Bullying, harassment? It’s not the members, BPS.

Pat Harvey posts….

Dealing with the many ongoing dissatisfactions of members at BPSWatch, I have just received yet more alarming information about the way in which members are actively dissuaded from persisting to query unsatisfactory responses to their concerns. They are threatened and bullied. This post will provide examples of such evidence that will not breach the confidentiality of those who have brought their reports to us having received the same treatment as I will outline below. We consider this scandalous and worthy of immediate re-scrutiny by the Charity Commission.

Right at the outset when we were propelled to launch BPSWatch.com due to the plethora of concerns amongst psychologist colleagues about their professional body, we were astonished to discover that the CEO of the Society had been suspended, along with the Finance Director. We reported this as mere fact, as we believed that the members had a right to know that some kind of serious incident had occurred. Suspensions of such senior officers in large organisations are often reported as matters of fact which can be expected to have an important impact upon the functioning of that organisation in the short term at least. We received a letter from the then Legal and Governance Officer at the BPS claiming that this was defamatory content. Inexperienced, we were alarmed by this and removed it. AI gives in the footnote below the reasons why we should have stood firm ^[1]. [This footnote appears at the end of the post].

The behaviour of the BPS towards its members subsequently has given us ample reasons for saying, five years down the line, that we would not respond to threats and bullying because they are the modus operandi of dealing with dissatisfied members who challenge Senior Managers, the Editor of The Psychologist or sometimes Elected Officers. This is a very strong allegation to make, but it has been reported to us by numerous individuals who have persisted with complaints or have challenged policy. We have kept the evidence that has been given to us, often by individual members who feel they have been suddenly subjected to extremely inappropriate threatening communications when they are acting as questioning members whose fees keep the Society afloat and senior staff handsomely remunerated, are entitled to do.

It is as if the BPS are operating the DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) playbook when they are called to account on highly controversial policy pronouncements, failure to respond to important practice issues, publication bias, censorship of debate, communication blackouts and more (see here). It almost seems as though at some stage there has been a policy directive: “If you want to close the member communication down, tell them their persistence is bullying, harassment or vexatious, perhaps threaten them with member conduct rules or violating dignity at work, or legal action”. I think that it is now long overdue that we provide for members/readers the evidence of this ‘BPS as the victim of its members’  stance. 

 It is notable that the exactly the same phraseology is used by different senior staff regarding different issues to different members and this is particularly evident in direct quotes below:

Response to representations about governance and concerns about openness and transparency – reply from the Deputy CEO:

“I ….will not be engaging in any correspondence relating to the internal affairs of the society. I feel that some of your phrases, and the volume of repeated correspondence when answers have been provided, can be construed as harassment and bullying and I will not allow my team to be subjected to inappropriate behaviour. I would like to draw your attention to both the BPS Dignity at Work policy (attached) and the Member Code of Ethics and Conduct.”

Response to communications critical of media engagement of the BPS – reply from Director of Communications and Engagement:

“I also note that some of these emails have been sent early morning, some on Easter Sunday and others at weekends. I would respectfully ask you to review how you correspond with the society. I feel that some of your phrases, and the volume of repeated correspondence when answers have been provided, can be construed as harassment and bullying and I cannot allow my team to be subjected to inappropriate behaviour. I would like to draw your attention to both the BPS Dignity at Work policy (attached) and the Member Code of Ethics and Conduct.”

It is laughable to complain about the timing of emails. Staff need only open work emails during working hours whereas some members will be attending to issues whilst outside their working hours and their working week!

Response to communications about extended debacle surrounding the BPS Memory and Law Group and failures to reply- reply from Director of Knowledge and Insight:

” I feel I have responded to your substantive comments, so I will regard our correspondence as closed. I did not intend my emails to be made public, however one of my emails to you has been posted on the BPSWatch blog with my name, under the heading “Dereliction of Duty”.  I reserve the right to take action in relation to any inappropriate reference to me in any public domain”. (See, however, here for full context of blog article “Dereliction of Duty”)

With regard to the above instances, these are a sample of the many related to us over the past 5 years. Members have told us that they are frustrated, dissatisfied – worse still – intimidated by the direct or implied threats of censure and expulsion. In those instances we have heard and seen nothing to suggest personal abuse against BPS staff and officers or actual harassment of them. The communications have been with personnel who are in a formal role and hence accountable for their actions as representatives of the organisation.

Very frequent and particular concerns have been expressed about the role and function of the BPS magazine, The Psychologist, and decisions of its managing editor, recently retitled Head of Science Communication/ Managing Editor, and his Editorial Advisory Committee (PDEAC). The concerns range from failure to inform, or inform accurately and openly (see below), important relevant Society business when it is not bland, comfortably self-congratulatory, or when it is subject to controversy. With regard to controversy, members have long stated that there is a party line and that the Editor, supported by the PDEAC, resists initiating publication of material which goes against the prevailing editorial position and also resists printing a full range of critical responses.

