Sports Massage Progression

Hi Gaz,
It's great news that CNHC is being recognised by yet another professional association, which further strengthens regulation.

Just to clarify though SMA and the others that sit round GCMT can only verify massage, not sports massage, so their members will be registered in the massage category, though if they have sports therapy quals they can apply through one of the SRTC professional associations, which is what is happening already.

Hi Gaz,
It's great news that CNHC is being recognised by yet another professional association, which further strengthens regulation.

Just to clarify though SMA and the others that sit round GCMT can only verify massage, not sports massage, so their members will be registered in the massage category, though if they have sports therapy quals they can apply through one of the SRTC professional associations, which is what is happening already.

I dont think that will sit well with sports masseurs who already use sports therapist as their working title despite not having the extra skillset. I suspect there will be an influx of applications for the Sports therapy PAs, except of course the one that isnt part of the lead body, you know the one who is "fostering their own stat regs agenda" lol.
Do you think it will lead to a rise in he number of top up courses on offer ? to allow sports masseurs with CPD skills to upgrade to STs via a kind of bridging programme. It may be a way forward
BG

Hi Guys
It's great news that SMA have decided to stop swimming against the tide, but moving on from what sportstherapy was saying about who would be listed as what, I decided to see how many sports/remedial therapists are listed on the CNHC website in my area. I chose Nottingham as its the nearest city to me. Two are listed so I linked to their websites to see what else they practised in, guess what sports/remedial therapy is not mentioned by either, sports/remedial massage is listed on both.
One of these therapists is registered with FHT so I went on their 'find a therapist' and low and behold NOT listed as qualified to practise sports/remedial therapy.
Now I was lead to believe that sports /remedial massage therapists went under the heading massage therapists on the CNHC register or have the rules changed because their seems to be little interest shown by sports therapists.
I get more confused every time I see anything regarding regulation.Can someone enlighten me.

Jeff

To (attempt) to try and clarify things

As I understand it

The sector skills council for "sports" (and recreation) quals is Skills Active (ie they develop the required standards (NOS) for any qual with 'sports' in the title)

The sector skills council for "massage" is Skills for Health (ie they develop the required standards (NOS) for any qual with 'massage' in the title)

SRTC is the regulating body for Skills Active therefore they "approve" quals with "sports" in the title

GCMT is the regulating body for Skills for Health therefore they "approve" quals with "massage" in the title

So if someone wants to use the term "sport massage" ? !
"Aye there's the rub" 🙂 (awful pun I know!)

Present situation appears to be that
Because SRTC accept members who hold sports massage qualifications (providing it meets their published syllabus) they can 'bat for both sides" ie STRC members can use both sports and massage in their "job description" when applying for CHNC membership

Unfortunately for GCMT the converse is not true
Because they do not have a way (ie: published syllabus) to recogonise sports therapy qualifications they can only offer a route into CHNC based on massage (since that's all they do)

I think (hope!) I'm right, but I'm sure ST / BGFL will correct me if I'm wrong 😀

Hi Jeff,

FHT membership and CNHC registration are two completely separate and different things.

If you havent completed a sports therapy course then you wont be able to be listed on FHT as a sports therapist, which is perfectly right.

If you have done training that meets the CNHC Sport & Remedial Therapies standards then you can, if you wish, be listed under that category, you dont need a specific sports therapy qualification.

I think the case of sports therapy is this, when massage became regulated, most sports therapists registered, as this was the only thing that they could register as. When sports therapy became regulated, some didnt bother to add the separate category.

It is established that the professional associations can accept therapists who dont meet CNHC standard, most of the PAs have this in place, certainly SMA, FHT, CThA and all the bigger PAs do. The likes of ISRM have a set standard in place, which is BTEC Level 5. That is their right.

When someone who has done a course that doesnt meet the CNHC standard, but is a member of one of the PAs, they shouldnt be verified for regulation.

Examples of this are the new SMA endorsed VTCT qualifications, which have been widely publicised on here. It has been found that you can undertake a level 3 sports massage qualification at a number of schools, in around 3 days. The student automatically becomes an SMA student member, and then (according to the schools and I have no reason to doubt this) they become eligible for SMA level 3 membership. This therapist would not be eligible to be registered with CNHC, even though they have membership of a CNHC recognised PA.

