Readers of this blog will be familiar with the story of Ray Holland, the psychotherapist who was struck off by the UK Council for Psychotherapy in 2014 for serious sexual misconduct with a vulnerable client. Since then he has changed his name to Ray Bott-Holland and carried on practising, registering with a string of impressive-sounding but non-accredited bodies. Along the way, he’s occasionally sent me spurious legal threats for having the temerity to put information in the public domain that was already in the public domain to begin with. Continue reading
From November 2015 to January 2016, the Professional Standards Authority briefly suspended the UK Council for Psychotherapy from their list of accredited registers. After the UKCP made a number of changes, the suspension was lifted. The PSA have now published their reasons for the suspension. When I commented about it online, various people suggested I was making a fuss about a “storm in a teacup”, and that this was simply a normal part of the reaccreditation process.
From reading the PSA’s review, it becomes clear that this was no storm in a teacup. It involves, among other things, the apparent mishandling of a sexual misconduct case.
There seems to be a running theme on this blog of psychotherapists on accredited registers who are struck off by their professional body, and simply carry on practising regardless.
Here’s another one. Charles Davison, a Norfolk-based therapist was recently struck off by the UK Council for Psychotherapy. The UKCP decision posted online isn’t very detailed. However, it does state that he was removed from their register for sexual misconduct. They also state that he had “an unclear and inadequately understood sense of professionalism and especially clinical boundaries.” They determined that he “lacks insight into his conduct and is not satisfied that he recognizes the seriousness of the failings in his actions,” and that it was “not a one-off situation, but rather a course of conduct that should have been identified well in advance.” They were also “concerned about his own lack of honesty in not disclosing his behaviour to his own supervisor.”