- Darian Leader calls for a waaaahmbulance
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – why it matters
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – Who’s Against it
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – More from its opponents
- Psychotherapy self regulation – a licence to carry on abusing?
- Psychologists join the HPC register
- The sham of self-regulation
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – A Psychotherapist Responds (1)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – A Psychotherapist Responds (2)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – Response to Zarathustra
- Regulation of Psychotherapy – Another Arts Therapist struck off
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: The Maresfield Report (1)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Maresfield Report (2)
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Something rotten in the state of Denmark?
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Something Rotten in the State of Denmark (2)
- Professor Andrew Samuels caught lying about his role in abuse case
- An Open letter to the UKCP
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: UKCP document leaked to Mental Nurse
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: More on the leaked UKCP document
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: More leaks from the UKCP
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Samuels’ Damascene Conversion
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Therapist struck off by BACP, remains registered with UKCP
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: HPC calls UKCP critique “gobbledegook”
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: 85% of service users want statutory regulation
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Acclaimed Journalist Calls for Psychotherapy Regulation
- Regulation of Psychotherapy: Charity Commission urges UKCP to seek legal advice
A surprising number of those campaigning against psychotherapy becoming regulated by the Health Professions Council also seem to have some sort of link with Derek Gale, the arts therapist and cult guru who was struck off by the HPC for physically, sexually and emotionally abusing his clients. People like Andrew Samuels, Professor of Analytical Psychology at Essex University and chair of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy. The transcripts of the Derek Gale hearings describe a letter from Samuels (PDF file, pages 36 and 37) offering to supervise Gale if he was allowed to continue practising. Some might consider this a conflict of interest in Samuels’ lobbying to try to prevent psychotherapists from having to join their arts therapist colleagues on the HPC register.
Since then, Professor Samuels has started to deny ever having offered to supervise Gale. In an internet discussion on the Times website (see comments thread), he describes this offer as an “urban myth”
I actually refused (meaning said ‘no’) to the requests from Gale’s lawyers to give supportive evidence or provide supervision (which was something being discussed between them and Gale). Others gave such evidence. I manifestly did not.
If Samuels refused this request, why do the transcripts say that he agreed to it? Samuels gives his explanation in, of all places, a Mental Nurse comments thread.
At the time of the first HPC hearing, I did receive a phone call from Gale’s lawyer asking if I would supervise Gale; he said he was asking others as well. I gave the very careful reply that, if HPC’s package of sanctions against Gale included compulsory supervision, I would consider it. But this was not something that the lawyer or Gale could ask me to do. Only an official request from HPC, with a clear indication of who would be paying for this, would work. I also suggested a team of supervisors -again, if and only if HPC reached the determination that this was an appropriate sanction. I can only suppose the lawyer thought or hoped this was a possibility. Nasty, exploitative work by the lawyer.
If that’s the case, then Professor Samuels was the victim of some profoundly unethical behaviour by Gale’s lawyer. So what’s the truth of it? Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, we can now reveal the answer.
Howard Martin, the original complainant in the Derek Gale case has received a copy (PDF file) through a Freedom of Information Act request of Samuels’ letter to Gale’s lawyer. It flat-out contradicts Samuels’ claim to have refused the request.
I have been approached by Derek Gale following the allegations laid against him to the Health Professions Council. In light of these allegations, he has requested that I supervise him and I have agreed to do so.
I understand that his lawyer intends to make a submission to the Health Professions Council on Monday 17 December which would involve my undertaking to supervise Mr Gale and make an audit of his sessions and the notes that he keeps of them to be surrendered on demand to the HPC. This I would be willing to do. Furthermore if necessary I would be willing to write a supervisors report to the Health Professions Council and be approached if necessary to confirm that I am seeing Mr Gale and supervising him and stating whether or not his practice is causing me concern.
To put it bluntly, this makes Samuels’ denial an outright lie. I’d also have to say that if there’s anybody you don’t want to commit libel against, it would be a lawyer.
