Gender, Identity Politics

The final Cass Review: murmurings of defiance and complicity in the BPS

AdminBPSWatch

David Pilgrim posts….

The final version of the Cass Review appeared yesterday (10th April 2024), containing few surprises for those pleased or displeased. We now enter a phase of observing how leaders in public, private and third sector organisations adapt and shape their interests in response. The hegemony of the Stonewall era, which installed trans-activism readily across British society, with its neoliberal confluence of consumerism and identity politics, is finally breaking down. The second version of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MOU) is no longer a virtue signalling box to tick, but a source of embarrassment. Recently the UKCP made this statement, with Cass in the offing:

“UKCP’s withdrawal from the MoU and the Coalition Against Conversion Therapy takes immediate effect. While we work to update our Code of Ethics and Professional Practice to reflect UKCP’s withdrawal, members are advised to discount the MoU as a published policy of UKCP (as referenced in point 36 of the Code) from today, 5 April 2024”.

It would be a massive step if the BPS were to follow suit. After all, that ideologically-captured second version of the MOU was driven by trans-activists inside the Society. For a while, it was even the official administrative home for the campaign for the Coalition. At no time during that period did the BPS incorporate or seek to represent dissenting voices. Those from Thoughtful Therapists and the Clinical Advisory Group on Sex and Gender, which included many psychologists, concurred with Cass that a whole generation of children had been exposed incautiously to iatrogenic damage.

An indication of the trans-captured position of the BPS was that The Psychologist had actively promoted an affirmative stance and it marginalized or blocked any alternative position. The latter could be packaged away as simply being ‘transphobic’ or ‘anti-trans’. The gender guidelines were also under the control of trans-activists (British Psychological Society, 2019). Its Chair, Dr Christina Richards, argued that there was to be ‘no debate’ because the debate was ‘over’ – evidence clearly supported affirmative care, end of story. Legitimate complaints to the BPS about the lack of evidence for this arrogant and unfounded dismissal from Richards failed. Affirmative care, with its conveyer belt of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgeries, was the way to a bright new future to liberate children who, quite evidently, had been born in the wrong body. Pre-Cass, all the BPS worthies smugly agreed. No debate, no philosophical arguments about sex and gender and certainly no need for evidence. But then Cass came along…..

Defy or comply?

Now the Cass Review has been published those defending affirmative care, from The Psychologist to the Sexualities Section of the BPS, as well of course the authors of the still unrevised trans-captured gender guideline, are in a tricky position. Defiance was the immediate answer from Dr Rob Agnew on twitter/X. The strident anti-anti-trans Chair of the BPS Sexualities Section dismissed Cass for being ‘cis and het’. How dare a (real) woman trained in paediatrics have a view about children?

Moving on from his misogyny, Agnew reverted to a semblance of standard academic reasoning, going on to tell us that her review of the evidence was simply wrong and that he and ‘other clinicians’ will soon prove that point. At the time of writing, the world waits with bated breath to see if the Cass Review will need to be removed as policy guidance in England and Wales. Dr Agnew and his colleagues intend to provide evidence that will correct the scholarly incompetence of Cass and her team; watch this space.

Agnew may represent the trans-captured old guard in the Society but new pragmatic leaders are now required in response to Cass. At this point step in Dr Roman Raczka, recently Chair of the Division of Clinical Psychology and now President-Elect of the BPS. This is his view from the upper echelons of the Society speaking, as those at the top do, using the royal plural (though it might also signal the hand of the ubiquitous ‘Comms Team’):

“We want to commend Dr Hilary Cass for her thorough and sensitive review into an area that is highly complex and controversial to many. All too often, the way this controversy has played out in public has been damaging to the very children, young people and families desperately seeking help. We wholeheartedly join Dr Cass’s call for an end to the deeply concerning, public bullying and vilification of professionals working in this challenging area. The prescribing of puberty blockers has received a great deal of focus both in wider discussions about gender, and within the report itself. We agree with Dr Cass that the controversy around this issue has sometimes taken focus away from the important role of psychological interventions in gender services to support young people and their families. We agree that it’s vital to create a sound evidence base and better understanding of the long-term effects of puberty blockers and the need for more data in this area to help young people make informed decisions about their treatment and to support the clinicians providing care and treatment. Dr Cass and her team have produced a thought-provoking, detailed and wide-ranging list of recommendations, which will have implications for all professionals working with gender-questioning children and young people. It will take time to carefully review and respond to the whole report, but I am sure that psychology, as a profession, will reflect and learn lessons from the review, its findings and recommendations. We warmly welcome the recommendation to establish a consortium of relevant professional bodies to identify gaps in professional training and develop training materials to upskill the workforce. As the body that accredits professional training courses for psychologists and the wider psychological workforce in the UK, the BPS looks forward to contributing to this important work as it develops. Recognising the importance of supporting professionals working with children and young people around gender issues, the BPS recently launched recruitment for a Children, Young People and Gender workstream to ensure that a strong evidence base is at the heart of these conversations.”

Any student of the sociology of professions will recognize some key elements in the Raczka statement, in relation to ‘interest work’ in healthcare policy (Williamson, 2008). First, there is pragmatism, i.e. those pushing for collective professional advancement must work with the world as it is, not as they would like it to be, in order to milk it for any opportunities available. Second, and following from this, they must ignore any past stance, which inconveniently might be out of step with the politically contingent present. On the first point, notice how Raczka at the end of his statement, with its rhetorical flourish, focuses on an expanded psychological workforce and makes the standard claim that clinical psychology is an evidence-based project, working in the public interest. On the second point it is what is not said that matters. Here the role of an omissive critique is important (Pilgrim, 2020).

Raczka fails to mention the following. The DCP in recent years has not condemned the extant gender guidelines that celebrate ‘affirmative care’ (cf. Harvey, 2023). The DCP in recent years has not objected to the MOU campaign against conversion therapy or it being housed officially inside the BPS or its misleading conflation of aversion therapy with adults from the past and exploratory psychological therapy with children today (cf. Pilgrim, 2023a). The DCP in recent years has not drawn attention to the serious iatrogenic consequences of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgeries. Letters of dissenting voice about GIDS and puberty blockers were certainly sent to the CEO and were predictably ignored. Thus, not all clinical psychologists were happy about inaction from officialdom but their protests to their professional leaders proved to be in vain. A contempt for ordinary members by BPS leaders has been pointed up repeatedly on this blog.

Despite Raczka’s focus on the benign public service of a new and expanded psychological workforce, he fails to mention an elephant in the room: the now discredited GIDS approach was psychology-led. Moreover, it promoted a form of biological reductionism akin to the very worst aspects of biological psychiatry in the past (Valenstein, 1986). Where did this bizarre radical bio-reductionism come from in psychology, in collusion with endocrinology? The answer more generally can be traced to Third Wave feminism and the policy chaos created by postmodernism and its legacy of identity politics. Specifically, this was expressed in the ‘Dutch model’, subsequently rolled out at the Tavistock Clinic on the basis of no evidence and under the leadership (both in the Netherlands and the UK) of clinical psychologists (de Vries and Cohen-Kettenis 2012).

Surely what is now required, before zealous opportunism kicks in, is a needed reckoning. British clinical psychology should now admit its role in promoting an approach to care that was scandalous and resembles others recently discussed with concern in the public domain (BMJ, 2020). For now Agnew denies that there was a scandal at all and that cis, het, transphobic critics should butt out and leave the matter of ‘gender healthcare’ to him and those agreeing with him. Raczka is seemingly friendlier to Cass, but he ignores the blatant need for a reckoning in the profession, which he recently has led and which has largely looked on passively, as the car crash at GIDS unfolded in slow-mo. Both Agnew and Raczka claim to take both values and evidence seriously, so I finish on this point.

Getting serious about values and evidence

Any look back from the DCP about what went wrong at GIDS should start with two questions. First, did psychologists operate with an ethical principle of ‘do no harm’ or non-maleficence? Second, did psychologists use evidence to guide their service philosophy?

The first one is easy to answer: the expectation at GIDS was that the prescription of puberty blockers and the routine trajectory of cross-sex hormones and surgeries was self-evidently ethically legitimate, even though the long term iatrogenic risks were unknown. This was despite evidence from other clinical groups that those risks were very likely (including sterility, sexual dysfunction, loss of bone density and cardio-vascular events). Thus, the ‘first do no harm’ position was definitely not adopted at GIDS: instead negligently it jeopardized the long term health of children, who were relying on the good judgment of their adult carers (Jorgensen et al, 2024; Pilgrim and Entwistle, 2020). Those adults failed them.

But, turning to the question of evidence of efficacy, the main problem was that the ideology of affirmation over-rode caution. Consequently, evidence collection was neither made transparent nor did it guide service planning. Ideology justified all decisions and the normal rules of professional probity were ignored. This ‘gung-ho’ attitude displaced a wiser ‘wait and see’ approach, both at the service philosophy level and that of individual patient care. The positive evidence that mental health gain was being achieved was simply missing. The Dutch model was a pilot service, with small numbers, not a model service with clearly proven success. The inclusion criteria (about psychological stability in research patients) for that pilot service bore no resemblance to the clinical features of those on the waiting list at GIDS. Moreover, the data on outcomes at the Tavistock, which showed no improvement overall, were suppressed for years and no explanation to date has been offered about that secrecy (Biggs, 2023). Turning as a relevant aside to adult services, there is no evidence that distress and dysfunction improve post-operatively in ‘gender reassignment’ (Dhejne, et al, 2011). Given that lacklustre picture, note how as soon as the Cass report emerged it also became evident that NHS Trusts had suppressed information about adult services. If ‘gender healthcare’ is such a welcomed and effective policy innovation, then why do those responsible for it want to hide their light under a bushel so often? Slowly policy makers are waking up to this point.

