happens!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

C F — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 10:25:09 GMT

Back to the original beginning of this post. These people are campaigning for a political party to represent people - they knew perfectly well what they were doing. They flag the #BeKind hashtag - they do not walk the talk. So still waiting for a "sincere" apology . The apology Louise deserves. She is a million times the better people in this. ... In my opinon ... From my viewpoint... with you all the way Louise - no need to make excuses that facebook is this or it is that.

There is always been bullying in the veterinary industry - we just do not take it lying down any more - we speak about it which is a wonderful thing.

xxx

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 06 Dec 2021 09:51:33 GMT

[quote userid="2271" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32251/veterinary-voices-facebook-group/177543#177543"]Okay, I am back now. Electricity finally back on after 8 days, and now facing one hellish clear up as the wind brought down around 25 trees on my property.[/quote]

Wow - 8 days and 25 trees. That's a lot of both.

[quote userid="2271" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32251/veterinary-voices-facebook-group/177543#177543"]I think that is a good point that you raise Arlo and Selena. This is actually an area that is garnering interest among researchers, and the literature in this area is fascinating. [/quote]

Well, I think there is a lot of stuff about the more obviously negative aspects of social media, such as bullying and the way people post idealised photos and descriptions of their lives, making others feel like they are less good looking / intelligent / valuable etc etc.

I think the polarising nature of the hastily written word seems to be less widely discussed.

Also, I find it a bit strange that so many people seem so completely oblivious to how their words might be read.

A simple example:

If I disagree with someone online, I will always preface my reply with: "I think".

In other words, writing:

"I think you are wrong [about whatever it is]" qualifies my statement that they are wrong by explaining that it's my opinion and I accept I may be wrong.

"You are wrong", on the other hand, is an inflammatory, rather arrogant, polarising form of expression which makes the reader jump to defend their position.

And in my view, it's just bloody bad manners!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Sat, 04 Dec 2021 19:20:59 GMT

Okay, I am back now. Electricity finally back on after 8 days, and now facing one hellish clear up as the wind brought down around 25 trees on my property.

I think that is a good point that you raise Arlo and Selena. This is actually an area that is garnering interest among researchers, and the literature in this area is fascinating.

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 17:19:55 GMT

Hi all. Following discussions bug I am caught up in the Storm Arwen electricity issue. Just entering my 7th day with no electricity which has brought numerous challenges!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 09:41:54 GMT

[quote userid="2368" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32251/veterinary-voices-facebook-group/177523#177523"]Facebook is a pretty toxic environment period. My husband often has to come of it for periods of time as it really does affect its mental health.[/quote]

Yeah, there was a big article in the Times the other day reporting on a study which found depression associated with FB use, notably in the over 35's whereas for other platforms, like TikTok and Snapchat, the reverse was true (ie they were associated with depression in the under 35's). I wondered if that was because hardly anyone under 35 uses Facebook any more????!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/8b100bd4-4c8b-11ec-a89c-4bee41baeb9c?shareToken=ea37f0935be3238fc24a17c3bc4e0ad1

also reported here

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/social-media-use-linked-depression-adults-rcna6445

A certain irony in the amount FB is used by the veterinary profession, given the high rates of suicide.

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Selena Carnell — Sun, 28 Nov 2021 20:21:29 GMT

Facebook is a pretty toxic environment period. My husband often has to come of it for periods of time as it really does affect its mental health.

I avoided the threads about the alpaca issues, as due to her being quite close to my area it was all over the news here too, and all the local fb groups. Facebook has multiple keyboard pooh-stirrers too!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:35:36 GMT

[quote userid="2637" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32251/veterinary-voices-facebook-group/177508#177508"]For a Profession that cares it really is a melting pot of toxic behaviour.[/quote]

Ben Ogden It has been a while since I was in VV, but I think the potentially bigger issue is the way Facebook curates / censors information so you are more likely to see stuff it knows you are more likely to click on, and the way that it content is presented in chronological order (so you tend to see what is there when you happen to visit, rather than by subject), and the lack of provenance for content (as often as not, you cannot tell on FB whether content has been posted by a leading light in the profession, or someone who really doesn't know much!).

These are all things which are really bad for good scientific discussion, and I am amazed that more vets and nurses don't realise that, or don't seem to care. People all just want a quick answer these days, they don't seem to care whether the answer is actually any good!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Ben Ogden — Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:07:50 GMT

For a Profession that cares it really is a melting pot of toxic behaviour.

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Fri, 19 Nov 2021 13:58:45 GMT

Hi Arlo,

I think there is a lot of sense in what you have written and wise thoughts indeed. I was going to step away but I think I need to clear up some aspects.