For example, in 2021, the Editor reprinted a one-liner from the acting Chair of the Board of Trustees:  “… In February, our Vice President David Murphy chose to resign from the Board of Trustees…”. This resignation by a very long serving volunteer and member-elected officer merited coverage in external publications:  Civil Society (see here)  reported that “…In February 2021, a long-standing trustee and former president of the BPS, David Murphy, resigned citing concerns about governance, spending and transparency...” and Third Sector  (see here) noted that “…A long-standing trustee and former president of the British Psychological Society has resigned citing concerns about governance, spending and transparency...”. Dr. Murphy was aggrieved and had to take to X: “I was disappointed to read the statement in @psychmag today  https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-34/june-2021/society-crossroads which states that I “chose to resign” without any mention of the reasons. The subsequent focus on gender & prescribing issues may imply these were involved, I’ve posted my resignation letter below.”. That letter can be read here and it is also referenced in a previous blog post here. None of this controversy about profligate spending, transparency and openness was mentioned in The Psychologist and only favourable propaganda about the organisation appears in the publication to this day, hence the continuing function of BPSWatch.

One of the most serious issues that we have covered in this blog has been the avoidance of discussion of the matter of gender ideology and activism and its impact upon controversial psychologist-led services for children. During this last five years the UK has seen relevant judicial rulings, the closure of the national service at the Tavistock and the Cass Inquiry Report. My own complaint about the lamentable BPS Gender Guidelines (2019) secured one concession in 2022, a rebadging to indicate that these did not apply to minors under 18 years of age. Since then the BPS has failed to produce professional practice guidelines for children. The Editor has been reluctant to initiate publication of any articles which are not firmly espousing the trans gender affirmative line and has actively sought articles to promote an evident bias about which he is openly proud. He has stated categorically to me and others that he will always prioritise material on this subject from transgender people and those who work directly with them. He has put this in writing to individuals and in print as a response when pressurised to publish a multi-signed letter from practitioners, a number of whom were former workers who left the discredited services due to concerns (see Editor’s Response here). Despite the assertion “In terms of our own coverage, we are a forum for discussion and debate and we are keen to hear from a range of voices, including trans people and those psychologists who work directly with them. We will begin to publish a selection of responses here.”, only 4 were published, 3 of which were trans ideology affirmative. We know that more responded and that others were immediately discouraged, seeing the caveat of preference expressed by the Editor. The privileging of lived experience as the foremost influence upon, and basis for, policy-making is now the subject of much concern, even from campaigners who are stressing the need for objectivity and balance. A search will demonstrate that proportionally, very little has been published about or by detransitioners or by practitioners who are sex realist and critical of gender ideology and of the medicalisation of gender distress. 

So, having considered above a highly topical issue which has psychological principles and practice at its heart and has suffered suppression by editorial bias at The Psychologist, how is the “reverse victim and offender” seen in its pages? A statement was issued here which reads as defensive of wider criticisms. It also includes “…with extra online comment from the Managing Editor…“. Here the Editor states:

“Challenge and criticism are to be expected and even welcome. But I will no longer engage – I can no longer engage – with false information and the targeting of individual, named staff in repeated abuse. There have to be boundaries for professional and constructive discourse. And I’ve been particularly shocked by accusations of playing the victim or weaponising mental health: perhaps it’s time for a discussion on how we talk about such areas, and my own feeling is that as psychologists we must do better“.

I complained about this to the Chair of the PDEAC at the time. I stated:

“TONE AND CONTENT: 

The tone and content of that section is highly personalised and self-referential, about “I” whilst supposedly writing in the context of considerations about the role and function of a publication of which he is managing editor.  In what is a short section there are 26  first person personal pronouns. He alludes to unspecified and unevidenced abuse and false information, by implication, on social media:

“But I will no longer engage – I can no longer engage – with false information and the targeting of individual, named staff in repeated abuse. There have to be boundaries for professional and constructive discourse. And I’ve been particularly shocked by accusations of playing the victim or weaponising mental health: perhaps it’s time for a discussion on how we talk about such areas, and my own feeling is that as psychologists we must do better.”

These allegations are easy to make, easy to exaggerate, easy to stir up disapproval when you are in the position to publish them mainstream. They should not be made in this way unless there is evidence given and they are serious enough to be actionable. Robust criticism in this context is not abuse. If “false information” is being propagated this gives an opportunity for clarification and correction. Controversy can be debated in a healthy fashion if it is open to general scrutiny. These accusations are not, and are being used in a way currently being referred to as “cancel culture” and “the right not to be offended”.