I think the confusion has been (not for SMA members as they have only just got on board), for a student who has undertaken what they deem to be a 'recognised' qualification, as it is on the QCF, and then accepted for membership of a PA, they think that they can automatically get CNHC registration, and cant understand when they are refused. It has been confusing, but this goes back to the old thing about the vast difference in the standards of the training providers, and the lack of response from the awarding organisations. The PAs accept the quals, as they are QCF and meet standards, but then find that the school is actually cutting many corners which means in actual fact, the standards are not being met by the student/therapist.

This has been a problem, as the PAs then have to look at individual schools, and then say yes or no to membership, based on the standards of the school. This shouldnt have to happen, that isnt really their job, and I think that now SMA are involved in CNHC, they too are going to have this huge headache (welcome to my world guys).

So....yes, I agree it can seem confusing, and the answer is, the AOs need to police their schools, so that anyone doing a Level 3 course in massage or sports therapy, meets the CNHC standards, and if they want to register, they can.

Thanks DFNU
Now at the risk of sounding thick does that mean that a sports massage therapist whose PA is under the SRTC umbrella can be registered as a sports/remedial therapist with CNHC but if your PA is under the GCMT umbrella then you can only register as a massage therapist. so basically its the luck of the draw.

Jeff

To (attempt) to try and clarify things

As I understand it

The sector skills council for "sports" (and recreation) quals is Skills Active (ie they develop the required standards (NOS) for any qual with 'sports' in the title)

The sector skills council for "massage" is Skills for Health (ie they develop the required standards (NOS) for any qual with 'massage' in the title)

SRTC is the regulating body for Skills Active therefore they "approve" quals with "sports" in the title

GCMT is the regulating body for Skills for Health therefore they "approve" quals with "massage" in the title

So if someone wants to use the term "sport massage" ? !
"Aye there's the rub" 🙂 (awful pun I know!)

Present situation appears to be that
Because SRTC accept members who hold sports massage qualifications (providing it meets their published syllabus) they can 'bat for both sides" ie STRC members can use both sports and massage in their "job description" when applying for CHNC membership

Unfortunately for GCMT the converse is not true
Because they do not have a way (ie: published syllabus) to recogonise sports therapy qualifications they can only offer a route into CHNC based on massage (since that's all they do)

I think (hope!) I'm right, but I'm sure ST / BGFL will correct me if I'm wrong 😀

Hi DFNU,
thats pretty much how it is. It all boils down to what the content of the qualification is. If the qualfication meets SRTC standards, then the therapist could in effect register as a sports therapist or remedial therapist, regardless of what the title of his qualification is.

Sports massage doesnt have a separate category at CNHC, it comes under generic massage.

A couple examples, and im going to use are old and new regulated quals:

ActiveIQ level 4 Sports Massage Therapy would meet SRTC and GCMT standards so would qualify for both categories at CNCH.

SMA Level 4 Sports Massage (done at an SMA accredited school), meets GCMT standard but not SRTC, so it would qualify for CNHC regulation under the massage category.

VTCT Level 5 Sports Massage Therapy meets GCMT standard but not SRTC, so would qualify for massage only.

The bug bear is the new VTCT level 3 and 4 quals in sports massage, which on paper meet the new standards, but I would say half of the training providers I have come across arent running it to the standard, which is causing a huge headache as I mentioned before!

Thanks DFNU
Now at the risk of sounding thick does that mean that a sports massage therapist whose PA is under the SRTC umbrella can be registered as a sports/remedial therapist with CNHC but if your PA is under the GCMT umbrella then you can only register as a massage therapist. so basically its the luck of the draw.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
as I mentioned before you will only be allowed to register under the category for which you have been trained, regardless of the title of your qualification.

If you have done 'basic' sports massage, then regardless of if you are a member of SRTC or GCMT PA you wont be able to register under sport/remedial.

Hi Jeff,
another example is NAMMT, a GCMT (but not SRTC) PA.

They accredit the NIM courses as follows:

Remedial Massage - (CNHC massage regulation)
Advanced Remedial Massage - (CNHC massage regulation)
Sports Therapy (CNHC Sport & Remedial regulation)

The sports therapy allows CNHC sport & remedial registration as it has been a progression from remedial, advanced remedial and then ST, so you would have to do all three courses to get sport & remedial registration, not because of the timeframe, but because the sport & remedial additional 'modalities' are not covered until the sports therapy course is undertaken.