The most obvious manifestation of ideology displacing evidence has been in relation to ‘diagnostic overshadowing’. That is, the complex mental health needs of existentially confused young people, who include survivors of abuse, those with mixed anxiety and depression and those with marked autistic tendencies, have been ignored in favour of reducing the patient’s problem to that of being ‘born in the wrong body’. In any general child and adolescent mental health service the complexity of each case would be formulated case by case and iteratively. A sign of how things have changed in a decade is that such a cautious, formulation-focused, approach was offered by the Canadian clinical psychologist Ken Zucker (Zucker, et al 2012). For his wisdom, his service was closed down and he was sacked, which is the inverse scenario of the fate of GIDS, except there its leaders received substantial exit payments courtesy of the British taxpayer.

This is what Cass said on the point about optimal mental health care for children and adolescents:

“Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations. They deserve very much better…..We have to start from the understanding that this group of children and young people are just that; children and young people first and foremost, not individuals solely defined by their gender incongruence or gender-related distress.” (Cass Review briefing paper, 13-15).

Those like Agnew and other activists in the BPS will draw on the authority of WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health), while holding the Cass Review in contempt. However, WPATH is not like the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which operates sceptical equipoise about evidence and takes iatrogenic risk seriously. Instead, its approach is shaped by the demands of trans-activist members, many of whom are neither researchers nor clinicians. Here is Cass from her recent piece in the BMJ, nailing this point about biased reviewing (see also Ionnidis, 2018):

“The findings of the series of systematic reviews and guideline appraisals are disappointing. They suggest that the majority of clinical guidelines have not followed the international standards for guideline development. The World Professional Association of Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) has been highly influential in directing international practice, although its guidelines were found by the University of York’s appraisal to lack developmental rigour and transparency. Early versions of two international guidelines—the Endocrine Society 2009 and WPATH 7—influenced nearly all other guidelines, with the exception of recent Finnish and Swedish guidelines; the latter were the only guidelines to publish details of how developers reviewed and utilised the evidence base, and the decision making process behind their recommendations.” (Cass, 2024)

From the outset WPATH was formed from the ideological project of the sexologist Harry Benjamin in the 1960s, to encourage the compassionate care of adult transsexuals. Since that time, mission creep has been clearly evident to extend the bio-medicalisation of gender confusion from adults to children, who ipso facto lack the capacity of adults. This mission creep is why affirmation has been so totemic for those running those services. Post-Cass, the talisman of affirmation will still be worshiped in private clinics staffed by trans-ideologues and unrepentant ex-GIDS personnel. On the day of the release of the Cass Review, the BBC interviewed a clinical psychologist, Dr Aidan Kelly, proudly heading up such a service (GenderPlus).

That intersection of ideology and evidence-production should now be the focus of a look back exercise from the BPS (Hilário, 2019). It would seem though that those like Agnew will resist it actively and those like Raczak will do so passively, by only looking forwards not backwards. That blindness to history would reflect an established normative culture in the BPS, which is an organisation without a memory (Pilgrim, 2023b). It may be that the grown up in the room trying to learn all the relevant lessons from the past will have to be the Association of Clinical Psychologists UK. The DCP’s shameful silence might encourage many to leave it in favour of joining the latter, adding to the membership woes of the BPS.

Conclusion

The appearance of the Cass report is challenging for those in charge at the BPS. Its hegemonic trans-captured culture is now exposed for its ethical and empirical inadequacies. A reckoning within the profession is required, given that British clinical psychologists led the now discredited Tavistock service. That honest look back, and all the lessons learned, may never arrive from the BPS. Instead, opportunism about more jobs for the profession may take precedence. We shall see.

References

Biggs, M. (2023) The Dutch Protocol for juvenile transsexuals: origins and evidence, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 49:4, 348-368.

BMJ (2020) Editorial: Cumberlege review exposes stubborn and dangerous flaws in healthcare BMJ 370: m3099

British Psychological Society (2019) Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity Leicester: British Psychological Society.

Cass, H. (2024) Gender medicine for children and young people is built on shaky foundations. Here is how we strengthen service. BMJ; 384:q814.

de Vries, A. and Cohen-Kettenis, P. (2012) Clinical management of gender dysphoria in children and adolescents: The Dutch approach. Journal of Homosexuality, 59 (3), 301-320.

Dhejne, C., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Johansson, A.L.V.,Långström, N. and Landén, M. (2011) Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden PloS One 6(2): e16885

Harvey, P. (2023) Policy capture at the BPS (I): The gender guidelines, In D. Pilgrim (ed) British Psychology in Crisis Oxford: Phoenix.

Hilário, A.P. (2019) (Re) Making gender in the clinical context: a look at how ideologies shape the medical construction of gender dysphoria in Portugal. Social Theory & Health 17, 463–480

Ioannidis, J.P. (2018) Professional societies should abstain from authorship of guidelines and disease definition statements. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 11(10), p.e004889.

Jorgensen, S.C.J., Athéa, N. and Masson, C. (2024) Puberty Suppression for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria and the Child’s Right to an Open Future. Archives of Sexual Behavior (open access online)

Pilgrim D. (2023a) British mental healthcare responses to adult homosexuality and gender non-conforming children at the turn of the twenty-first century. History of Psychiatry. 34(4):434-450.

Pilgrim, D. (2023b) Organisation without a memory In D. Pilgrim (ed) British Psychology in Crisis Oxford: Phoenix.

Pilgrim, D. (2020) Critical Realism for Psychologists London: Routledge.

Pilgrim, D. and Entwistle. K. (2020) GnRHa (‘Puberty Blockers’) and cross sex hormones for children and adolescents: informed consent, personhood and freedom of expression, New Bioethics, 26:3, 224-237

Zucker, K.J. Wood, H., Singh, D. and Bradley, S. (2012) A developmental, biopsychosocial model for the treatment of children with Gender Identity Disorder Journal of Homosexuality 59:3, 369-397

Valenstein, E. S. (1986). Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and other Radical Treatments for Mental Illness. New York: Basic Books.

Williamson C. (2008) Alford’s theoretical political framework and its application to interests in health care now. British Journal of General Practice Jul;58(552):512-6.

Governance, Board of Trustees, Memory and the Law Group, Gender

Zombie CEOs and zombie organizations

AdminBPSWatch

David Pilgrim posts….

Recently a group of BPS members have set up a petition to remove Sarb Bajwa. In typical high handed fashion (or was it just panic over the Society’s dwindling finances?) he  proposed shutting down valued qualifications without consultation. This is par for the course. From the start of his reign at the top he has held the membership in contempt. When we at BPSWatch.com began our campaign in 2020 to expose the corruption and dysfunction in the BPS, his opening gambit was to go the Board of Trustees and ask them what he should do with members who kept pestering him with complaints. This was a pointed reference to our multiple letters, asking legitimate questions, which were being blocked and ignored. We were threatened with legal action and told that we were breaching the Society’s dignity at work policy. It was clear that disaffection in the ranks of ordinary members was seen as an irritation and threat to managerial interests and not an opportunity for dialogue, quality improvement or organizational learning. And as events were to prove, and over 80 posts on BPSWatch later, the BPS was certainly in need of both of these. 

Bajwa’s position has been nothing but consistent: in his view members are an impediment to unbridled managerial discretion and power. An example of this irrational authority was of his co-authoring a paper in Lancet Psychiatry about mental health policy (Bajwa, Boyce and Burn, 2018). What was his intellectual authority for putting his name to the paper on behalf of the BPS? The answer is that he had none, but a few of the Society’s members, had they been consulted, could have shared their wisdom from years of research and practice. Then we had the £6 million Change Programme. Did he consult experts in the membership on organizational change? Were targets properly defined and communicated? Has that enormous spend subsequently been evaluated properly? Have members got a better service via a streamlined Customer Relations Management System? The answers are all ‘no’.  And then there are all the letters sent to him by members, including those multi-signed. What did he do? The answer is that simply ignored them. What did he do with follow up prompts? The answer is that he simply ignored them.

Bajwa is a very clever man but his talents have not been put to work in the interests of the membership. To be fair he has been busy. He had his column with its pearls of wisdom to write for the ever biddable Psychologist until that went silent after his largely covered-up suspension. He also had to work hard to save his skin during that period. His subsequently imprisoned PA, who stole more than £70k of members’ cash for a year and a half (“A Kid in a candy shop” was her hapless comment at sentencing) had been given the blessing for the phoney expense forms being signed off under Bajwa’s nose. He wasn’t keeping his eye on the Finance Director either, who was reassuring him that, following an earlier fraud, things had been tightened up. At this point, Bajwa needed, and he found, the skills of Houdini. Off went the similarly suspended FD, setting a trend of virtually an annual turnover in that role ever since. This pattern itself reveals the financial and managerial anomie of an organization that is lurching towards bankruptcy (in more ways than one). To this day the members of the BPS have been given no account of this period of corruption. It has been buried, like so many of the Society’s murky recent secrets, by mendacity from the top, the antics of Bajwa’s favourites, the Comms Directorate, and – unfortunately – indifference from below. 

When cornered, Bajwa always has another card to play: he asks to see the complainant for a chat. This act of noblesse oblige puts him in control. Does he apologize? The answer is probably ‘no’. Does he bullshit? The answer is probably ‘yes’. If the ‘come in for a personal chat’ gambit fails, another jape up his sleeve is to delegate the need to apologize to an underling. A good example here was in relation to the failure of the BPS to deal with the scandal surrounding the work of H.J. Eysenck (Pilgrim, 2023).