I would like to establish though there there was no misunderstanding with regards to my removal or that of the other individuals also removed on similar grounds. I have that in black and white in a private communication with Mr Chambers. He just hasn't stated that in public so it may appear like a miscommunication/misunderstanding. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding and no miscommunication in that correspondence as to why I was removed on my part. It was just concealed in public facing correspondence.

Nor what there any misunderstanding on my part as to the admins putting up a statement within 24 hr of my removal stating the person causing all the trouble was removed. That is a factual statement in as much as a person was removed, and they believed they caused all the trouble. I am unhappy because that statement went up in close temporality to my status within the group showing as 'former member' and in knowledge if the erroneous grounds upon which I was removed. There is no misunderstanding there - that is all factual.

It is also factual that one admin and one moderator did not return either message. I do not have any other means of contacting them.

It is also factual that I chased the remaining member for several days for a reply/resolution and then issued a formal letter of concern to which I had no reply until after I had gone public, despite them seeing the letter within about 1hr.

I do agree though that this would have been have been much better resolved in f-2-f or phone contact, and feel that they should have made this contact with me and the other people so affected first. Or, better still, have more strongly moderated in the first place. It was clear they were 'moderating' as they removed the one person who said what was happening was unacceptable, but they still allowed the thread to run as it was still live when I logged in that night and saw the thread up to the point at which this individual had been removed, and also the subsequence responses to this up until when I logged out that night. That is also factual.

Which means that I still feel very strongly that I and the others should be exonerated and it acknowledged that we were unfairly singled out and victimised instead and then focusing on how there should have been prevention of that thread getting out of hand in the first place. There were previous precedents of threads getting out of hand and becoming nasty so this was not a new occurrence, albeit those previous threads did not involve named vet professionals on the register. I (and the others so affected) should never have been put through that upset, stress and exclusion, or the those individuals (the named RVN and Vet) mobbed on that thread. I find it hard to believe that the moderators also genuinely believe that was acceptable. Indeed, I have been told by one person they get the impression they are being more proactive with this now which suggests some recognition of the problems caused though whether that is driven by self-motivation or altruism or both I cannot obviously disentangle.

From the point of me going public I can see how your explanation works and I freely admit that I am very critical now of the administration of VV on the basis of my experiences, and that this will not be perceived positively by the VV admin team. However, right at the start of this was a false insinuation that lead to a punishment for wrong doings not committed. All it would have taken would have been for the admin team to communicate with me when I made contact and it was clear that I was upset and stating innocence, and say that:

"they were really sorry, with hindsight they over reacted and paniced under duress [I am sure they were stressed given the potential threat of legal action as the precedent is set in law for admins sharing liability for defamation in groups] and we realise that we don't have evidence, and we have reinstated you as a member. We also realise that the thread got out of hand and stuff was said that shouldn't have been so we are putting measures in place to deal with that".

I would have still have been very hurt that I was singled out for this in the first place and probably felt quite different about them initially until I saw change but I would have understood that they were not thinking optimally at the time. However, that didn't happen. I got ignored, and stalled instead, and multiple statements issued that denied there was a problem with that thread, when it would have been a very quick matter to resolve this. It is particularly hurtful given that Mr Chambers had been a FB friend for sometime and a quick look at my private wall might have given reassurance that alpacagate wasn't even figuring on my Richter scale and there was no history to be found on there of campaigning or similar or association with any people I was supposed to have helped. About the only thing on my wall for months is dogs, sheep and, well, more dogs and sheep I think... That said, now I do slightly know 2 of them I have considerable respect for them and their values and integrity!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 19 Nov 2021 12:53:19 GMT

[quote userid="2271" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32251/veterinary-voices-facebook-group/177494#177494"]Thanks for the vote of confidence. Arlo is asking about what I wrote after the admins just ignored me and my formal letter and then so on after that. And after I found out about the troublemaker post they posted at the same time. I gave written stuff that the admins and VV audience would consider inflammatory as I have robustly defended myself and called into question that account and motivations. I imagine no one likes their honesty and integrity called into question as well I know![/quote]

Online disagreements ALWAYS follow the same pattern. Someone posts something. Someone else misreads it and overreacts to the first person, in writing. They then overreact to the overreaction. And so it goes, until one side or the other spontaneously catches fire, or erupts, or explodes.

It's always the same way. It is always due to a failure of face to face communication.

I don't think this is personal, or about Veterinary Voices, or bullies or anything other than an over-reliance on the written word - which is perhaps ironic given I publish a platform which relies on the written word (although less and less so!)