Hi Sportstherapy
Am I correct in thinking that the PA's vet their members and CNHC just rubber stamp it.
When I asked FHT months ago whether I was elligble to go on the sports/remedial therapy register I was told you are what your core qual is i.e. sports massage, therefore all the bolt on courses/ workshops stand for nothing. So I still don't understand how a therapist who doesn't list sports therapy on either his web site or his PA's gets a listing in CNHC.
Sorry Guys
Going even more off thread if these large multidisciplin PA's have got into bed with SRTC which from its title implies it represents sports/remedial therapists and I suspect that some of these PA's such as FHT, CTHA have more sports massage therapists on their books than sports therapists, whose looking after the interests of sports massage therapists is our regulating body SRTC or GCMT.

Jeff

Thanks glad to know I'm not too far off 🙂

The bug bear is the new VTCT level 3 and 4 quals in sports massage, which on paper meet the new standards, but I would say half of the training providers I have come across arent running it to the standard, which is causing a huge headache as I mentioned before!

The 'problem' as I see it is the apparent naivety of a PA who appears to have only approved / recommended the 'content' of a course and not method(s) by which it should be assessed and this 'oversight' (as current evidence clearly demonstrates) is wide open to abuse

This should not be an unsurmountable problem however since, although the content of the qual is posted on the qualification database, the assessment methods are not (ie: the roolz can be changed) 😉

Hi Sportstherapy

Sorry we seem to be crossing over each other and you are answering my questions before I've asked them.
Another idea has entered my head, how about CNHC forming a separate list for sports/remedial massage. This could help boost CNHC membership because as many sports therapists don't like the idea of being lumped together with sports massage because it dilutes their qual, I suspect the same applies for sports/remedial massage and holistsic/swedish massage. Anyone looking for a sports massage therapist in the CNHC register is faced with a almost impossible task as individual massage therapies are not listed.
After all Aromatherapy has its own listing and doesn't that involve massage.

Jeff

Hi Sportstherapy
Am I correct in thinking that the PA's vet their members and CNHC just rubber stamp it.
When I asked FHT months ago whether I was elligble to go on the sports/remedial therapy register I was told you are what your core qual is i.e. sports massage, therefore all the bolt on courses/ workshops stand for nothing. So I still don't understand how a therapist who doesn't list sports therapy on either his web site or his PA's gets a listing in CNHC.
Sorry Guys
Going even more off thread if these large multidisciplin PA's have got into bed with SRTC which from its title implies it represents sports/remedial therapists and I suspect that some of these PA's such as FHT, CTHA have more sports massage therapists on their books than sports therapists, whose looking after the interests of sports massage therapists is our regulating body SRTC or GCMT.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
my advice to anyone who has been rejected for registration to go back to their PA and push the point if you think you have enough skills to meet the standard. I know there has been some confusion amongst the PAs, as this is new ground here, we have never had regulation before, and yes there has been teething problems.

Regarding GCMT/SRTC, they look after standards, they dont regulate, nor do they look after the therapists, that is what your PA does.

FHT and CThA were both part of GCMT until last year, when they parted company, im not going to go into the politics of it, and as a GCMT rep myself until late last year, I fully supported the decisions of FHT, CThA and ISRM to leave, as they were treated very badly by GCMT officials IMO.

Their not being part of GCMT does not mean they are not involved in sports massage, and I know both FHT and ISRM fight for their sports massage members on a daily basis.

If you want to PM me with your name, and location, I can take up your case directly with FHT.

Hi Sportstherapy

Sorry we seem to be crossing over each other and you are answering my questions before I've asked them.
Another idea has entered my head, how about CNHC forming a separate list for sports/remedial massage. This could help boost CNHC membership because as many sports therapists don't like the idea of being lumped together with sports massage because it dilutes their qual, I suspect the same applies for sports/remedial massage and holistsic/swedish massage. Anyone looking for a sports massage therapist in the CNHC register is faced with a almost impossible task as individual massage therapies are not listed.
After all Aromatherapy has its own listing and doesn't that involve massage.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,
I think this idea has been put to CNHC before. I think for any movement to be made, there needs to be a consensus of opinion from therapists and PAs alike.