In December 2018 David Marks (then the editor of the British Journal of Health Psychology) sent a letter prompting Bajwa to do something about a matter that had been ignored by the BPS since the 1990s when the psychiatrist Antony Pelosi blew the whistle on Eysenck’s work. Bajwa, as is par for the course, ignored the letter. After his return from suspension (October 2021), he received a prompt from Marks. Three years [sic] had gone by. Bajwa still did not reply. However, presumably he nudged a subordinate with one of many Orwellian titles in the BPS (‘Head of Quality Assurance & Standards’) – Dr Rachel Scudamore – who replied to Marks thus:

“We accept that a failure to respond is discourteous and that it would leave you in a position of not knowing what action has been taken. I can only apologise on behalf of the Society for this error on our part.”

‘We’ presumably is a coded euphemism for ‘my rude and indifferent boss’; Scudamore herself had nothing to apologise for. Why did Bajwa not send the letter himself with a personal apology? After all, the original letter and prompt were not sent to Scudamore but to him. In light of his haughty contempt for members noted above, the answer is fairly obvious to any observer with an ounce of nous.

To be fair, Bajwa has only got away with this brass-neck management style because of complicity. He returned after almost a year off on his full and substantial salary, a weak smile on his face standing next to the woman the Board had used sleight of hand to install as President when the whole Presidential team of 3 disappeared in three months whilst he was “gardening”. The Board of Trustees could have sacked him on the spot given his parlous performance but they did not. There are reasons for that which are not best described as his “blamelessness” and may be more to do with his holding their dodgy processes over the BPS. The BPS members, alerted to it by numerous reports from us in BPSWatch, could have risen up en masse and demanded his resignation but they did not. Maybe they are still getting the organization and managers they deserve. Either way the BPS is not a membership-led or membership-responsive organization and it is still being run by a morally bankrupt group of leaders. The survival this CEO reflects the history and continuation of a group of appointed and elected Trustees, who clearly have not understood the scandalous state of affairs they have both created and continue to defend. Or if they do understand they have not cared. The caveat here is the fates of elected Presidents along the way, so many resigning before their full term in the team was complete. A hitherto BPS stalwart (and past-President) David Murphy noted that, in 2022, only one of the recent past 6 presidents completed their full three-year term. He resigned as Vice President when he could no longer go along with the Board’s corporate position and issued a shocking disclosure letter citing his misgivings about governance on his X(Twitter) page, having suffered bland misrepresentations in The Psychologist . Now, however, the sudden resignation of the first ever independent Chair of the Board of Trustees might prove a watershed. We do not know the real reasons why he resigned – yet.

The Board at the time did not take responsibility for stopping the fraud or holding those responsible for it to account or for keeping the membership informed about its sources and aftermath. They also went on to support the kangaroo court expulsion of a whistleblowing elected President, with a casual contempt for natural justice. That is a saga which continues at present in legal jurisdictions.

Of great importance is the fact that poor governance has enabled policies which fail the criteria of the BPS mission and are at odds with child protection. 

The first is the extant and unrevised policy on gender, which is clearly out of sync with the Cass recommendations. The statement issued by the BPS in response to the Cass interim report is nothing short of lamentable. The second is the extant and unrevised policy on memory and the law (see here and previous posts), which limits relevant psychological evidence to false positives in cases of those accused of historical child sexual abuse. This leaves survivors of abuse silenced by their deletion from what is considered to be legitimate psychological research. Both these topic areas, gender and memory, are central to conceptual, research and practice dimensions of psychology. 

The CEO, Sarb Bajwa, and those who were responsible for the above picture of organizational dysfunction and its policies that fundamentally undermine child safeguarding, ought to be ashamed of themselves. The evidence to date is that the required shame will not be forthcoming. 

Bajwa, S. Boyce, N. and Burn, W. (2018) Researching, practising and debating mental health care. Lancet Psychiatry 5, 12, p954

Pilgrim, D. (2023). Verdicts on Hans Eysenck and the fluxing context of British psychology. History of the Human Sciences, 36(3-4), 83-104.

Board of Trustees, Change Programme, Charity Commission, Governance

The BPS in crisis – yet again

AdminBPSWatch

Pat Harvey posts…..

The Chair of the Board of Trustees, David Crundwell, has resigned – according to the BPS , “for personal reasons”. He does, however, remain chair of the Imperial Health Charity, which supports hospitals through grants, volunteering and fundraising. On his bio on Imperial Health website the reference to his position at the BPS was quickly expunged. 

The report of his resignation, “after just over a year in the role” was also carried in the Third Sector publication , which has also, along with The Times and The Telegraph, carried a number of articles covering untoward events relating to the many governance crises at the Society in the last few years. Professor David Pilgrim published and edited a book , published in July 2023 (British Psychology in Crisis: A Case Study in Organisational Dysfunction), on the extent of the dysfunction of the BPS which was developed from the picture that emerged after co-founding this blog in 2020. Seven articles in the three publications referred to above,  and published in a three year period, are linked in the endnotes to Chapter 3  “Resisting the silence of the cabal: resorting to social and alternative media” written by this writer. In the context of the BPS’s refusal to communicate meaningfully with its members, strenuous efforts had to be made to get  to what was really going on in this 65,000 member, Royal Chartered charitable organisation representing British psychology.

Crundwell was the first independent chair, appointed after the Charity Commission had been engaged with the BPS over serious complaints and concerns about how its governance and administration was functioning. The BPS had lost, over recent years and before the end of their terms of office, many of its member-elected representatives in the Presidential team of three. Some had even, nearly a decade ago, been “escorted from the premises” with threats of legal action. This culminated in 2021 when, within a couple of months, all three Presidential team members were gone. The President resigned “for personal reasons”. The Vice President, a long-serving holder of other BPS offices, resigned in a damning letter citing concerns about governance, financial management and lack of openness and transparency. The President Elect, voted into office in an explicitly reforming mandate, was expelled on the grounds of “bullying” staff he had never met and was publicly vilified to the world on a YouTube video before he had even had his appeal [see here, here and here]. This case has cost the BPS many thousands of pounds in legal advice which they did not follow, and they face further court proceedings which will no doubt cost substantial sums when the expelled President Elect mounts his Employment Tribunal appeal hearing in July 2024.

Many, many internal problems and wrangles have followed the appointment of Sarb Bajwa as CEO at the BPS in April 2018. He arrived from a job in a professional body relating to the gas industry. Rumour from several sources has it that on his arrival at the BPS he may have said that he thought 90% of the existing staff were incompetent. He acquired an executive assistant, appointed by outsourcing her recruitment, a person with 17 previous crimes to her name, including several thefts from former employers including defrauding the University of Leicester out of £30,000 in 2014. She had already served two terms in prison. At the BPS, using CEO Bajwa’s organisational credit card, she then began falsifying expenses claims to make her reckless spending on them appear legitimate. During a 17-month crime spree, which involved more than 900 fraudulent transactions. Jimmy Choo shoes were falsely described as accommodation, while £355 worth of lighting equipment delivered to her home was passed off as funding a board dinner. Two Rotary watches were marked as a retirement gift, £595 spent at Peter Hahn fashion store was falsified as a conference and Eurostar tickets for herself and her partner were listed simply as travel.  The criminal activity began in August 2018 and continued until it was discovered in January 2020 [see here and here].

It is believed that the frauds could only be perpetrated as the result of failures to follow basic financial procedures over 18 months – failures by the CEO and the Director of Finance to inspect card statements and follow basic authorization processes. It is understood that there had been other problems of fraud around credit card use at that time and this had resulted in the Finance Director supposedly tightening up on procedures. Astonishingly the misuse of credit cards issued to the CEO and his fraudster assistant actually increased after this, most of the money being fraudulently obtained after the tighter processes were not followed. The BPS response was turgid. Eventually the CEO and the FD were suspended. 

Disciplinary action? Responsibility taken? Seemingly not. The Finance Director fled with alacrity to another job in the charity sector, the National Lottery Community Fund, whilst still suspended. Was a reference not required for this appointment, and how was it obtained? One of us has variously and unsuccessfully asked the governors of the National Lottery and the Charity Commission, assisted by a bemused MP – who could also get no answer. Meanwhile the turnover of Finance Directors and acting Finance Directors at the BPS breaks records, at least 4 in 3 years. 

The Society has run a deficit since the CEO’s appointment, drawing down on reserves. It has lashed out £6m on a Change Programme and appointed Diane Ashby as its Change Programme Director, from Southern Water where she was Head of Change Delivery. It is thought there were some ‘unusual” procurement issues  of this programme from the start… whither the glowing pronouncements of Social Kinetic and its happy smiley client, the BPS?  The verdict on the outcomes of that £6million spend as they trickle into scrutiny is pretty dire particularly in relation to Customer Relations Management (CRM). The latest available minutes of the Board of Trustees (November 2023) states 

There is a backlog in processing membership applications. The Society takes an application fee when an individual begins their application, and a subscription fee when the application is completed. The website says that applications take 6-8 weeks to process – we are not currently meeting those timescales. As of 14 November, the backlog has been reduced and applications are taking just over 9 weeks. More work is required to re-design processes. An external provider will help to reduce pressure on the team in the main renewal period during December and January at an additional cost of [REDACTED]. Trustees felt that delays represent a degree of reputational as well as financial risk.

In fact, the BPS have been using that external provider for some significant period of time, at a cost of around £84000 per annum. More work is required to re-design processes? What has the Director of Change Programme been doing/overseeing for the last five years? I personally (as well as others in other contexts) have asked for an accessible breakdown report and evaluation of the Change Programme. Has it met its targets and been value for money?  What is there yet to do? I was fobbed off, and others have been told there is no apparent appetite amongst members for such a report. So what is the Change Programme Director up to these days? And how much is she paid for whatever it is?

