Safeguarding and reporting regulations

[Friday]

@biaaw677 I’m going to suggest you take a little bit of time away from this thread to clear your head, as your posts are making successively less sense, you’re arguing in circles, flat out contradicting yourself from one post to the next, and bringing in completely non sequitor evidence to support positions unrelated to what you’re responding to.

I’m not going to enforce that, as of yet, but am hoping you’ll be able to voluntarily slow down & self regulate.

 

[biaaw677]

Most victims wish it had never happened to them and struggle with their own feelings about it. Most never want to go anywhere near the justice system and shouldn’t be victim shamed into doing so. Regardless of what happened to them, the victim is never responsible for the harm done to others by the same perpetrator.

I totally accept and concur that most victims "wish it had never happened to them and struggle with their own feelings about it". These people are the very people who usually have accepted mitigating circumstances for not reporting the crimes inflicted upon them. This is why the legal system usually allow such people ten, twenty, thirty years before they report the crimes. You need not look further than the Jimmy Saville case to recognise that.

Similarly children who are victims of CSA or other childhood abuses are understood not to have the capacity to act as an adult would.

Victims of abuse whether they are children or adults are vulnerable people who are recognised to be in need of Safeguarding. This is one argument for why there ought to be better treatment services for people with PTSD and CPTSD since optimising ones health and possibly curing the effects of trauma injuries frees both the victim of their suffering and helps to ensure more citizens become self-sufficient and less vulnerable.

A very rough and ready look at stats in relation to sexual offences will reveal a very low proportion of sexual offences ever get reported, and a tiny percentage of them actually result in conviction. Victims are traumatised by the reporting and prosecution processes and don’t even get the comfort of a conviction at the end.

I totally agree with you. Although there have been advances in the way victims of sexual offences are treated, there is still a lot of work to be done such that victims can feel safe to report what has happened to them.

One thing to consider here also is the double bind inflicted upon victims. If they do not report such sexual offences but then report such to doctors, social workers and therapists, are they truly believed? Sometimes those victms tell are suspicious that a victim has an alternative motive, when really they are reporting the reality of their experience. Clinical professionals by in large look for an easy life for themselves, they practise say psychology to help the mentally ill, but if a scenario comes up that has a conflict of interest for the clinician, they might opt for burying their head in the sand or at least find ways of protecting themselves. For instance if a patient reports that doctor 'A' abused them, will doctor 'B', a doctor who is line-managed by doctor 'A', do the right thing and report that abuse to the Safeguarding Board or GMC?

It is so so important to be sure that any 'best interests' decisions are patient-centred.

I’ve no idea whether you’re here as a sufferer, supported or what but you seem to have an incredibly poor grasp of the issues surrounding sexual offences specifically, child abuse and safeguarding or indeed the impact of trauma in general.

I have a very good grasp of the issues... thank you. For the record I have been clinically identified as since birth being victim of numerous single and continuous abuses, mostly inflicted upon me by doctors, nurses and allied health professionals or statutory administrators who held a duty of care for me. The abuses to which I've been victim include sexual, physical, emotional and financial abuse.

 

[anthony]

Regulations are law

Incorrect. Regulations are not law. Regulations come with minimal powers associated from law (fines, penalities, etc), but they are not law. They do not come with criminality components if breached, as law does. Know the difference before you talk further nonsense.

 

[biaaw677]

Please... you made a bold statement, were challenged about it. You have not given any actual reference or precedent to the black and white letter of the LAW. Sky News Inc., a commercial company that buys news to sell their product. They are not the Law...

The Sky News reference I gave, was reporting a UK Supreme Court Judgment. If you would the 'black and white law' in its entirety please look at the case of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Appellant) v DSD and another (Respondents) at https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0166-press-summary.pdf. In this case the Supreme Court determined that "the state has a duty to conduct an effective investigation into crimes involving serious violence to the individual" this came about because John Worboys first known victim reported her sexual attack, but she was ignored. This very brave victim now suffers terribly by having the knowledge that if her case had been investigated, the later crimes could have been prevented.

I could go next door and tell my neighbours that I want to go and bludgeon someone....must they report it NO. Could they be open to being charged to aiding and abetting...NO!

How your neighbours react to you telling them that you "want to go and bludgeon someone." is up to them (no doubt they will make there decision about what to do based upon what they know about you and how you present and behave). If subsequently you carried out your declared threat, as I have said elsewhere this is all a subject that is under the Serious Crime Act 2007 Inchoate offences | The Crown Prosecution Service. One thing for sure, if your neighbours were normal average people, is that following you carrying out your threat they would suffer psychologically and emotionally just by the fact that they knew you and you had said what you suggest here to them. Please, regardless of any trauma you have been victim of @blackemerald1, do refrain from any notion of committing a crime yourself.

here is this thing called 'presumption of innocence' and the Police must get 'evidence' and the Prosecution must jump the bar of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. All of these concepts seem to be lost on you.