The probelms as I see them is, SMA tried unsuccessfully to use ministerial pressure to get CNHC to presuade SRTC to make room for them at the SRTC council table, however as they do not currently meet any of the sports or remedial therapy standards SRTC made the decision that it was highly inappropriate for this to occur, potentailly allowing SMA to verify therapists outsde of their scope of expertise. IMO SMA have gone to GCMT as a plan B, where they have discovered, since the resignation of the only PA left with sports/remedial expertise, created an environment where they would not be challenged about the lack of policing of their approved qualifications and approved schools. GCMT is currently comprised of one large PA( SMA friendly) 1 small PA with no interest in sports massage, 2 ex officio ( no link to a PA( removed by their PAs. Since FHT, ISRM, CThA were expelled by the Chair the total number of therapists represented around the table is/ was less than 1000, the cumulative total of those who have left/resigned/ expelled is approx 20 times this number. GCMT PA numbers will have been swelled by SMA, but look on their website to see how the membership is made up??? I have discusssed it on this forum previously so will not drag it up again. This is not an SMA bashing thread 🙂

you could try contacting GCMT through their website to ask for clarification, however from personal experience they do not respond to their own council members since the administative support was cut to save on expenses given that the income from 5 major PAs has been lost. I did notice until recently that only 2 of the PSB for massage have registered with the CNHC

I didnt mean to cause so much discussion, simply report the progressive nature of the industry at present
regards
BG

Just to add another of my opinions, I think sports massage as a modality belongs at SRTC. Even when I was at GCMT, the majority of the PAs that had sports massage members thought we should have a distinct council...we had a working group and the working group came up with the idea of the new council (which at the time was called STC, sports therapies council).

Whilst I am passionate about all massage, my chosen route is sports, and therefore I would like to see all the 'sports therapies' under one roof so to speak.

Whilst I am really pleased that SMA have got involved with the regulation process and I hope that we can now all move forward (we are still working on the other PA), I personally feel that a combined effort of all those working within 'sport' could get things done more effectively.

Maybe now with a 'sports' specific PA back at GCMT (as there werent any since STO left late last year), SRTC can forge some new links with them, and we can work together....

IMO SMA joining CNHC can only strenghten regulation, and now there is literally one 'sports' PA not involved, so any of their members should be lobbying them to get involved, instead of being on the sidelines. My question is, what have they got to lose by being involved?

Just to add another of my opinions, I think sports massage as a modality belongs at SRTC. Even when I was at GCMT, the majority of the PAs that had sports massage members thought we should have a distinct council...we had a working group and the working group came up with the idea of the new council (which at the time was called STC, sports therapies council).

Whilst I am passionate about all massage, my chosen route is sports, and therefore I would like to see all the 'sports therapies' under one roof so to speak.

Whilst I am really pleased that SMA have got involved with the regulation process and I hope that we can now all move forward (we are still working on the other PA), I personally feel that a combined effort of all those working within 'sport' could get things done more effectively.

Maybe now with a 'sports' specific PA back at GCMT (as there werent any since STO left late last year), SRTC can forge some new links with them, and we can work together....

IMO SMA joining CNHC can only strenghten regulation, and now there is literally one 'sports' PA not involved, so any of their members should be lobbying them to get involved, instead of being on the sidelines. My question is, what have they got to lose by being involved?

Now that is a professional and considered post. We (the SMA) will do what we believe is right for our members and the profession---and that includes engaging with all the relevant bodies---and yes that has to include SRTC.

The SMA has joined GCMT based on advice from the Regulator. The comment about us applying 'ministerial pressure' to join SRTC is untrue and I would like to see the comment withdrawn with a public apology.

I advised you 18 months ago that we would start talking to GCMT in 2010--we did-and we have now joined-in our own time and in consultation with our members. That's the way a member elected board works.

The comments about us 'u turning' because of statements from major sporting bodies requiring CNHC registration is also wrong. I'm not aware of any statements (doesn't mean they haven't been made) and the handful of jobs in elite sport have no impact on our decision making whatsoever. I would say 99% of our members are self employed practitioners dealing with amateur sports people and occupational injuries.

We would like to see Sports Massage Practitioners specifically identified in some way on the register to help the public find registered SMPs---the present situation is unhelpful and has been raised through the proper channels. However, we are where we are, and for the time being Sports Massage registrants will go under the Massage classification on the CNHC register. On this issue I think the ambiguity around Sports and Remedial Therapy needs to be addressed. What actually is being regulated here?