There was, however almost a year, November 2020-October 2021, when she did have additional duties as that was the period when the CEO was suspended pending investigation of the fraud. During that period of his suspension, the Charity Commission became involved:  “Exclusive: British Psychological Society faces Charity Commission probe: Claims of poor governance and silencing of academic dissent amid concern over argument for prescription rights”. The Commission required various matters to be addressed about which members were never fully informed, but this did not progress to a statutory inquiry. 

So, was the CEO held in any way responsible for his oversight failures in relation to the fraud? He returned apparently unscathed after his year’s gardening leave. Third Sector helpfully reported this and gave some context. It is worth reproducing its report here:

British Psychological Society chief executive cleared in fraud inquiry

28 October 2021 

An internal inquiry found that Sarb Bajwa was in no way party to committing fraud, following the arrest of a former staff member. The chief executive of the British Psychological Society has returned to his position after a fraud-related internal inquiry cleared him of any involvement. The charity reported an allegation of fraud involving a former staff member to police following an internal investigation last year. 

Sarb Bajwa, chief executive of the BPS, was asked to step aside while the inquiry took place. 

He returned to work yesterday. The BPS is the charity that acts as the representative body for psychology and psychologists in the UK. It is responsible for the promotion of excellence and ethical practice in the science, education and application of the discipline.

In February this year, Leicestershire Police confirmed to Third Sector that an allegation had been made in relation to the fraudulent use of a credit card, and a woman had been arrested on suspicion of fraud by abuse of position. A BPS spokesperson said: “Following the arrest of a former member of staff on suspicion of fraud, the trustees requested that Sarb step aside whilst an inquiry into our working practices and processes took place. 

“We would like to make it clear that the inquiry found that Sarb was in no way a party to committing fraud. “We believe there are lessons about our working practices and processes, which, as the inquiry found, needed to be tightened and improved. Changes to our working practices and processes were recommended and these have been fully implemented. 

“We all regret that this process has taken a long time, and that the chief executive has been away from the office for longer than was desirable.”

The charity’s trustees said that Bajwa was returning to the BPS with their full support.

Bajwa added: “While I’ve been away from the office for much longer than I would have wanted, I’m returning to a society which, despite the many challenges, has done extraordinary work.  I’m looking forward to continuing our programme of transformational change, serving members and the profession.”

Findings from a report into the culture at the BPS, published by Third Sector at the end of last week, found an “endemic” lack of trust between staff and members and an “us” and “them” mindset. The BPS expelled its president-elect in May amid allegations of “persistent bullying”, which he said were “baseless and without merit”. But the report, shared with members two months after the president-elect’s dismissal, concluded there was an “endemic” lack of trust and respect between staff and members and said members had a “lack of access to timely and accurate financial information”. ​​Third Sector also revealed in June that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations pulled out of a consultancy contract with the BPS because it felt the charity’s culture would be detrimental to the wellbeing of its consultants. The previous president of the BPS stood down in April this year due to family commitments.

In addition to members who were able to access this publication wondering why the Society was in the mess depicted, they could legitimately ask how the CEO got away without serious censure. He may not have known what was going on, but that was the heart of the problem that led to the fraud. Was his behaviour, or lack of it, over such a period, not misconduct at least, and possible gross misconduct? There is a suggestion that the BPS was given that advice. Is there justification for the suggestion that the BPS had not followed proper procedure around the suspension and hence was open to legal challenge?

Many, inside HQ and without, have since his return called the CEO “the invisible man”. Many dubious policy decisions, responses to psychologically relevant hot topics in the public domain have happened since October 2021. Or have been ignored. The BPS operates in the field of public policy less with sound evidence -based psychological material and more as a Social Justice Campaigning organisation. This is clearly and increasingly outwith its mission.

The above drift, over which the CEO has presided, has been accompanied by gross financial recklessness and lack of acumen. Staffing numbers became bloated and unsustainable, leading to a recent desperation to cut numbers via redundancies and random wastages. In this context the use of the term restructuring is, frankly, dishonest. Service to the most important source of income, membership, will deteriorate from its already pretty poor quality. 

Final demands to get the budget on track were presumably being made by a Chair who has now abruptly resigned. It is my view, and that of others, that the CEO panicked and made a possibly terminal mistake. in the November board of Trustees minutes it was stated:

The CEO recommended that qualifications activities be phased out strategically. The business model does not cover its costs and demand is low. Existing candidates will be supported to complete their qualifications, where possible. Trustees discussed a number of issues including implications in relation to HCPC, limited numbers of candidates on some qualifications, the existence of alternative providers, and the extent to which certain qualifications do or do not cover their costs.

This blog in other recent posts has covered the objections and responses including open letters from the various Divisions affected or threatened. These are Division of Counselling Psychology, Division of Occupational Psychology, Division of Sports and Exercise Psychology, Division of Health Psychology, Division of Forensic Psychology. The myriad reasons why this was a serious error include:

  • he had not consulted the Divisions that this would affect
  • he had not taken advice about how this could have been better managed to increase efficiency and decrease costs
  • he did not appreciate how this undermines the perceived role and function of the BPS
  • his proposals expose the straying of the BPS mission from promotion of psychology in society and supporting members into a crude business model which he has proved himself incompetent to oversee

The belated statement issued by the BPS after the uproar occurred from Divisional chairs and members did little to assuage the anger and anxiety, and meetings with the CEO were said to be unsatisfactory. These Divisions contain many of the senior practitioners of Psychology in the UK who have doctoral level qualifications and are trying to grow their respective professional numbers in what should continue to be a favourable social and economic environment for these practices of psychology. The CEO, however, turned his myopic business eye on a hoped-for influx of new members, graduate or otherwise, much less qualified, which although more numerous is risky when the economic climate more generally is afflicted.

From the latest of these messes under the CEO’s leadership comes an early resignation from the first independent Chair of the BPS Board of Trustees, and a petition to remove the CEO from office.

The erstwhile chair has now retreated to what is probably a much saner as well as safer place. The question now is not only can the CEO survive, but can the BPS?

Gender, Governance, Identity Politics

The British Psychological Society and Gender – an update

AdminBPSWatch

Pat Harvey posts….

Transgender ideologues and their activism have colonised and sequestered, through social media and institutional capture, the various mental health vulnerabilities of children and young people and directed them into a narrow medicalised funnel which has pushed them towards physical treatments which are often irrevocable and cause life-long bodily dysfunction. Mental health professionals have either adopted an “allyship” to this ideology, unfortunately subsuming the diversity of individual ages, people’s lives and difficulties into one supposed oppressed “trans community”, or they have mostly been bullied into silence and avoidance. The British Psychological Society (BPS) has resolutely taken the first position.

In what is an extraordinary paradox, psychologists fired by “allyship” and underwritten by the BPS, have led services which eschew psychological formulation in favour of prioritising affirmative acceptance of the diverse reasons for a person’s rejection of their biological sex status and push them unreflectively towards transitioning drug treatments and surgery. 

Actual access to the dominant specialised gender services which promulgate the hope that “transition will alleviate your distress” has been so limited that children and families languish in waiting throughout their adolescence for access to the favoured transition pathway mode. Local services, stretched to their limits across the board, have been only too relieved to offload such clients. At the time of writing, many practitioner psychologists will openly admit they do not consider working with clients and families where gender is an issue. They feel the risk of approbation has become too evident in an intimidatory climate especially when they cannot resort to any reasonable form of support from their professional body for anything other than the affirmation and medicalised approach. The BPS produced Guidelines for Psychologists Working with Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity  in 2019. These are unlike any normal professional guidelines from that body, or indeed others. They unequivocally assert a quasi-moral requirement to adopt a particular approach – affirmation – as the default position. 

These guidelines are currently subject to a “midterm review” which has been going on for some time. It has to be assumed, as this information is not available to members, that the review is taking place under the purview of the trans rights activist chair – Christina Richards. This was an inappropriately partisan choice to lead the production of the 2019 document. In the review Richards will presumably be supported by three of the original members of the working party: two of the original 2019 working party members had requested their names be removed part way into the life of that document. It will be a source of great surprise, therefore, if the revised document is in any significant way different from the original, or if it changes the default affirmation edict, acknowledges controversy, removes the discredited WPATH reference and offers an any more balanced up-to-date reference base. 

The 2019 document was amended, following my complaint, to indicate it should only be read as applying to adults and young people (aged 18 and over). This has meant that the British Psychological Society has conspicuously failed – during the scandal-ridden rise and fall of a psychology-led national Gender Identity Disorder Service and the creation of the Cass Review – to provide any authoritative guidance whatsoever on a psychological approach to this area of practice with children and young persons. This. too, is a scandal. We hear informally that there may be BPS efforts to address this deficit, but, given the tardiness and lack of independence of the current BPS regime from trans-activist capture, it will be surprising if anything at all surfaces before the BPS renders itself irrelevant to the changing situation around psychological understandings of gender-related distress.

Meanwhile Dr Anna Hutchinson, a clinical psychologist and former employee who blew the whistle on the discredited Tavistock child gender service and contributed to Time to Think by Hannah Barnes, has called for therapists to return to “ordinary best practice” when treating children with gender confusion. She stated that

….therapists now needed to return to the non-medicalised methods they previously used to help the type of young people who sought help from GIDS. Speaking at the First Do No Harm conference, she said: “In ordinary practice we know lots about what children can understand at certain ages of development. We know the last 20 years there’s been a growth of understanding of the sensitive development that goes on in the adolescent brain.

Clinicians know how to work with complicated presentations to develop sets of hypotheses of how to best help distressed children that attend to all parts of their lives. That’s ordinary best practice. We know how to safeguard children, put them at the heart of interventions and how to protect them from possible harms.”

Governance

How not to run a “learned” Society? Yet more…..