The HPC refused Samuels’ offer, quite rightly, because meeting up with Gale once a week for a supervision session is not going to prevent somebody abusing their clients. The fact that Samuels seemed to think this was a safe way to enable someone to continue practicing, and then presumably felt the need to lie about it when it became an embarrassment, discredits both him and his campaign to stop psychotherapy from being submitted to a proper regulatory authority.
The posh end of the academic world is full of this kind of thing. Additionally, lying is part and parcel of the ‘puer aeternus/puella aeterna’ (permanent child) personality type. AS is hoist by his own Jungian archetype and is to be thanked for providing an incontrovertible reason why psychotherapy and counselling should come under HPC regulation as quickly as possible. Regular supervision sessions are normal in psychodynamic practice, it used to be one hour’s supervision for every eight hours’ practice in some circles and 1:4 in others, but even if the ratio were 1:1 it is ludicrous to think this would work with Gale, even assuming he would act in good faith, which would be naive in the extreme. And who would pay for the extra supervision? The poor old client/victim by way of increased fees, I’d bet. In other words, the HPC did precisely the right thing in striking him off.
Ow! That stings. Once upon a time, it was newspapers’ job to do this kind of thing…
While Samuels has seemingly libelled Gale’s counsel, Jamie Carpenter, I must actually commend Jamie for sticking almost to the letter of what Samuel’s had agreed to undertake. While there is obviously no love lost between Gale and I I would hate to feel that Samuels’ had impugned Gale’s barrister’s reputation. If anyone wished to check on Jamie’s well being following Samuels’ unwarranted attack on his reputation you could contact him here; http://www.hailshamchambers.co.....penter.asp
Meanwhile what of Richard House that other leading light of the anti HPC cabal? If you check the Timesonline “urban myth” comment http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.....953728.ece you will note that although it is credited to Andrew Samuels it bizarrely actually appears to have been posted by Richard House! Now I have a feeling that I see an escape clause built in here for Samuels – any bets on a quick phone call between Samuels and House might illicit an acknowledgement from House that he may have “mis interpreted” what Samuels had said about his representaions to Gale and the HPC?
So in News at Ten stylee let’s catch up on the weekends News.
Bong
Leading emeritus therapy professor believes that 20 years ago he was “allowed” to strip naked and massage his naked client without consent.
Bong
Same therapist defends the right of self proclaimed therapy guru to sexually abuse his clients.
Bong
Naked professor claims struck off abusive therapist acted with “integrity”
Bong
Leader of main lobby body for psychotherapists tries to get abusive therapist off his suspension.
Bong
Professor fails in attempts to get abusive therapist off suspension
Bong
Leading psychotherapy professor denies having tried to get abusive therapist off suspension
Bong
Professor caught out lying by the very system (public accountability) that he protests vehemently against.
Bong
Another Professor named after the character of an eccentric surgeon played by an English bloke pretending to be American in bizarre comment posting.
Bong
Spooky links found and possibly over emphasised; Training of upcoming psychotehrapists and counsellors, Derek Gale, Anti HPC regulation, self interest, hidden pasts? Fear of clients and students having an independent legally liable body to complain to?
Bong
Is this getting more interesting or are we boring the pants of off Mental Nurse’ regular readers who would rather discuss dosages or uniform changes?
Of course, if Professor Samuels were to claim that particular get-out clause, he might have to explain why he repeated his assertions here on Mental Nurse, under a username registered to the same e-mail address that he posts on his website.
So I’ve just been reading about NHS-funded, GP-referred therapists offering ex-gay therapy. (And unlike in But I’m A Cheerleader, there is sadly no mention of shagging Clea Duvall.)
As the article mentions, one of the people offering this ‘service’ is a member of the BACP, yet seems unaware of its guidelines on the matter.
Yeah. We need regulation. Right fucking now.