Concerning the delivery of qualifications--we share your concerns, and will act within the limitations of our resources to bring schools into line even though this is not our primary role. However, we don't have the staff resources or finances of the multidiscipline PA giants FHT or CTHa----we are a relatively small single discipline PA operating on about 5% of FHT's turnover.

We don't support schools cutting corners in the delivery of qualifications. Do I need to repeat that? Past experience has shown that I probably do.
We don't support schools cutting corners in the delivery of qualifications.

GCMT? Well that's pretty damning stuff---if it's Ok with you we'll make up our own mind.

We will have a constructive debate if it kills me. Look forward to talking.

P.S. If anybody reading these forums has any specific questions they would like to ask me (Paul Medlicott-Vice Chairman of the SMA) I would be delighted to answer via PM or via the SMA office.

We would like to see Sports Massage Practitioners specifically identified in some way on the register to help the public find registered SMPs---the present situation is unhelpful and has been raised through the proper channels.

The problem here and I,Jeff,BGFL and sportstherapy have mentioned this previously, is that there are very few sports therapists (not purely sports massage) on the register at this stage. That doesn't mean that this won't change in the future if more colleges, TP's start running ST courses that produce therapists of a standard eligible for inclusion.

Personally I think this is great move and is a step in the right direction. Hopefully disagreements can be put aside and some unity can be achieved.

Good luck in getting the 'other' PA on board.....Richard we could lobby them but they don't really listen to us:rolleyes:!

On this issue I think the ambiguity around Sports and Remedial Therapy needs to be addressed. What actually is being regulated here?

Concerning the delivery of qualifications--we share your concerns, and will act within the limitations of our resources to bring schools into line even though this is not our primary role. However, we don't have the staff resources or finances of the multidiscipline PA giants FHT or CTHa----we are a relatively small single discipline PA operating on about 5% of FHT's turnover.

Hi Paul,
you can find the Sport & Remedial CC's here:
this is what is being regulated. As much as I wasnt in favour of sport & remedial being put together, which I make no secret about, procedures were followed, and that is what was regulated. IMO it has caused a little more confusion than I would have liked, but we deal with it.

Whilst I do agree that policing schools is not your primary role, I feel that a lot of PAs are hiding behind that, in the hope that someone else will challenge the might of the Awarding Organisations...well I have challenged it enough, and I am one person, going about normal market research for my business and come across these schools on a daily basis, and whilst I have no intention of turning this into an SMA bashing, I can name 2 SMA directors who work (in some form) for VTCT and another who teaches on a course that is run by an ex sma director (and founder), who is also a consultant for VTCT. There are enough of you there to kick up a stink. The AOs should not be given an easy ride! The problem we have is, I seem to be finding these schools, but no-one seems to be doing anything about it. We seem to have a situation at the moment where everyone is passing the buck, and I now have drawn a full circle, because everyone is saying that someone else is responsible to sort it out

You mention the giant that is FHT, and not knowing your turnover I cant comment on the figure you quote, however, the fact that FHT is a huge organisation means that it can employ the staff to check these schools, which is one of my worries about verification for CNHC by small PAs who dont have the resources to check.

CNHC spent the best part of a day at FHT head office, scrutinising the systems that are in place, and they could find not one problem, not a single one.

It does seem now that FHT are the only PA that is not aligned to an Awarding Organisation, so it does attempt to put pressure on them, but sometimes I feel that it is a lone voice, because all the other PA are aligned to AOs.

I have offered to give as much help as I can because I believe in regulation, I also believe that the public have a right to be protected against shoddy therapists and I also believe that people looking to train should be protected against being conned into thinking they are getting a course that meets standards, when in fact they are getting a qualification that meets standards, but a training course that falls way way short.

I personally believe that the SMA want to increase standards, and ive said it on more than one occasion, this vtct endorsement hasnt done SMA any favours, when their level 4 is being run in much shorter duration than an SMA 'accredited' level 4, but that is my personal opinion, for what its worth.