AdminBPSWatch

Below is shown (with the author’s permission) an open letter from the Chair of the Division of Sport and Exercise Psychology regarding the lack of consultation and serious consequences of the recent announcement from the BPS concerning the closure of training options. We have already published reactions from Occupational Psychologists working in the private sector and as self-employed independent practitioners and the Division of Counselling Psychology.

Board of Trustees, Change Programme, Financial issues, Governance

Openness, [REDACTED] & [REDACTED]

AdminBPSWatch

Peter Harvey posts….

We look to do the right thing in an honest, fair and responsible way through appreciating others’ opinions, viewpoints, thoughts and ideas so that we build strong and trusting relationships. 

We keep people informed through clear, open and honest communication.

These two statements are taken from the BPS’s 2024 Strategy document [see https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/BPS%20Strategy%202024_0.pdf]. Along with a whole collection of vacuous feel-good, virtue-signalling, management-speak phrases the commitment to openness appears on the very first page of the document. It must be important then.

But, in a phrase much used by my old head of department, the late Bill Trethowan (yes, for those of you with long memories, that Trethowan) when testing for thought disorder “Fine words butter no parsnips”. How do these fine words translate into behaviour?

If we take the latest minutes of the Board of Trustees (BoT) [note: access to these on the BPS website is restricted to members, so I have included screenshots of the relevant sections]. These were published around the middle of March 2024 and refer to the meeting held in November 2023. Two things to note here – the long gap between meetings of the BoT as well as the delay in publishing them. We have pointed out previously that the BPS is undergoing serious financial problems and we are aware that a number of staff have been/are being made redundant (we can say no more than that because the BPS has been completely silent on this critically important matter). It comes as something of a surprise that at a time of such serious financial pressures there were not more meetings. And, by the way, don’t bother trying to find anything in The Psychologist. As ever, it shows absolutely no interest in keeping the membership informed about anything to do with the management of the BPS – not enough opportunity for virtue signalling I would guess.

You might imagine, as a member of an organisation that you pay for, you might be able to see just how your money is being spent. Please add your own hollow laugh at this point. At the top of the BoT minutes the following appears:

I can fully appreciate the need for redacting information that relates to individuals – so far, so understandable. But the phrase “…commercially sensitive…”  is a bit more problematic. Correct me if I’m wrong but the BPS is a membership organisation and a charity – it is not a business. I accept that the organisation should be run in a business-like manner, ensure that income is at least equal to expenditure.  So far, so GCSE Business Studies. If the BPS were a company in the commercial sector where activist shareholders or predatory asset strippers prowl in the shadows, keeping your accounts under wraps is understandable. Could this be true of the BPS? Is the Royal College of Psychiatrists about to make a hostile take-ever bid? Perhaps Stonewall want a new identity and is looking to the BPS (on second thoughts, some recent pronouncements from a BPS Officer suggests that has already happened)? Is the BPS in such robust good health financially that a sanctioned oligarch sees the opportunity to launder their ill-gotten gains through  a ‘respectable’ UK organisation? (To borrow from Private Eye – That’s enough, Ed). 

I think not, m’lud. In truth, the BPS is a completely unattractive proposition for any potential buyer (perhaps we should run a competition – devise a sales prospectus as if for floating a company) – unless Del Trotter might be interested, of course.

Back to reality. The statement above is played out in practice….

What an interesting phrase “..giving a misleading impression…”. I leave it up to you, the reader, to make what you will of it. In all, there are 16 redactions.

Perhaps the BoT needs to be reminded of some important things:

  1. The money is not theirs, nor the Senior Management Team’s. It is extracted from the members to pay for services.
  2. Members have a right to know how that money is spent.
  3. Trustees – acting on behalf of the fee-paying membership – have a duty under the law to ensure that “…your charity’s money is safe, properly used and accounted for. Every trustee has to do this…” [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-charity-finances].

How can members, either indirectly through the Trustees or directly as an individual member, find out if their money is being spent wisely, if all the relevant information is withheld? This is made all the more difficult by reference to the following statement (again from the November BoT minutes: (under 8. AOB, noted 3)…

I refer you back to the statements at the start of this post. Can anyone explain to me how the extracts above square with these?

Now I am sure that the BPS will argue that it follows due process by publishing fully audited accounts for the membership at the AGM. Of course they do, for otherwise the Charity Commission would be sniffing around (again!). But for those hardy souls who choose to plough through all 48 pages of the last consolidated financial statements there are two things to note: (1) that they are anything but recent (they only cover the year up to 31 December 2022); and (2) they have all the detail and clarity of a political party’s election promises. For example, try to find out how much was spent on legal fees and external consultancies (if you find it, please let me know). Up-to-date information about finances is (or should be) available to the BoT and the SMT (although if our experience with the much vaunted £6 million Change Programme is anything to go by I wouldn’t guarantee that). Surely it is possible to able to provide meaningful information to the membership without compromising any properly confidential detail? 

Secrecy is a pernicious poison, sowing mistrust, suspicion and disbelief. The recent furore about the manipulation of photographs (as well as the wider debate about ‘fake news’ and AI-influenced material) should give us all cause for concern. Why deny members access to information to which they have a right? To remind the BoT – it is the members’ money you are accountable for. You have a duty to be open and honest – let our parsnips be well and truly buttered by your commitment to truth and transparency.

Governance

How not to run a “learned” society? Some further observations

AdminBPSWatch

As with the previous post regarding the failure to consult the Division of Occupational Psychology about changes which would affect the qualifications of that group of practitioners, the British Psychological Society have repeated that consultation failure  with a counselling training route. Here we reprint in full, with her permission, two posts that the Chair of the BPS Division of Counselling Psychology, Dr Sue Whitcombe, published on her LinkedIn page.

First post, 10 March 2024:

I am receiving an increasing number of emails from members, colleagues and stakeholders who have heard that the independent route to qualification, offered by the BPS, is closing.  I have also heard of many candidates, prospective candidates and members who have contacted the BPS about their studies or their concerns, and received no response.

The Division of Counselling Psychology has not been informed, formally, of the closure of the Qualification in Counselling Psychology.  There has been no discussion with the Division around any such decision. In fact, during our last contact with the BPS Qualifications Team on 15th August 2023, we were informed of the high level of interest in QCoP and a commitment to the relaunch of the new Qualification in Quarter 2 2024.

In mid February, we were informed by colleagues that BPS CEO Sarb Bajwa had announced the immediate closure of the Qualification in Counselling Psychology, and two other qualifications, during a Qualifications Committee meeting earlier that month.

On 22nd February, I wrote to Sarb Bajwa, the Chair of the Board of Trustees, Chair of the Education and Training Board and Chair of Senate.  There has been a wall of silence – no response at all – other than from the Chair of Senate who responded immediately with a commitment to take concerns to the Board meeting on 1st March.

I conveyed the lack of respect and consideration for members, volunteers, stakeholders & contracted staff in the failure to consult and communicate with the Division and its 4000 members.  I voiced concerns about the apparent failure to consider the far-reaching implications for our profession.   

This modus operandi is contradictory to the values the BPS espouses – values such as involving and encouraging members and valuing their contributions; being open and keeping people informed through clear, open and honest communication; working in a psychologically informed way. https://www.bps.org.uk/our-values

Given the absence of any discussion or communication, and the failure to operate in accordance with the Society values, I requested that the process by which decisions were taken be made transparent, as is to be expected of a membership organisation.  I requested:

  • Disclosure of all documentation and communication which was shared with the Board of Trustees regarding the Qualification in Counselling Psychology 
  • Immediate transparent sharing of unredacted minutes, documentation & records relating to the review of the Qualification in Counselling Psychology, and the decisions made
  • Immediate correspondence with all members, candidates, applicants and those who have expressed an interest in the Qualification in Counselling Psychology informing them of the decisions which have been taken and the implications for their studies.

As a member undertaking activities on behalf of the BPS I am required to act in accordance with its values, act in the best interest of the Society as a whole and not engage in conduct that might bring the Society or the reputation of the profession into disrepute.  I have, to the best of my ability attempted to represent the Division of Counselling Psychology diligently, following due process and communicating through appropriate channels.  I am sharing this information today as I believe I have a duty to keep my members, and stakeholders, informed in the continued absence of any communication from the CEO or the Chair of the Board of Trustees.

The Division of Counselling Psychology is committed to engaging with our members, gathering and representing your views.  We have heard your concerns and are actively seeking clarification.  We are fully supportive of the QCoP as a valued, flexible, accessible route to qualification and we will take whatever action is necessary to amplify the voices of our members and challenge any decision which we feel is detrimental to the sustainability and standing of our profession.

Update, published 13 March 2024:

On behalf of the Division of Counselling Psychology Committee, I would like to thank all our members, colleagues, stakeholders and friends – from within the Division, sister Psychology domains and elsewhere – for your overwhelming support around my post on Sunday https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bps-qualification-counselling-psychology-qcop-dr-sue-whitcombe-9nvve/?trackingId=0Mf6LBOE4M5Qm3gaYDvzDg%3D%3D

While not surprised by the strength of feeling, we are quite humbled by, and grateful for, the universal solidarity and support we have received. 

I am aware that my post may have inadvertently provoked anxiety for some candidates who are already enrolled on the Qualification in Counselling Psychology.  I apologise unreservedly for this.  I have been informed by colleagues – not directly by the BPS – that QCoP administration staff wish to reassure all candidates and supervisors that the announced closure of QCoP will not affect those currently enrolled on the programme.

On Monday, the day after my post, the BPS CEO emailed me suggesting a conversation to clear up matters more quickly.   I am still consulting with colleagues about this.  I am mindful of the CEO’s previous failure to respond to emails – from myself and others – and a need for clarity and transparency.

I have had discussions with other Division Chairs to consider how we might, collectively, share our members’ voices about current concerns and decisions. 

