Few people want these gutter-level roles anymore because the NHS has made them poorly paid and poorly valued. So the solution is to throw a few extra pounds at them, hand out a stack of modules, and dress them up as cheap doctor substitutes. And then call it “career progression.

Then you provide them with evidence that ANPs, ACPs or others are safe then suddenly they become research methodology experts.

For anyone needing proof that the MedTwitter anons don't actually understand half of what they confidently post about, this is quite a good one. UMAPs Trade Union is a separate legal entity. It has its own books and its own accounts. What they're waving around here are the accounts of the limited company that originally housed the trade union, not the accounts of UMAPs Trade Union. The TU books are separate. That's it. That's the big mystery solved. What's actually quite remarkable is how much research they've apparently put into this. They've found comments I've made months ago, looked up our membership fees, worked backwards from the PA workforce, estimated our membership and then apparently sat waiting for these accounts to be filed so they could run a thread about them. And after doing all of that research, they didn't bother establishing whose accounts they were actually looking at. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good smear campaign... I do wonder what else they're willing to research extensively, form very strong opinions about and then confidently present themselves as experts on whilst missing fairly fundamental facts. Wait... what do they say about associates again? The sad thing is that we knew this was coming. We knew that when these accounts were filed there would be people desperately looking through them for something they could use against me or the trade union. Being proved right on the day they're submitted is actually quite satisfying. I'm perfectly happy with scrutiny. It comes with the job. What I find increasingly telling is the extraordinary amount of time and effort some anonymous accounts dedicate to trying to undermine me and UMAPs personally rather than engaging with the things we're actually saying. At some point you have to ask yourself why. If we're so ridiculous, irrelevant and wrong, why are you watching this closely? Why are you trawling through Companies House? Why are you digging through interviews from six months ago? Why are you researching our membership fees and trying to reconstruct our income? They clearly see UMAPs challenging their narrative as enough of a problem to warrant the effort. That's probably the most interesting thing about this thread. There is a serious point underneath all of this though. If this is how people respond anonymously when somebody challenges them publicly, I genuinely wonder how they respond to challenge in the workplace. What happens when a colleague disagrees with them or raises concerns about their behaviour? Do they engage with what's being said, or do they try to discredit the person saying it? We talk endlessly about bullying, harassment and culture in the NHS. Perhaps the people so determined to scrutinise me should occasionally reflect on the behaviour they're displaying themselves. And @ExplosiveEnema2, now that you know the fundamental premise of your thread is wrong, I would expect a full retraction and apology for the harm caused from any professional who had made allegations like these publicly. Given my previous experience of anonymous MedTwitter accounts correcting the record when they get things wrong, however, I won't hold my breath.