The answer is ALWAYS to pick up the telephone, or better yet, Zoom.

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

C F — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:40:44 GMT

So proud of you - so proud to have a wonderful human being like you as a dearest friend - This week is Anti Bullying Week 2021 ---

Bullies remind me of narcissists... they make themselves out to be the victims...

We've got your back Louise xxx

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:28:10 GMT

Hi Carla,

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Arlo is asking about what I wrote after the admins just ignored me and my formal letter and then so on after that. And after I found out about the troublemaker post they posted at the same time. I gave written stuff that the admins and VV audience would consider inflammatory as I have robustly defended myself and called into question that account and motivations. I imagine no one likes their honesty and integrity called into question as well I know!

However, you are right that I didn’t do so at any point prior to that and for the first circa 6 days I think only a couple of close friends knew. Though I suspect they would take offence at me saying they should have moderated better and prevented that thread getting out of hand. I think you might have been one of the friends I confided in thought it is a bit a blur now without tracking back. I know my mother was one because I was tearful over that period dealing with all the other stuff and she knew about that. . I shared my posts (private fb wall) plus Twitter ft or the period between my letter being ignored and me going public to the bit where an admin responded as mentioned in an earlier thread on here but due to a misunderstanding deleted and have no inclination to re do it. As you know only to well given you have been a great listener this has upset me considerably given that I was scapegoated for something that I didn’t do and could have been avoided with proactive moderation. It has had a significant impact on my in terms of my mental well-being which is something I have to work hard at maintaining and now I am definitely struggling with it!

Louise

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

C F — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:04:02 GMT

HI Arlo --- yes agree with you in supporting @Louise B

And I can testify that she did not make any inflammatory FB or Twitter posts -- she is a woman of great composure and grace.

Louise - her integrity and professionalism is unquestionable - unlike some in 'positions' that should know better --- but it is all about "the clicking with the mean girls and boys" and #popularisim ...

If you have human values like empathy and respect for others and true kindness- you will not click with a certain lot.

I am one who understands and has great insight ... know how bullies work.

Carla

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:39:25 GMT

Gosh, again this really illustrates to me how absolutely essential it is to pick up the phone when there is any sign of conflict. With hindsight, you should have asked to speak to a moderator after you were thrown out, and they should have spoken to you before throwing you out.

Can you share a link to your FB or Twitter posts, I'm wondering how inflammatory you might have been!!! (obviously whilst feeling hurt and upset by the treatment you had).

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 12:34:44 GMT

Hi Arlo,

Very true.

No, I have not spoken to any of them. I contacted all three of them via FB messenger as the only medium I have. Initially I contacted informally with messages like the one below to the admins as it just seemed so odd. One of them replied (the one referred as spoken to below and they seemed bemused and said they hadn't removed me) so I contacted the other two. Neither replied to the message below.

I did communicate with the third one (who said wasn' them and would speak to other admins). I had some dialogue with them and it was left that they would speak to the other admins. Then nothing and I chased several times but got nowhere. I then issued a formal letter outlining why I was upset, what I assumed the grounds were for removal based on my comms with this individual, why this was unfair but also why I felt that what had happened to that named RVN was unacceptable.

Again no reply but it was clear from FB that one had accessed it within about 30 mins of me posting it.

So, after a further day I went public to see if anyone knew of any association. One of the admins was tagged into my FB post as a FB friend but still no mention or acknowledgement but they are very active on social media so I am confident they were aware, and then later on that day I disclosed why to friends and then beyond. And have been very critical about the admins involved as part of this.

I then had interaction with this admin on the Friday evening in which I was told they were busy with RCVS business, did not have time to deal with multiple social media issues, and were considering letting me back in but now because of my posts on FB/Twitter didn't think I would be a constructive member. However, absolutely no acknowledgement that they had accused and sanctioned me on no evidence and effectively the statements put out made it look to anyone who realised I was removed (former member) that I had done something wrong.

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 08:56:04 GMT

[quote userid="2271" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-veterinary-practice/32251/veterinary-voices-facebook-group/177488#177488"]Thanks Arlo. I appreciate this reply more than you could imagine right now! It has tainted my feeling about the veterinary profession because of the wider outfall to this and I am battling feelings of anger, sadness and negativity towards the wider profession now.[/quote]

As I said, don't let this taint your view of the veterinary profession, because that is not where the issue lies.

The issue lies with Facebook and society's growing reliance on the written word.

What we write, all of us, is often read in a far more polarising way than we ever mean.

Let me give a small example. If you write an email to someone you don't know without prefacing or appending any of the social niceties (Dear Blogs, Best Wishes), then almost regardless of what else you write, it can come across as rude. Brevity is a luxury between two people who know each other well.