This morning, I received an announcement from the BPS President in an email from the BPS Head of Member Networks and Events.  I have included this in its entirety below:

You may have seen online coverage recently relating to BPS-delivered qualifications. Please find below a message from President, Nicky Hayes:  

The BPS is totally committed to seeing the highest professional standards in the field of Psychology, culminating in its Chartered status. As a result of concerns raised by members representing three professional domains (occupational, counselling and educational psychology (Scotland), the Board is keen to undertake further consultation with members over BPS support for these, and other, qualifications. The BPS wants to ensure that a future structure is both a hallmark of quality, and sustainable.

Nicky Hayes

President

While the suggestion of belated consultation is welcome, we felt the need to communicate our disappointment to the President.  I emailed her today.   

We did not feel that the announcement reflected our concerns.  It did not capture the absence of any consultation on the closure of QCoP with members or their representatives on the Division committee.  Enrolment on the Qualification has been paused for nearly a year, during which time the Qualification has been reviewed. The only discussions with the Division during this time were positive in nature, acknowledging the substantial interest in the Qualification and committing to relaunch in the first half of 2024.  It did not acknowledge the failure of staff, management and trustees to respond to normal lines of communication from ourselves and our members, including current and prospective QCoP candidates, and colleagues supporting the Qualification.  The announcement suggests that any concerns relate to the Qualifications themselves, rather than the concerns we have raised about transparency, poor management and an apparent disregard for members and their representatives. 

As it is not clear in the announcement, I have asked for confirmation that our members, including current and prospective QCoP candidates, have been informed of the status of their studies, applications and enrolment.  Further, I asked for confirmation that the apparent decision to close the Qualification in Counselling Psychology has been rescinded pending comprehensive consultation.

Please be assured that we will continue to adhere to our values, keeping you informed as we represent your views.  I will endeavour to respond to all messages on Social Media and via email, but please do bear with me – it may take some time!

Warm wishes and thanks.

Governance

How not to run a “learned” Society?

AdminBPSWatch

Below is a copy of a letter sent to Sarb Bajwa this week which we are reproducing with the permission of Felicity Hill-Miers, who coordinated the response. It has 99 signatories. We understand that the Division of Occupational Psychology is also preparing a response expressing their serious reservations. They are not alone – the Division of Counselling Psychology is expressing similar concerns (we are approaching them for more information).

A combined response from Occupational Psychologists working in the private sector, and as self-employed independent practitioners, on the closure of the Qualification in Occupational Psychology (Stage 2). 

Dear Sarb Bajwa,

Many Occupational Psychologists working in private sector organisations, alongside self-employed independent practitioners, were deeply concerned to hear that you had informed the Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team of your intention to cease delivery of the qualification. 

We were surprised and alarmed that prior to your announcement, there had been no consultation with the Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team and the DOP Committee, nor had the information been shared with the BPS Senate and wider BPS employees such as your member network leads. We would really appreciate understanding the rationale behind the decision and would appreciate some further information. 

 A large number of individuals, representing a significant number of organisations who employ Occupational Psychologists, as well as those who operate independently, are incredibly concerned that the decision was made without any consultation of the relevant in-house BPS areas, let alone with the wider DOP members. As a society who represents the psychology professions, it is strongly felt that critical decisions need to be made in consultation with your members, and that missing out on this key stage has shown an extreme lack of consideration for your member’s needs. We should be seen as your stakeholders and customers, who have a vital an important voice in regard to the BPS and our professions. 

There are obviously some grave concerns about the decision-making that has underpinned this announcement, and the way that the move has been handled so far without consultation or rationale provided. Due to this, a number of us have come together to jointly voice our concerns and ask a variety of pertinent questions. 

There is a clear desire to have a rationale shared behind the decision-making, whether financial and other. Financially, as BPS members, there is a large concern around how you, as the CEO, and the Trustees, have allowed the BPS to get into such an untenable position that you feel you have to close three qualifications, with potentially more joining the list in the future. 

There is concern about what the future looks like for those of us in Occupational Psychology roles or working across wider sectors utilising our skills. There is also concern about those in their early careers and what this now means for them. There is significant value placed on us as a professional group, with our unique areas of expertise, and this move feels completely devaluing of that. It is felt that our credibility comes from having our chartered status and the associated qualification. Years have been spent ensuring clients regard chartered status as a marker of excellence and reassurance of expertise, and many organisations are firm advocates of the need to provide that professional “kitemark”. It should be noted that for many of us, our clients require our consultants to hold chartered status in order to work with them. Taking this away suggests our status is less worthy and we are less capable psychologists than those who work in other settings, such as clinical.

In a time of such constant and fast-moving change in organisations, particularly technological and with the influx of artificial intelligence and unregulated start-ups and technology companies, Occupational Psychologists are needed more than ever to provide support. It therefore becomes even more essential to understand human behaviour at work, and it feels we are in a time of continued growth and respect of our industry, where the real value of our work is being recognised in the workplace. On top of this, we also provide support to people and organisations that perform safety/mission critical roles (i.e. there are people out there undertaking dangerous tasks, that we help make safer). 

We wonder therefore what consideration has been given to the impact of this decision on the reputation and integrity of the profession, and how people and organisations will now view us and our worth? This decision feels incredibly damaging to the reputation that many of us, and colleagues before us have worked tirelessly to promote, and risks damaging the future of many aspiring Occupational Psychologists who have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of this profession, not for their own benefit, but to hopefully benefit the lives of many in the working world.

Many of us speak fondly about our personal career journeys, and the support and encouragement we’ve had along the way from others. Many of us now spend considerable amounts of time supervising, mentoring and guiding others on their journey into the field. This is a profession where people are proud of the work they do, and where our field is widely recognised for the services we provide. This decision has endangered that greatly. 

The QOP Stage 2 remains a central part of the UK Occupational Psychology profession and the move to cancel the qualification appears poorly conceived and has been badly handled to date. There are many questions about what the future qualification route may be, if any, and what preparation has taken place to look into this. There is concern about the impact on Stage 1 accreditation providers and if there is any expectation that a different provision of Stage 2 would be sought externally, that no market readiness activity has taken place prior to closing QOP. The potential resultant talent shortage with the removal of QOP is of significant concern.

Whilst the qualification is challenging, it is also seen as a rewarding process which enhances the skills of those who undertake it. The Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team have worked hard, and closely with the wider profession, to ensure that the 2019 route reflects the requirements of our roles. It is reflective – encouraging critical thinking, it instils the consultancy cycle and skills needed for those entering the profession, as well as having a strong focus on using an ethical and evidence-based approach. Without this pillar of best practice, how do we ensure that those who want to enter the profession have the right knowledge, skills and attributes needed? Without an entry route, how is our profession sustainable? How will service users (clients) have confidence that they’re obtaining appropriate advice/support? How will they know if a provider is competent? 

Outside of concerns on those already chartered, there are significant concerns about those currently studying on MSc programmes and QOP already. The impact on them is significant, financially, emotionally and on their future career. They are just starting to enter a field which feels in grave danger of no longer existing. Many people set their whole career path based around attaining chartership, sometimes moving jobs to cover the breadth of areas, sometimes taking pay cuts to join organisations where chartership is supported. The lack of consideration of this group is appalling. 

This decision acts as part of a major change programme, which is currently being handled incredibly poorly. It should be noted that many Occupational Psychologists specialise in this area, and you are urged to reflect on your approach here and manage this change better. There are some within this group who would actively offer their support to ensure positive outcomes.  

A huge amount of trust has been broken with this move, and it is felt that the BPS actions are in breach of your own Ethics and Conduct: respect, competence, responsibility and integrity. For an organisation that supposedly supports psychologists, promotes work/wellbeing issues and supports social mobility the lack of communication has been seen as disgraceful. We expect you to be a membership organisation who supports and values us as individuals and as a profession.

It is felt by some that through active and open dialogue, through listening, engaging and consulting with the members of your organisation, this may be remedied. So as a group, we are asking for transparency and explanation about how the decision has been reached. We urge you to consider that future decisions of this nature are communicated differently, and that we as members are engaged with in advance. Many are in disbelief that with the awareness that the decision has been shared with your members, that the BPS themselves have failed to offer any kind of communication at all.

We request that you reconsider any plans to withdraw the QOP.  We would ask that you consider our concerns, and also respond to a number of questions:

  1. Why was there no consultation with the Stage 2 QOP Qualification Team, the DOP Committee, BPS Senate or DOP members, prior to your announcement to the Qualification Team?
  2. What is the specific rationale and drivers that underpin the decision-making? What attempts have been made to remedy the situation prior to making this decision? What issues, risks and impacts were taken into consideration, and how have these been mitigated?
  3. Where do you see the future of the Occupational Psychology profession, with the main entry route removed? How do we continue to grow and evolve what is seen to be a thriving profession with the removal of QOP? Are you considering alternative methods, or are you saying that the profession is no longer required? If alternative methods, what research has taken place to look at market readiness? What do you feel the implications of this decision are on the profession and its members?
  4. What specific consideration has been given to the withdrawal of QOP as the recognised route through for Occupational Psychologists to gain statutory registration with the Health & Care Professions Council (HCPC)? What impact do you think this will have on use of the protected title moving forwards?
  5. What do you think the impact of removing the main entry route will be on how people and organisation’s value Occupational Psychologists? Do you see the profession being devalued following this move?
  6. What is your messaging to those of us who are already registered Occupational Psychologists, who have continued to support the BPS and the profession, when it has felt that for years there has been something very wrong behind the scenes for many years? What does the BPS plan to do to support us and the potential impact on us from organisations finding out we are potentially a legacy profession? 
  7. What is your messaging to those already undertaking their QOP, wondering whether there is now any point and whether they are wasting their time and money – particularly for those who are self-funding? How do you intend to support those currently registered moving forwards? How do you intend to support the supervisors of those registered?
  8. What is your messaging going to be to those who are enrolled on accredited MSc Organisational/Occupational/Business Psychology postgraduate degrees who are already undertaking that further, expensive study to make their way into the field?
  9. On the BPS website, it says “We are the British Psychological Society. For more than 120 years, we have championed psychology, psychologists and the wider psychological professions, supporting our members through every stage of their careers.” Has this focus now changed? What role do the BPS feel they now will play as our professional body?
  10. How do you intend to build back trust with your members?

