Should Steve Churton be allowed to see the changes through or should the Society have a new President now?

Almost exactly seventy years ago, the disastrous campaign in Norway brought matters to a head after years of the catastrophic policy of appeasement had led Britain into a Second World War against a rampant Nazi Germany that had already seized much of mainland Europe. During the infamous Commons debate of May 7th, 1940, Conservative MP Leo Amery rose from the backbenches behind Chamberlain's government to cite the words of Cromwell: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

Perhaps at this time Steve Churton and his co-workers on Council, mindful of the points raised by Mark Walker in his letter (PJ, 15 May 2010, pp476-7) and by David Kent and Tariq Atchia above, should reflect on what they could do in the best interests of the future of our Society and our pharmacist profession.

The whole Council is only "clinging on" because they are legal unable to let go until the DoH formally transfers its regulatory functions to the GPhC. Whether Steve remains as President (and I see no point in changing it for the last few months) will have no effect on this. What the Council could do, in order to save us all our money, is to say that there will only be one further Council meeting to be held whenever the final handover of power has to be authorised (as will be required). There's no other reason now why all 30 of them should be meeting.

To respond to Tariq's question - the Council won't "squeeze through" remote supervision because it's not in its gift to do so. Any changes to supervision require changes to the law - that's the role of Parliament and the Department of Health.