I wonder if you actually spoke with any of the moderators on VV.

My view is that ANY SITUATION where either party is angry or upset demands to be discussed on the telephone or face to face. Social media or email is simply inappropriate for that, and usually has the reverse effect to the one you want (a resolution).

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Louise B — Thu, 18 Nov 2021 06:45:19 GMT

Thanks Arlo. I appreciate this reply more than you could imagine right now! It has tainted my feeling about the veterinary profession because of the wider outfall to this and I am battling feelings of anger, sadness and negativity towards the wider profession now. I am sitting now on so many private communications with people who saw that thread and could corroborate what I say, or have commented on how they felt it had been 'toxic' and under moderated for years, but people don't like to put their head above the parapet incase they receive similar treatment and are singled out. Veterinary Voices has a UK membership of 15k which must be around 1 in 4 of UK veterinary professionals so that is a powerful inducement to not being vocal.

There is also the worry that it will put them in violation of the Professional Code of Conduct vis a vis social media, not speaking disparagingly of another professional, etc if they openly back me. My argument here is that the PoC is not designed to prevent robust defence of your professional honour and the calling out of bullying behaviour, and there are no adequate mechanisms in place with the RCVS or elsewhere that allow for 'mobbing situations' in which no one individual has overstepped the mark to the point of being strike-off able but that, as a collective, this 'group' behaviour has done. It is a flaw IMO in the system of professional regulation. As someone who does not need their professional registration (I work primarily in human medicine now and not being on the register would have a negible impact on me as my earning potential, etc is 2 - 3 times better if I don't use my RVN qualification), I felt that I could stick my head above the parapet and not worry unduly as raising awareness and defending my honour is more important here.

What is more is that in the case of the RVN in question they do not know the backdrop to that situation and if that RVN was suicidal at the time from the immense pressure of fighting to keep her alpaca alive (whatever the rights/wrongs of this as I know that the alpaca battle draws strong feelings on both sides - I personally would also have fought hard if I believed that the evidence was flawed and my pet was being killed un-necessarily, but I can also see the other side too!), the treatment they received could well have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I am now aware that this individual was made aware of what was happening on VV was 'not in a good way' at that point in time, and the vet that joined did so as her friend to defend her name from calls to make a disciplinary complaint against her for 'this nonsense' (etc). That could have gone very badly wrong to the shame of the veterinary profession and to a Facebook group with a mantra of #bekind.

I definitely didn't leak info and I appreciate you acknowledging that you don't think I would. My friends were shocked too that I was effectively being accused of this, and it is almost laughable that this sits within the wider context of animal rights activism. As an academic/researcher who has worked under home office license on poultry welfare research at a research facility heavily targeted by AR activists during the 2000s AND worked on DEFRA funded research I suspect I am probably one of the people on VV least likely to have leaked material if that was a concern, but the statements put out in defence of their actions might have interpreted in this way because of a wider backdrop of DEFRA vets apparently being given death threats.

To be honest, although the thread was very uncomfortable reading (which is why I liked the post saying it wasn't acceptable, etc), it was probably the least of considerations. This has been a rough year for me healthwise and the VV event came hot on the heels of having to stop clinical work maybe a couple of weeks before because of intermittent vision issues that I felt were affecting competency (I did a shift at an OOH clinic and realised I couldn't tell if the Sevo chamber was full or empty or read the drug dosages in the compendium/bottle). I was already struggling with continuous exhaustion (by the point of diagnosis even a couple of hours of dealing with my work emails was sending me back to bed). That is one of the reasons why feeling connected to the veterinary community through social media was particularly important at the time and I had been an active member of Veterinary Voices for 4 years and never been 'sanctioned' or in trouble for causing issues, etc. While it always had a nasty edge in my opinion vis a vis some discussions it was also a very useful group in other ways for being in a veterinary social community and keeping up to date with 'how things were' etc. I even had one of the admins as a FB friend so you would have thought that it might have been fairly clear from the complete lack of animal rights type posts on my wall over the perhaps 1 year or so that we had been FB friends that I was not actively engaged in that community (though I believe that they have a right to legally protest and everyone/thing deserves advocacy, environment, animal and human alive).

I will never forget that weekend because I was in bed much of Friday/Sat/Sun worried sick I might be diagnosed with MS or something given the health issues outlined which would would be a nightmare given a live alone, semi-off grid on a smallholding in a fairly remote location, have a lot of animals to care for and am now watching my health disappear in my 40s a few months after I bought the place of my dreams. An alpaca being killed by DEFRA was not high on my priority list for obvious reasons at the time!!! I was barely even on the Veterinary Voices group over that three day period for the same reason.