This combined response covers the collective feelings of a large number of organisations and Occupational Psychologists. However, we ask that you also view the individual responses from so many who feel so strongly about this decision, shared as an appendix.

Gender, Governance, Identity Politics

Going undercover at the BPS…

AdminBPSWatch

Below is the full text of James Esses’s blog post which we are publishing with his permission. The link to the full post is here which will allow you to view the videos and see comments.

In our view this shows the full extent of the misgovernance, lack of proper oversight and organisational capture within the BPS. This is no way for a learned society to act. Surely its job is to be the place where open, honest, evidence-based discussions are encouraged and supported – it’s not part of its job to be an “ally”. Ultimately, the BPS is failing the public, particularly in relation to child safeguarding. The BPS is increasingly dysfunctional as is shown in our recently published book.

Lunatics Running The Asylum: Going Undercover at the British Psychological Society

The British Psychological Society (BPS) was founded in 1901 and currently acts as the representative body for well over 60,000 psychologists.

I first became concerned with ideological capture in the BPS when I saw that they were actively promoting Mermaids to vulnerable patients (this is the same Mermaids under investigation by the Charity Commission for safeguarding issues, including sending breast binders to children behind parents’ backs).

So, when the opportunity presented itself last week to go undercover to an internal BPS webinar, I took it. The purpose of the webinar was to “shine a light on the history of the LGBT+ community’s experience of receiving healthcare”.However, this was far from a mere talking shop. The BPS stated that the webinar “aspires to equip psychologists with actionable insights and recommendations to implement systemic change”.

It is clear from this blurb that the BPS sought to impress recommendations upon their members.

Before attending the webinar, I looked up the speakers. They included:

·       Dr Adam Jowett – Chair of the BPS EDI Board, who has led research for the government on their proposed ban on ‘conversion therapy’

·       Penny Catterick – A ‘trans’ member of the BPS Human Rights Advisory Group

·       Dr Heather Armstrong – Academic at the University of Southampton

·       Dr Katherine Hubbard – Academic at the University of Surrey

·       Dr Rob Agnew – Clinical psychologist and Chair of the BPS Section of Gender, Sexuality and Relationship Diversity

Clearly, the BPS were bringing out the big guns.

The webinar began with panellists’ thoughts on the current state of play regarding ‘trans healthcare’ in society. The audience were told that “LGBTQ people face huge medicalisation”. This statement was ironic, given that the BPS support puberty blockers, hormones and surgery for those with gender dysphoria – the very definition of ‘huge medicalisation’.

The usual dollop of scaremongering was quickly added. We were informed that we are living in a “precarious and serious time”. Dr Katherine Hubbard, on the theme of patients feeling anxiety and distress, said: “Of course you feel anxious and distressed…look at the world you’re living in and the way your being is being pathologised”.

This is a worrying sentiment from a senior psychologist who appears to impose her own narrative and worldview on vulnerable patients. Rather than seeking to explore potential causation and co-morbidities of gender dysphoria, she simply views anxiety and distress as evidence as to why someone should transition.

However, the most concerning statement of the session came from Dr Rob Agnew (remember, he is a Chair within the BPS).

Agnew began with what can only be described as a rant, claiming that we have allowed “socially sanctioned discrimination” from people who can “hide behind other protected characteristics”.

It is clear who Agnew is referring to here – those of us who hold ‘gender critical’ beliefs, which, as we know, are protected under the Equality Act 2010. How would gender critical members of the BPS feel listening to this?

However, the worst was yet to come. 

Agnew went on to refer to a recent statement from the United Kingdom Council of Psychotherapy (UKCP) as being “transphobic”. This statement was off the back of litigation I had pursued against UKCP and it recognised explicitly that psychotherapists are both professionally and legally entitled to hold ‘gender critical’ beliefs.   

Agnew stated that we should clamp down on therapists with gender critical beliefs “in the way we wouldn’t expect a female client to accept therapy from an incel or a misogynist”.

To compare clinicians who believe in biological reality with incels or misogynists is beyond disgraceful. Shockingly, not a single panellist challenged Agnew on this statement. Remember, these panellists are purporting to speak on behalf of the entire BPS. 

I wrote an anonymous question into the Q&A box, challenging what Agnew had just said. Unsurprisingly, my question was ignored.

Up next was a dose of identity politics from Penny Catterick, the ‘transwoman’ who told viewers that he has “55 years of track experience”,whatever that means.

Reflecting on recent attempts to introduce self-ID in Scotland, Catterick claimed that Scottish women are suffering from “minority stress”, on the basis that they are “living in nested minoritisation in the UK”.Truthfully, I don’t even know what this means…I think Catterick was trying to suggest that because Scottish people are not the majority nationality within the United Kingdom, that this is innately stressful for them…

Catterick, a man identifying as a woman, went on to say that we are “living in a patriarchy”.That he could not see the irony in this statement is truly worrying.

At this point, Dr Rob Agnew chimed in again with more random ranting. He chastised paramedics who “assume a person is a man because they have a beard…putting them in a situation in which they have to out themselves”.

He went on to question: “how relevant is it if they were assigned male or female at birth?”

In the world of emergency healthcare being provided by paramedics, extremely relevant.

But Agnew, blinded by his devotion to gender ideology, cannot even see this. He then said that “social background” is more important that “biological background” and expressed hope that one day we will live in a world in which clinicians can “engage with non cis het people” without needing to know their “personal history”.

This is complete and utter madness being spouted by the association of psychologists – a profession operating within a framework of medicine and science. Or at least they used to.  

I was particularly concerned to hear a recommendation from the panel that “WPATH psychologists should be recognised by NHS”and that “recognition and promotion of WPATH practices by BPS practitioners could likely benefit psychological treatments in the UK.”

This is the same WPATH recently under intense spotlight, following the publication of the ‘WPATH Files’, demonstrating that their clinicians are clearly aware of the serious damage that can be caused by puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, in the name of ‘gender affirmation’. This is the same WPATH which recommends breast and penis removal for children as young as 9 years old and has even advised that ‘eunuchs’ are recognised as a distinct gender identity.  

Towards the end of the webinar, the panel engaged in a highly unprofessional and deeply disgusting attack on the ongoing Cass Review – the independent, government-commissioned review into gender services for children.

Dr Rob Agnew said that we should not have a “cisgender person deciding what trans youth services are going to look like” and instead “should have someone we can have faith in”.

To attempt to raise doubt, suspicion and paranoia over the work of Dr Hilary Cass, solely on the basis that she is “cisgender”, is utterly abhorrent and incredibly dangerous.

He went on to claim that there are “risks of explorative therapy” and that explorative therapy is “tied very strongly to conversion therapy”.To allege that therapists who seek to explore issues with clients (a bedrock of psychotherapy) is a form of ‘conversion therapy’ is simply beyond words.

The webinar finished with ‘transwoman’, Penny Catterick, saying that people have always told him “what a courageous person” he is for ‘transitioning’. He then, dramatically, paraphrased Franklin D. Roosevelt, telling his fellow trans people that they have entered the “Theatre of Critics” and reminded them that they are on a “hero’s journey”,even if “people in the cheap seats do chuck stuff at you”.

The webinar finished with a statement that “trans affirmative healthcare is the right side of history.”

I closed my laptop, feeling like I had just come from a Stonewall rally, rather than a professional, psychological webinar.

The lunatics are well and truly running the asylum. This should be of great concern to us all.

"The Psychologist", Board of Trustees, Governance

Has anything really changed?

AdminBPSWatch

One of the functions of BPSWatch is, without wishing to be too grandiose, to hold those in senior positions at the BPS to account and to give them an opportunity to provide us, and hence the wider membership, with information about what is actually going on in the organisation. It should be the case that we are unnecessary, that the BPS was actually keeping its recent promises about openness and transparency. This is not happening, so we plod on in a so far vain attempt to ensure that the organisation that we all have contributed to over the years really does become one of which the discipline of psychology can be proud.

Below are copies of recent correspondence between David Pilgrim and David Crundwell, the Chair of the Board of Trustees (BoT). These are presented unedited and open for you, the reader, to allow you to draw your own conclusions. A brief opinion follows.

David Pilgrim’s email:

Dear Mr Crundwell,

A few weeks ago I invited you to be a discussant at the book launch on December 8th of my edited collection British Psychology in Crisis: A Case Study in Organizational Dysfunction. You declined, arguing that you only wished to look forwards and not backwards. You said that the book contained “accusations” and I argued that these were empirical claims for you to admit to or refute with evidence. Your refutation about the critique in the book is still awaited and may be impossible to fashion because you know very well that broadly our claims about misgovernance are completely valid. Now the BPS staff are vindicating our warnings in this regard.

In the past couple of weeks two important events have highlighted your lack of wisdom in refusing to learn from history. Sadly you appear to have reinforced a pre-existing cultural norm of toxic positivity. The two events exposing your error are a. the need to make a fifth of the workforce redundant and b. the incipient vote of no confidence in the SMT from the BPS staff. Their concerns confirm what we in BPSWatch  have been warning you about for the past three years. The BPS is heading towards a state of both financial and moral bankruptcy. 