The comments made in this section are particularly provocative in a circumstance where The Psychologist previously linked the now infamous Youtube video impugning the integrity of the deposed President Elect made by Carol McGuinness (the link posted on The Psychologist which was removed, as it now has been by the BPS themselves). It will undoubtedly be contended legally that this widely circulated and publicly available video constituted harassment and detriment to an individual at the point at which legal redress is sought. It can only be at best insensitive and at worst excruciatingly provocative in such circumstances for Sutton to juxtapose the innuendoes about member abuse with specific reference to Carol McGuinness’ exhortations in the following manner: “…I can only echo Professor McGuinness’s request that we debate with courtesy and respect; give trustees and staff support; and stand for elected roles…” when Carol McGuinness was visibly at the forefront of that attack on an elected officer.

OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT/DEBATE:

This article appeared in the Debates Section. When I saw the article I checked to see whether anyone had commented, comments section being open and there were none. Later I checked again, and the comments section was no longer open.

I tweeted the following:

DEBATES SECTION: “From the Psychologist and Digest Editorial Advisory Committee…with extra online comment from the Managing Editor”. Accusations made here of “false information” and “repeated abuse” – BUT MEMBER COMMENTS ARE DISABLED ON THIS (see here)

… after which this appeared:

“P.S. And yes, comment is disabled on this post; I feel for very good reason given past experience. This is an opportunity to explain our position, rather than an invitation to debate. However, email addresses are there for both the Chair of PDEAC and myself, and any letters for publication will be considered in the usual way.”

I think many members will agree that this is a petulant, disrespectful and entirely inappropriate way for an editor to behave towards members – anticipating responses that had not occurred! Far from the supposed contrition of the earlier comment “I’m the first to admit we’ve never quite nailed that ‘discussion and controversy’ aspect. We’re far from perfect, and I’ve personally made some big errors of judgement over the years”

Sutton escalates hostility to which only alternative media would be able to reply. I am the author of the Twitter @psychsocwatchuk. I am named on the site. The added PS of the article which appears after I tweeted begins “…and yes, comment is disabled on this post etc…” appears to be a direct response to me and Sutton has blocked my twitter where he might have properly and openly responded to me instead of using the pages of The Psychologist. Something of a power imbalance, but one I as an individual member can do little about. It is precisely for these kinds of reasons  of shutting down debate that alternative media BPSWatch.com and @psychsocwatchuk have come into existence. It seems they continue to be needed.

The response was as follows:

“Thank you for your letter. After careful consideration I am of the mind that your complaint is about Jon Sutton’s conduct as a BPS member rather than any misapplication of PDEAC policies and procedures. I would therefore advise that you submit it via these channels: https://www.bps.org.uk/contact-us/complaints

I would add that the PDEAC (the committee) had oversight of Jon’s letter and approved it, and I personally stand by the content. PDEAC agreed at the time of conceiving of the two letters that their purpose was to put out a clear statement dispelling the suggestion that The Psychologist was being silenced. I would invite you to continue the debate by writing a letter to The Psychologist.”

Unsurprisingly, I got nowhere with an impervious environment at The Psychologist. To edit a publication which claims a readership online of 200,000 per month and to choose what to put out to those readers is an onerous responsibility. To choose to characterise dissent amongst members with dark undemonstrated allegations of this kind and to block comments is an abuse of responsibility by a powerful voice in the British Psychological Society.

David Pilgrim, alongside us at BPSWatch, edited a book on the BPS in 2023 . Its title “British Psychology in Crisis: A Case Study in Organisational Dysfunction” remains pertinent today as we have kept all the receipts that have come to us since its publication. The disregard and disrespect for members and for the important psychological issues continues apace. Student members are failing to join on graduation, practitioners are leaving. Membership has dropped by around 8000 since 2020. Fees have gone up. The headquarters is being sold. No reflection has taken place, no lessons have been learned.

---

^[1] AI Overview

Members of the British Psychological Society (BPS) have a right to be informed about the suspension of the CEO and Finance Director, especially given the Society’s structure as a charity and professional association, and the potential legal and ethical ramifications of such a suspension. A member of a similar group, bpswatch.com, was threatened with legal action for reporting the suspension of a CEO, indicating that such information is considered to be something members are entitled to know. 

Why Members Have a Right to Know

• Charity Governance: 

As a registered charity, the BPS has a duty of care and transparency to its members, who are stakeholders in the organization. This includes informing them of significant leadership changes or issues that could impact the organization’s operations or finances. 

• Professional Association: 

The BPS also serves as a professional association, and its leadership structure is integral to its functioning and reputation. Members rely on the Society for professional development, standards, and ethical guidance, making them invested in its governance. 

• Ethical and Financial Implications: 

The suspension of key positions like the CEO and Finance Director suggests potential serious issues within the organization, such as financial misconduct or mismanagement. Members, especially those holding high standards like Chartered Psychologists, have an interest in upholding the ethical and responsible governance of their professional body. 

• Transparency in Professional Bodies: 

Professional bodies like the BPS are expected to operate with a degree of openness and accountability to their members, particularly when leadership is involved in significant internal issues. 

Therefore, withholding this information would contradict the expectations of good governance for a charity and professional association, and could be seen as a failure to be transparent with its membership.