In the UK indeed criminal prosecutions require 'beyond reasonable doubt' evidence, but their is one exception to your 'presumption of innocence' claim, that is in the case of a death occurring and an investigation for murder, but I will not go into the specifics on this here.

In essence you miss my point, I have simply highlighted the fact that citizens under the Serious Crime Act 2007 are open to being arrested and investigated in a crime if there is reason to believe they encouraged, assisted, aided and abetted such a crime. Most ordinary law-abiding citizens would likely feel quite concerned about being arrested. To protect themselves from such an experience the law-abiding citizen might best be advised to report any incidents they are aware of where a crime has been committed or where there is a potential for a crime being committed. In this context the citizen's moral duty is somewhat pressed very close to it being a reasonable legitimate expectation that a citizen should report a crime or a potential crime.

In the context of this website where many are victims or csa and other childhood abuses such that these victims suffer PTSD, CPTSD etc., it is important that such victims know the law, just as much as it is important that they are reassured about the mitigating circumstances that protect vulnerable people such as victims of abuse. The reality that therapists have obligations concerning safeguarding vulnerable service users and the wider public (HCPC Standards of Proficiency 7.3)

 

[Neverthesame]

@biaaw677 Are you okay?

I'm thinking Friday might be on to something. Your writing does read like someone who is in overload.
Might be a good idea to do some breathing exercises or whatever works for you. You really aren't making a ton of sense right now.

 

[Suzetig]

You still don’t seem to understand that for the most part therapists are not regulated by the HCPC and indeed the vast majority don’t hold qualifications that would allow them to register. Therapists, counsellors and support professions are professionally accountable for their decision making but can legally hold confidentiality in the circumstances you describe and, I would argue, have a duty to do so unless there’s a very good reason not to. Unlike statutory agencies (police, health, social work, education) the presumption should be in favour of maintaining confidentiality unless there are compelling reasons not to, and then the client should be told exactly what has been shared and with whom - look at the ethical codes of the BACP, NCS, UKCP, BABCP etc etc. who actually register and regulate therapists and counsellors (on a voluntary registered basis).

You’re right, it is important that people know and understand the law, which is why so many people are telling you you are wrong. Yes the site @digger linked to offers therapeutic support to those who are concerned about their harmful sexual thoughts and behaviours, but the law is the same for all. The same law that allows practitioners to hold confidentiality in some circumstances with that Client group also protects clients who have or are experiencing abuse.

It is vitally important that safe confidential services exist for victims more than anybody. The consequences of cack handed disclosure and investigation can actively leave victims at increased risk, at times that risk can be life threatening.

The Supreme Court recently threw out legislation that would have created a statutory duty to share information in Scotland, recognising such measures as being a breach of children’s rights as set out in the UNCRC and representing over-reach on the part of the state. Even that, very tight, legislation contained measures to allow for information to be held confidential where it was considered to be in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court still felt those measures didn’t go far enough to protect the right to privacy.

This issue clearly triggers something in you, you’re not hearing people and arguing yourself to a standstill. @fridays suggestion is a good one, put this thread away and read it with a clear head at another time.

 

[biaaw677]

The HCPC only governs clinical psychologists in terms of people who fall under the category of folk who offer therapy. The vast majority of Ts in the U.K. aren’t HCPC registered and therefore can’t be governed by HCPC regulations.

.

If a T offers psychological treatment in the UK then they are required to register with the HCPC s the HCPC explain in their most consultation response at Link Removed

"The Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) is a statutory regulator of health, social work and psychological professions governed by the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001. We regulate the members of 16 professions. We maintain a register of professionals, set standards for entry to our register, approve education and training programmes for registration and deal with concerns where a
professional may not be fit to practise. Our role is to protect the public. We regulate 15 professions on a UK-wide basis. Social workers are regulated in England only"

here is no primary legislation that requires mandatory reporting across professions or the general public - if you think there is, please quote it.

Whether UK law is primary or secondary does not materially change the need for citizens, including T's to abide by it. The only difference with most secondary law is that such law might be challenged in the Courts by Judicial Review because it did not go through the full process and scrutiny that is expected with primary law.