On the financial front you are making hardworking staff redundant, while at the same time pouring more and more membership fees into defending the inexcusable (i.e. the contrived expulsion of Dr Nigel MacLennan). His imminent Employment Tribunal will, in its evidence taking, expose far more damning detail than we have been able to publish in the book, on our blog and on our X account about corruption and cover up. You are now drawing down reserves which are not unending. The Society has been in financial deficit year on year recently. Finance directors have mysteriously disappeared in haste.  Members are leaving in a state of disgust and exasperation. 

On the moral front, transparency remains absent and the wool is pulled over the eyes of members and the public as a matter of course, seemingly with no regret or shame from either the SMT or the BoT. The obvious channel to keep members informed should be The Psychologist. Instead it offers an assured biddable silence.

So, an open discussion about the deepening crisis will continue to rely on journalists and us in BPSWatch reporting events. 

The Charity Commission will soon become aware of the failure of the BPS leadership to mend its ways over broken governance. Do you think that a U-turn might now be wise for you and others on the BoT about this ongoing silence? Why not just admit that the truth about the crisis and those culpable for its emergence need to be named and explained properly to members and the public?

We look forward to you answer to these important questions. 

Dr David Pilgrim on behalf of BPSWatch

David Crundwell’s reply:

Thank you for your note, and apologies for any delay in replying – Christmas and all that. It is worth me clarifying a couple of points.

I, and three other new trustees from outside, volunteers all, joined the BPS a year ago now in response to the change in board, and goverance, structure agreed by members in 2022. 

You are of course correct, and it is a matter of public record, that the organisation has operated in deficit for a number of years now, clearly that is not something that can continue. Hence, drawing down on reserves is not new as you suggest – reserves have always funded those deficits, also a matter of public record. The board of 2023 was set the challenge, by the board in 2022, of returning the organisation to a balanced budget and this is a priority. This can only be done responsibly alongside creating a sustainable, scalable, operating model.

A balanced budget will give the BPS opportunities to build on key areas such as research; and new ways to support those interested in all aspects of psychology enjoy a lifetime’s journey within the BPS.

The board is the ultimate decision maker on strategy and so too the finance envelope; it then operates in partnership with the executive team to deliver on those goals. It is not, and should never be, the other way round. Substantial progress has already been made in 2023 through improved focus and taking tough decisions. Tough decisions which are not taken lightly. Our progress to date will be clear with the publication of the audited accounts later this year.

As you are aware the employment tribunal judgment last summer is being appealed by the plaintiff. I do not feel it appropriate to comment while the case is still underway. Though I have read the initial judgement, as I am sure you have, with interest.

Equally, while the organisation is in consultation with a number of staff, it again would not be appropriate to comment on that legal process. Suffice to say in line with my observations earlier we are doing our best to shape the organisation for the future.

Our actions in 2023 reflect an organisation learning from the past, and using good data, good governance, and best practice – rather than emotion – to move forward with focus and purpose.

Turning to The Psychologist magazine, this exists to serve as a forum for communication, discussion, and debate on a range of psychological topics. This is its clear mandate as is explained on the BPS website https://www.bps.org.uk/about-psychologist The Editor of The Psychologist is independent of the Board of Trustees and the Senior Leadership Team regarding the publication’s content. As they should be. He is free to publish within the law and his remit – whatever he wishes. 

He works closely with the Psychologist and Digest Editorial Advisory Committee on content and consults with them regularly on editorial direction as well as individual editorial decisions. The Psychologist is not there to report on the organisation itself, that is outside its remit. Communicating with members about the organisation takes place through a variety of channels – messages direct from the President, through discursive forums such as The Senate, member groups, and a wide range of other communications channels including the website, “X” and the like.

On the issue of corruption, you imply you have detailed information. I am of course aware of the fraud case, and the details of that investigation. Are you referring to any other issue or incident which I may not be aware of? I would be grateful if you could provide details. It is important that any new allegations can be investigated and substantiated, otherwise there is potential for the defamation of innocent individuals. The board would take any defamatory statements seriously, as we have done in the past, as a responsible organisation.

As I said when we first corresponded, I was happy to meet with you all in person, alongside the CEO, The President, and the President-Elect. The opportunity was to discuss your concerns and take a rounded view with all key stakeholders present; an offer that was declined.

Finally, I have referenced twice in our past correspondence my dislike of online bullying and trolling. Online bullying is an insidious byproduct of social media and cannot be acceptable at any level. It is one of the most corrosive aspects of modern society. Constructive dialogue quickly becomes futile in such an atmosphere. Something I am sure you would as a group, and individually, be prepared to agree with me on?

2024 is an important year for the organisation. Our work continues both on the finances and to build a sustainable, scalable, operating model. We will be doing this by focussing on what matters, while highlighting more of the world class work, and mature debate – based on quality research – that members can be proud of.

Bests,

David 

Commentary by Peter Harvey, Blog Administrator.

On the plus side, David did at least get a reply (a significant and welcome change from previous administrations). And, yes, it was a detailed response to most of the points that he raised. But (you couldn’t have imagined that there wouldn’t be a ‘but’ sooner or later) let’s look at some of the content in more detail (and in no particular order).

The reply is a good example of corporate-speak – the verbal style of a comms team rather than a person. It is essentially complacent in its tone – “Yes, there are problems (unspecified) but we have it all under control”. 

There is a serious mismatch between the seriousness of the financial problems and the sparse and skimpy information that has been given to the membership. Indeed, bland statements available in the highly redacted BoT Minutes suggest that the overall financial situation is positive [see my previous post here]. There is no sense of an impending crisis – and proposing over 30 redundancies is as serious a crisis as it gets.

There is not a trace of empathy for those staff whose heads will roll. As I have said before [see here], I doubt whether the redundancies will be at the very well-paid top of the hierarchy. It will be at the level of member services, the very people on whom those in senior positions rely on to do the everyday key tasks on which the membership (and the future of the Society) depend.

Mr Crundwell states that The Psychologist is not there to report on the organisation itself. Sorry to contradict, but I quote from The Psychologist Policies and Protocols document, published in March 2021, Section 3.2 which states that The Psychologist is expected to fulfil the following roles 

  • as a source of information about the views of the Society; 
  • as a place to publish Society news and business, and to reflect the Society’s member-voted policy themes and current priorities; 

Mr Crundwell argues that there is a multiplicity of other sources of information. This view compares unfavourably with my experience of another organisation of which I am a member – the Royal Photographic Society (RPS). In their Journal there is always a full narrative report of their Board of Trustees meeting; there are regular updates on RPS activities; the President writes a regular column. And there is still room for the main content. I guess that the RPS see their journal as an important archive which records the formal activities of the Society.  The problem with Mr Crundwell’s sources is that they are uncoordinated and transient – and, of course, more easily edited or ‘lost’.  In my view, a key function of the Society’s house journal is to act as a Journal of Record (similar to a Newspaper of Record) so that there is always an accessible and permanent record of the Society’s activities. It would not take that much space. It would also be a lot more accessible and member-friendly than the increasingly impenetrable post-£6 million Change Programme website. It’s almost as if the BPS doesn’t want its history recorded.

As so to the sly references in Mr Crundwell’s response to “bullying”. It’s Interesting to note how often that word has occurred in our collective correspondence with the BPS. It’s almost as if there is a little bit of code in the word-processor that recognises our names and automatically boilerplates a phrase about bullying and/or harassment. For me bullying has to include intent to harm (both ACAS and the Anti-Bullying Alliance include this concept in their guidance). ACAS also invokes the abuse of power as a factor. I think we can put that to one side – unless I am seriously misreading the situation, the power of a large, wealthy organisation which could, at any time, revoke our membership trumps that of a small group of malcontents. So, to intent, m’lud. We have always made it clear that our intent in all of our activities is to prevent damage to a discipline of which we are proud. In our view the BPS has, in recent years, failed singularly and particularly to represent psychology in all its many and varied forms in a responsible and professional manner. When we (and many others) have tried to engage senior members of the Society (whether elected or paid) we have been fobbed off, blocked or simply ignored. Because the amount of important and relevant information about the workings of the Society is so hidden from public view, we will often have to repeat requests. This is not “harassment” or “bullying”. It is a reaction to an unresponsive, defensive and secretive organisation. As a further observation, at no stage has the BPS felt the need to correct any of our statements or assertions when given the opportunity either publicly or privately. To reinforce this we are more than willing to publish any statement from the BPS without editorial interference.

He also refers to “trolling” which, according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service is

“…a form of baiting online which involves sending abusive and hurtful comments across all social media platforms.”

We would like to see the evidence to which this implied accusation relates. In our public statements, whether here or elsewhere, we focus on the behaviour of the organisation and the behaviour of office-holders in their role  – we clearly do not target individuals personally with abusive communications. We raise legitimate questions about the Society which is accountable to its membership for its actions. I would challenge Mr Crundwell to show us and the wider membership concrete examples of any malicious or abusive communications from any one of our contributors. As with many public statements, accusations are made without supporting evidence and hence are slurs and smears which cannot be refuted.

Mr Crundwell is right in stating that we refused a meeting with him and key stakeholders. Our reason for that is simple. We have argued long and hard that the Board of Trustees is not fully independent of the BPS – and paid staff are clearly not. What we asked for – and continue to request – is a meeting at which we can speak freely to one of the only independent trustees who has no vested interest (legitimate or not) in protecting their position within the Society. 

Enough of my ramblings. As Mr Crundwell notes, 2024 is an important year for the Society. It will be spending even more of members’ money on legal fees; will probably waste members’ money on consultancies and outsourcing; be evermore in thrall to whatever “social justice” bandwagon it feels the need to jump on; and generally fail to be the organisation of which members can be proud.