However, the weekend that I was banned under suspion of print screening The admins have not publicly said this and instead try to invoke a rule of 'they have the right to remove people to preserve the community' but I have this in a private communication from Danny Chambers, who is the founder/admin of the site. So I was removed under suspicion of doing something I didn't do, without any evidence that I had, to preserve a community I hadn't done anything negative to that context - other than to like a post/comment on a post saying vet professionals bullying an RVN was wrong and they should apologise. To add insult to injury in the same 24h period that I was removed, Mr Chambers put a post on Veterinary Voices stating that the person who had caused all the trouble over the last 2 days had been removed. In conjunction with this, my name would also have now shown as 'former member' on the group and so anyone drawing the dots may have potentially thought that was me. I was an active member with lots of friends in the group so my departure may have been more obvious for that reason.

I didn't even know any of the individuals involved (I had seen the RVN's name in the press/online over the last few weeks same as everyone else, but the first time I had heard of the others was that Saturday night around 11pm when I saw the thread and the subsequent post that shared a statement). I do know two of the individuals now as I have communicated with them in respect of this matter - and have found both to be honourable people with deep felt integrity and a sense of disgust over what happened to that RVN over that 2 day period so if any good has come out of this it is that I have added two new people to my professional network that share many of my values of honesty, integrity and importance of defending individuals against bullying behaviour. But I am very hurt and angry over the situation - more so as I started to reflect on the wider ramifications of knee jerk responses being to taking measures to conceal behaviour considered to be bullying (and to cast the net wide to include people with no evidence of their involvement) rather than measures to prevent it continuing (e.g. lock/delete thread). It is seems logical to assume that environments that sanction those who hold a different 'legal' opinion by implementing social exclusion measures wield a powerful tool for preventing people speaking up about potential injustices, bullying, etc. It is a worrisome microcosm for a wider societal model that seems to run tangential to things like the Equality Act, anti-bullying in the workplace campaigns, etc because cover up behaviour is what allows these injustices to remain perpetuated and unfettered in so many contexts as people quickly realise that self-preservation means keeping silent or even being seen to back the dominant voice/grouping to ensure social/employment safety. No shortage of research papers that study aspects of this and its negative impacts on wellbeing, workplace productivity, etc. Putting aside my obvious level of hurt over being one of the victims here, I think it also has consider merit as an intellectual exercise to understand human behaviour and the need for human behaviour change. Fundamentally though, I still live in hope of a full apology and adequate remedy though for this miscarriage of justice against me and the hope that reflective introspection will drive acknowledgement of the need for this.

Ps. we have now identified the cause of the health issues and my health is improving. To anyone reading this, if you have chronic tiredness that is getting worse and potentially eye sight deterioration get a fasting blood sugar and check for diabetes. Do not assume that if you are not PU/PD that you do not have it and you only have to have mild hyoglycaemia for it potentially to have an extreme impact on cognition, memory, tiredness, etc. I cannot emphasis how exhausted I was by the end just from doing non-physical cognitive tasks and anything not on my to do list just got forgotten. Even down to things like remembering my dogs' names at times. Off my soap box now!

RE: Veterinary Voices Facebook Group

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 17 Nov 2021 17:35:49 GMT

I heard about this (alpacagate) a little while ago, but was still shocked to hear what happened to you.

As I said before, I think that the problem here is Facebook.

A number of reasons for that.

First, the very nature of the platform encourages people to post from the hip, so to speak, without much thought for their audience or the consequences of what they publish.

The immediacy of it all also encourages knee-jerk reactions by moderators, self included.

And of course the way that Facebook manipulates its users, ie you, in order to maximise advertising revenues, is appalling.

For example, I heard the Facebook algorithm gives more weight to the 'angry' reaction than the 'love' reaction, because angry = more time spent on the platform.

Having heard your story, I think it would be wrong to expel you from Vet Voices for leaking info, because a) I am quite convinced you didn't, and b) regardless of whether you did or didn't, they would have no way of proving either way.

And actually, when you think about it, where is the fault here anyway? Does it lie with the person who leaked the discussion?

Or does it lie with the moderators for having allowed the discussion to have developed to a point where someone in the audience felt it was necessary to leak?

I'd argue the latter (whilst having every sympathy with the moderators, because it is often a difficult line to tread).

I do think that in this day and age, the idea of having an online community and expecting things not to leak is misguided. The right thing, I am sure, is to assume things will leak, and moderate so they aren't worth leaking.