In the case of the Health and Social Work Professions Order 2001, this secondary law is made under section 62(9) of the Health Act 1999; the Health Act 1999 being primary law and the section concerned identifies that a draft of the executives intended legislation was laid before Parliament. If Ts want to contest for instance that the HCPC's Standard of Proficiency 7.3 is not mandatory law then the appropriate thing for the Ts to do is to raise a Permission for Judicial Review Claim concerning the legitimacy and authority of the HCPCs expected Standards of Proficiency as written under the Health and Social Work Order 2001 (As I say this please appreciate I am not a qualified solicitor).

The requirement for registered professions comes about as a result of their registering body, whoever that is, all you’ve done is confirm what I’ve already said.

I take it here that you are referring to what you said in https://www.myptsd.com/threads/desperate-therapist-disclosed-csa-to-mother.83155/page-7
My response to this is set out above. Law does exist by which Ts are legitimately and reasonably expected to report Safeguarding Concerns that effect the Service User, actual or potential other victims or the wider public. A T who does not report concerns would need to validate their actions and decisions surrounding not reporting the concerns. Depending on how these are received by the HCPC and potentially the police, courts or any official Inquiries would influence the continuance of the Ts registration to practice etc.

In the UK we have what in legal circles is sometimes called hard and soft law. Soft law is utilised by people like Health and Safety Officers investigating Accidents. Similarly the laws that control General Medical Council Committee Hearings, Nursing and Midwifery Council Committee Hearings and the Healthcare Professional Committee Hearing are just as much part of our legal judiciary system. The recent UK GMC Committee ruling that relates to Dr Hazida Bawa-Gaba Medics rally behind struck off doctor, which is proceeding to appeal in the UK Courts, demonstrates the same kind of legal route that a T struck off by the HCPC would have to use if such occurred due to a T not meeting the Standards of Proficiency.

if it were the case that not reporting amounted to aiding and abetting there would be a lot of people sitting in prison just now given that in every recent public scandal involving csa, people knew and didn’t tell.

Yes, and maybe this is where such people rightly deserve to be. The only reason they are not is dependent on the willingness of the police to investigate, the CPS to prosecute and possibly higher authorities determining what is "in the Public Best Interest". Regardless of whether there are any investigations, prosecutions, convictions, the lack of such does not negate the existing law such as the Serious Crime Act 2007.

 

[biaaw677]

n my case it was perpetrators (plural), it was a profit corporation, called Environments for Human Services and the abuse was systematic, and DSS looked the other way when abuse was reported

I completely empathise with you. I know only too well just how this affects a victim such as you.

 

[Suzetig]

psychological professions governed

The HCPC does not and has no legal basis in the U.K. to govern counsellors, psychotherapists, or hypnotherapists.

 

[biaaw677]

The HCPC only governs clinical psychologists in terms of people who fall under the category of folk who offer therapy. The vast majority of Ts in the U.K. aren’t HCPC registered and therefore can’t be governed by HCPC regulations.

If you are suggesting that counsellors, psychotherapists etc. are not covered by the HCPC then that might be true provided that such Ts are not also qualified psychologists, qualified occupational therapists,qualified social workers.... However if a Ts background is a qualified nurse or a qualified doctor then such Ts are governed by the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council who operate under law the same as the HCPC. In essence it looks as though policy is aiming to bring all allied healthcare professionals under regulation HCPC - Health and Care Professions Council - External consultations.

Personally given my experience and trauma suffering I would never willingbconsent to being treated by a T who was operating outside the legally regulated structure - there is too great a potential for a vulnerable patient/service user to become victim to additional harm.

 

[Suzetig]

If you are suggesting that counsellors, psychotherapists etc. are not covered by the HCPC then that might be true provided that such Ts are not also qualified psychologists, qualified occupational therapists,qualified social workers...

Just not true, an OT who is jointly qualified and practicing as a psychotherapist is only accountable to the HCPC for her practice as an OT, they have no role in regulating her therapy practice. There are good reasons for working with a T who has a professionally regulated qualification but regulation of their therapy practice through the regulatory body isn’t one of them. The HCPC would be interested if the T was struck off by someone like the BACP but purely to the degree that whatever the misdemeanour reflected on their OT status, they’d have no interest in investigating their psychotherapy practice.

If your T isn’t a clinical psychologist you have no option but to work with a T who works outside of a regulated statutory framework because counselling and psychotherapy aren’t reserved professions and therefore no statutory regulator exists. All registration is on a voluntary basis and you don’t need to be registered to practice.

 

[Friday]

@biaaw677 The wildly inaccurate information that you’re purporting as fact (easily verifiable as incorrect) has reached the level of trolling.

As you’ve chosen not to take a break, & continue to post nonsense, thread closed.