PMETB - correspondence from GP VTS committee

Dear All
Please see correspondence below regarding fees to the PMETB. Note Muhammed is the outgoing chair of the VTS.
Lili


This is a forwarded message
From: "Muhammed Ali" <muhammedali999@hotmail.com>
To: committee@londongpvts.org.uk
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:16:13 +0000
Subject: RE: PMETB

=================Original message text=================

Dear All,

I support Sachin's comments and I agree there is action we can help
support/take. It would be worth letting your individual schemes and
registrars know about what happens.

In the essence of the committee as being the 'London GP VTS Committee' and
in part response to Matt's query over involvement as an SHO please remember
the SHOs need to be aware too since they will be paying the fees more so
then we will be!

On an additional note PMETB have backed down over the hike to £750 and it
will be £500 from next month. Here is the letter sent out following their
consultation period.

http://www.pmetb.org.uk/media/pdf/c/i/PMETB_fees_response_-_Letter_from_Peter_Rubin_3_March_2006.pdf

Hope it adds a little light on what is happening but the petition is another
way of voicing the concerns. Please do support it.


Thanks,
Mo

http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/GRAEP




>=============================

===========
>Message Received: Mar 15 2006, 04:58 PM
>From: "Sachin Patel"
>To: committee@londongpvts.org.uk
>Cc:
>Subject: PMETB
>
>Dear Members of London GP Registrar Committee,
>
>There is considerable ill-feeling regarding PMETB, and those of you who
>were
>at the last meeting will have noted several of us brought the concerns of
>our Schemes to the table. As representatives of trainees, it is our duty to
>ensure that these concerns are addressed rather than swept under the carpet
>as occurred at the last meeting.
>
>If we do represent those we purport to, then some form of response against
>these costs is necessary. If, however, the aim is to be self-servient, then
>passive acceptance of these initial charges and subsequent inevitable
>increases is acceptable.
>
>Liverpool Deanery managed to organise a petition of 120 GPRs calling for a
>nationwide boycott of these fees. Their lead is admirable, and shows a
>little of what can be achieved. A similar petition has been commenced
>online, and I would urge you to forward it to all members of your
>respective
>VT schemes, so that individuals have the opportunity to have their say.
>
>The web address is: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/GRAEP
>
>
>Many thanks for your time,
>
>Sachin Patel
>
>