Let’s be honest here, I think we all know that we will hear nothing more from Andrew Samuels concerning the “urban myth” of his support for Gale. He may well have a conversation with David Pink about it and maybe even Richard House, the seemingly original conduit for the lie, will chip in an opinion but they will just bury their heads and ride it out. After all my experience of dealing with the UKCP and UKAHPP, their consistent lies and bullying, the fact that the UKCP have denied me access to their final complaints procedures to try to deal with the lies of the ex chair of the UKAHPP does not give any hope of anything resembling an apology nor even a scintilla of recognition of the harm this sort of lying does to the victims of therapy abuse.
But it is important to understand that there may be people reading this who may find themselves sitting across the table from Samuels, or even on the same panels as him as they try to put across the cases for and against HPC regulation. So it may have value for us lay (but concerned) members of the public to put our opinion of how we see Professor Samuels behaviour. Afterall it us that the HPC are charged with protecting.
Lorna
I thought I was the only person on Earth who had actually seen “But I’m a Cheerleader”,
Seeing But I’m A Cheerleader is a vital part of initiation into the sordid lesbian lifestyle. Of course, back then, DVDs were called videos.
Howard, I must congratulate you. You have caught one of these fruitcakes red handed as it were – an outright lie.
Mr Samuels, while I hope you are ashamed of yourself I have to say I expect that this hasn’t managed to penetrate the shell of that strange world you all live in. At least you’ve stopped trying to contact me personally, a Gale complainant, to get contact details of people I might know. If you consider the ethical dimension of that contact and the outright lies that have now been proved, I really don’t think you have a hope in hell of being allowed to lead any sort of governing (ethical) body.
The circus rolls on.
Governing body – Samuels is an ex officio member of Essex University Senate. Hmm.
…Transparency would be welcome…I recently contacted Professor Jonathan Chick (NHS Lothian) about his ex-wife’s, Jo(Josephine)Chick’s, unethical and unprofessional behaviour (she’been an unregulated self-employed CBT counsellor and psychotherapist for some 30 years). All I wanted to know was either her ‘professional/business’ name or that of the organisation that endorses her employment, so that I could outline my concerns about her actions with respect to her current fitness to practise (and awareness of privacy and human rights laws) but was refused this information when I asked her! When I contacted her ex-husband for this information he wrote to me that “her last employer was over 30 years ago”! Funny that – considering that they shared a home together for at least 20 of her self-employed years that is common knowledge to all all their friends and associates…perhaps a case of ‘puer aeternus/puella aeterna personality type’ that regulation would help to cure?
I’m saddened that Samuels, previously such a valued Mental Nurse contributor, appears to feel he has nothing to offer this thread…
Elfriede – welcome to the world of self regulated psychotherapy. Outright lies and blame passing are embedded within every aspect of the culture these guys and gals. I don’t know what the psychobabble term for it is but it’s my belief that they have grown fat and egotistical on manipulating their clients and all around them into compliant subservience to the point where to have their words questioned is heresy. They have created a culture where if a client were to turn to them and say “well that seems to contradict what you said last session” they would instinctively lambast the client without consequence other than the client feeling humiliated and in need of handing even more money over to them to sort out their “contradiction” issues.
I personally believe that Samuels honestly expected his “urban myth” line to gain currency – certainly among his peers to the point where if anyone questioned the hypocrisy of his support for Gale and the contempt it shows for his colleagues in the UKCP they would say “nah he didn’t support Gale that’s just an urban myth”. It certainly seems that Richard House was willing to support that line as well as David Pink in an e mail to me; “You claim that the chair of UKCP (Andrew Samuels)supports Gale’s abuse – this is an allegation that would cause me grave concern, if you were to produce any evidence that it were true. On the website link that you supplied to me, I recall seeing a statement from Andrew Samuels that said the opposite of what you now claim.”
So David Pink has now had the evidence he required that contradicts Samuels position but it doesn’t appear to have caused him any concern at all let alone “grave”. Instead we get a joint statement about what good buddies they are and their joint fantasies for a psychotherapy future with them in control. In a statement dated 4th Feb 2010 – 3 days after Mental Nurse exposed Samuels’ lies – they don’t even mention the lies or the accusations. Read it and weep then ask yourselves who do they dream will lead the new regulatory authority that they fantasise the government will set up at their behest? http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/article921.html