I also believe that we should let bygones be bygones, theres no point in squabbling, when there is so much work still to be done in this industry. I believe the current batch of SMA directors, actually care about sports massage, and the old guard's mentality has gone, and I wish you luck in the regulation process, you are in for a bumpy ride to start off with, but thats the nature of the beast, it does get easier 🙂

Thankyou AspireST and SportsTherapy for your comments. We do act on information -and will do so in future. There is a case for multilateral action, {both in terms of sharing information and acting in concert} by PAs and I will be developing this idea over the next year. Changing organisations is something of a personal speciality--I did it as a career for a very long time--my experience of successful change is that you have to be inside an organisaton to achieve maximum success. Heckling AOs from the sidelines will have limited success---but good luck to you.

Registering with CNHC is a leap of faith at the moment, but if it reaches a critical mass in numbers of registrants it will succeed--I think it is getting close.

Paul,
I have responded to you personally by email. I look forward to meeting up with you soon to clarify my points and puting the world to rights over a glass of something. It is not appropriate to name people on this forum but as always I stand by my comments.
regards
BGFL

Paul,
I have responded to you personally by email. I look forward to meeting up with you soon to clarify my points and puting the world to rights over a glass of something. It is not appropriate to name people on this forum but as always I stand by my comments.
regards
BGFL

No problem---you're buying!

CNHC - why?

Registering with CNHC is a leap of faith at the moment, but if it reaches a critical mass in numbers of registrants it will succeed--I think it is getting close.

They have achieved none of their stated aims and have less registrants than a small association. Don’t take my word for it, check the figures. 20,000 Aromatherapists in the UK… less than 100 registered with CNHC. Reflexology, 25,000+ practitioners…. 400 registered with CNHC. The list goes on to a massive total for ALL those registered of less than 2% of CAM practitioners. Not bad for three years work and almost £3m of grant funding.

Your experience with them seems to be symptomatic of the problems.

I have been accused of being a 'CNHC basher' Well if only 2% of practitioners want to join after two years of an open register, I am apparently not alone.

Hi YR

Who hasn't got aims & objectives that may take longer than was originally conceived? That doesn't necessarily indicate a dead duck! It may just a need for a change of direction or management.

The problem with registration with the CNHC from what I can see is disinterest from many CAM practitioners. We have been told for many years that this and that and that and this is going to happen, blah blah blah, and never did. So here is finally an attempt to provide an unified register, and very few are listening. Bit like the boy who cried wolf story. Meanwhile, there is a competing register, and from what I can see many PA's are not really selling VSR to their membership.

Unless practitioners have a reason to join the CNHC ie increase in work, referrals from public and private healthcare, part of the job description, why should they? It isn't the job of the CNHC to promote therapies from far as I can see. And yes I'm on the register before I get accused of CNHC bashing.

Best wishes

RP

They have achieved none of their stated aims and have less registrants than a small association. Don’t take my word for it, check the figures. 20,000 Aromatherapists in the UK… less than 100 registered with CNHC. Reflexology, 25,000+ practitioners…. 400 registered with CNHC. The list goes on to a massive total for ALL those registered of less than 2% of CAM practitioners. Not bad for three years work and almost £3m of grant funding.

Your experience with them seems to be symptomatic of the problems.

I have been accused of being a 'CNHC basher' Well if only 2% of practitioners want to join after two years of an open register, I am apparently not alone.

Where did you find the figures from? It is interesting to note that at the start of its conception it was to be self funded. I wonder if we can find out the break even number of therapists would be. Unless there are a lot of staff to fund, I can't imagine much-maybe a few hundred thousand P/A.

Will this be a sustainable organisation-time will tell.

Hi TT

There was another Hp member sometime ago claimed that there is a group of skeptics that had some computer program which scanned online CNHC register to ascertain registrant numbers. Whether this is true or a wind up I can't say. But unfortunately the mods pulled that thread, so I can't refer to it.

Best wishes

RP

Hi RP
what benifits have you got out of joining the register?

Well to be honest SJ, nothing. But Cornwall can be a little bit behind sometimes. I would like to know if people in the more populated areas are having any luck.

Who knows, someone might look at my site or leaflet and may decide that such registration gave them more confidence in approaching me. Registration fee is due in March, haven't made my mind up whether to carry on this it or not.

Isn't this thread slowly going off topic?! Did read the core-curriculum above and was very interesting. Does help me understand the differences in these disciplines, which I been wanting to know for sometime. Could never quite understood from previous threads.

Best wishes

RP