Former UKCP psychotherapist Ray Holland has been no stranger to this blog. You may remember him from such blog posts as, “Being struck off for serious sexual misconduct with a vulnerable client.” You may also remember him from, “Changing his name to Ray Bott-Holland, signing up with various impressive-sounding but non-accredited organisations, and carrying on practising.” And let’s not forget his mini-viral Internet sensation, “Phil Doré, I’m going to sue you if you don’t take down your blog posts.”
After I broadcast his spurious legal threats across half of Twitter, I never heard from him again. Until today.
Last night, he emailed me.
Dear Mr Dore,
Rightfully, the UKCP has finally removed all the detrimental information it had published about me on its website. Equally, can you now please remove all references about me on your Blog linking me to the said UKCP material.
Thank you for your full cooperation in this matter.
I checked the UKCP Complaints Decisions page. His hearing outcome is indeed no longer there.
I emailed him back.
Dear Mr Bott-HollandAs my references to the UKCP material are an accurate account of the outcome of your hearing, it seems clear that no act of defamation was committed by me in publishing these.That said, it appears that a new development has taken place. So that I can respond to your request in a fair and appropriate manner, could you perhaps tell me a little more about the reasons why the UKCP has removed your outcome from their website? I will decide how best to respond once I have received this information.Phil Dore
Dear Mr Dore,Rightfully, the hugely detrimental information has been totally removed from UKCP’s website. Your online Blog explicitly names me and links me to this organisation and the said information. You are a member of the public and I request you remove all information concerning me and the UKCP from your online Blog at the earliest. At present the content of your Blog is naturally having a detrimental effect on my professional work as a Psychotherapist.Again, I look forward to your full cooperation in this matter.Sincerely,Ray Bott-Holland
Thank you for your email. UKCP is currently reviewing its policies and procedures, including its ‘Publications of Decisions’ Policy.
UKCP is aware that this policy stipulates a period of 12 months from the date of the Fitness to Practise decision in which information will be published on the UKCP website.
In light of this, until this policy is reviewed and updated, UKCP has removed the names of all members that have appeared on its website in excess of this 12 month period.
Suddenly, the wording of Mr (Bott-)Holland’s emails became clear. “Rightfully removed”? Well, yes, he was struck off in July 2014. So if it’s their policy to keep such notices online for 12 months, then it would indeed have been rightfully removed. That doesn’t mean, however, that RayBot has won an appeal, or that any new finding of fact has been made.
I was a little surprised by this, as up until recently the UKCP had decision notices online going back years. I’m guessing that somebody had pointed out that this is their policy, and I’m also guessing that this is why they’re reviewing the policy. However, the operative words here are “I’m guessing”. That’s not something I’ve been told.
So, Mr Holland, or Mr Bott-Holland, or whatever you’ll be calling yourself next week, my answer to your request is as follows. I refer you to the answer given in the matter of Arkell v Pressdram.