Querulous Paranoia, bullies and the British Psychological Society

Following my last posting on the abuse of science and of an individual - Lisa Blakemore Brown - by the British Psychological Society, I thought it appropriate to launch into a more general rant about the abuse of psychiatric diagnosis to suppress scientific discussion. For collated posts on the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown see here.

King's College London claim to know whether individuals are mentally "normal". See this fascinating study - Am I normal? - from King's College. Norms were reported for the 21-item PDI psychometric test for delusional ideation. Although the deluded sample of schizotypal inpatients scored significantly higher than "normal" individuals, the range of scores overlapped considerably, with 11 percent of healthy adults scoring higher than the mean of the deluded group.

Other silly research reported from King's College London suggests that "one in three people in the UK regularly suffers paranoid or suspicious fears" based on the King's College definition of paranoia that runs along the lines of "Paranoid thinking is the suspicion that other people intend to do us harm." According to this wonderful research (and the accompanying book "Overcoming Paranoid and Suspicious Thoughts"):

• 40 per cent of people regularly worry that negative comments are being made about them
• 27 per cent think that people deliberately try to irritate them
• 20 per cent worry about being observed or followed
• 10 per cent think that someone has it in for them
• 5 per cent worry that there's a conspiracy to harm them.

Watch for the promotion of drug therapy any time soon (perhaps by the Mental Health Research Network - see last post - also coordinated by King's College London).

But what if people really do "intend to do us (or society) harm"? Paranoia (as incorrectly defined above) is a normal human defense mechanism designed to protect us against harm. So is fear. Protective mechanisms can be influenced by disease. But it is necessary to know the normal range of human response to bullying, and to confirm that paranoid "delusions" are in fact false before diagnosing mental illness. Sadly the British Psychological Society appear unconcerned about reality in their assertions of paranoia (read). Psychiatric labelling (such as querulous paranoia) can be a potent form of abuse. Querulous paranoia is the disease of asking too many difficult questions.

The British Psychological Society appear to endorse tests for paranoia along the lines of those discussed by Dr Rita Pal when she faced accusations of mental illness after pointing to deaths on a geriatric ward and the subsequent cover-up. After causing the target some considerable stress by obfuscating and ignoring concerns, a test along the lines of the one below can sometimes prove diagnostically helpful.

Look at the picture of two dolphins jumping out of the water in tandem. Research has shown that the more differences you notice between the two dolphins, the more paranoid you are. This is attributed to the concentration on minute details, distress and preoccupation induced by those in power pretending not to hear what you are saying. It also serves as an excellent test to divert attention from fiddled research involving drugs.

Such highly useful tests to detect, treat and remove the "mentally ill" from the population derives from the same highly developed system of scientific psychology and psychiatry that gave us Teenscreen (imposed screening tests in the USA to detect, drug and sometimes kill normal children - Link), hidden information about the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa, and the despicable attempts to hide away information about suicide in antidepressant drug trials [Link] [Link].

It is both notable and shameful that the neither the General Medical Council nor the British Psychological Society have uttered a peep about these scandals. They have instead colluded to hide away concerns about the science upon which we as doctors rely [Link] [Link]. The UK drugs regulator, the MHRA has colluded with industry attempts to pervert science, and has failed to address many important matters brought to their attention [Link] [Link] [Link]. Instead they bully and abuse those who raise concerns, while never dealing plausibly with the concerns raised. Our patients and the public suffer in the process - but these professional bodies have little interest in honest science, honest debate or the welfare of patients.

The British Psychological Society need to do some serious explaining.

For some good essays on brilliance and madness see The Icarus Project.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Am I Normal? More on the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown

Many bloggers have been writing about the case of Lisa Blakemore Brown and the shameful attempt by the British Psychological Society to have her pronounced "mentally disturbed" and "unfit to practice" (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22). My collated postings on this topic are here.

The psychiatric transcript of LBB's "trial" has now appeared online here. I will be analyzing this part of her "trial" in detail over the next few days. What happened to Blakemore Brown must never happen to any other commentator on science. The BPS approach to debate is absolutely wrong and against the public interest.

Worse still, the BPS have shrouded the issue in secrecy [Link]. They have allowed the nature of the "charges" to be misrepresented in public while refusing to allow Blakemore Brown to i) discuss her own case, ii) present her case at an international meeting, or iii) publish the transcripts of her trial. The BPS have threatened legal proceedings if Blakemore Brown breaks their "copyright" on what they have done to her.

If Blakemore-Brown did do anything seriously wrong in terms of patient care, then charges should be examined in detail, and criticism should be transparent - but we have seen no evidence of this in her "trial". These procedures have been likened to a Salem Witch Trial and threaten to shut down all debate. I don't have to agree with her in order to be repelled by what is happening. This is not how debates about policy or science should work.

Blakemore Brown appears as sane as the next person working in this controversial area. Having spoken extensively with her, her colleagues and some of her patients, it would be hard to describe her as having a paranoid illness. Even harder since those of us who have investigated the facts of her case know that all of her so called "paranoid delusions" appear to have a solid foundation in fact. The British Psychological Society don't appear to be too concerned about facts. Blakemore Brown claimed that:

1. there were successful attempts to hack into her computer.
2. named parties in communication with the BPS had admitted to computer hacking.
3. documents had been stolen from her home (by an individual known to the BPS).
4. this individual had altered the address of her bank account.
5. a patient had been coached to make an earlier "complaint" by a patient "support group".
6. this support group subsequently received a large injection of funding from a pharmaceutical company.
7. some E-mail and written correspondence had been forged.
8. the BPS lied that they had not been approached repeatedly by a third party to report that a patient had been coached to complain.
9. the BPS transmitted correspondence of dubious provenance (supposedly written by herself) to a psychiatrist for "review" without checking whether she had in fact written it.
10. critical background regarding the source of the correspondence and the stated intentions of the individual who provided it was not conveyed to the assessing psychiatrist.
11. the BPS had continued with their procedures taking no cognisance of the fact that her daughter was desperately ill.
12. the "panel" judging her mental state was composed of an accountant, a physiotherapist, and Dr Pat Frankish.
13. the medical assessor to the panel (qualified in medicine in 1953, was a Consultant Psychiatrist at King's College Hospital), is author of these books on Christianity and psychiatry and has accused her of "grandiosity" (presumably of a non-religious type). This is on the basis of her involvement in parliamentary reports - unfortunately senior parliamentarians have declined to agree with this interesting assessment (see letter from Lord Earl Howe)
14. that the Psychiatrist chosen to assess her mental state and paranoia from her E-mail syntax (including falsified E-mails) is Deputy Director of the UK Mental Health Research Network which aims to provide "a better environment for pharma industry-sponsored research in the UK" [Link].
15. that the psychiatrist "forgot" to include this appointment on his supplied CV
16. that a number of anonymous and named parties had conducted a deliberate and protracted campaign (between 2002 and 2006) to induce a "flame war" on an Internet bulletin board to defame her -- and that she knew the identity of at least one of the anonymous posters (that bulletin board is there for all to see - as is an archive of an earlier postings - but the BPS have not thought to ask for it).
17. that one of those parties defaming her anonymously was in communication with the British Psychological Society.

Unfortunately for Blakemore Brown, she also claimed (amongst many other excellent writings) that thimerosal in vaccines might not be such a great idea. Furthermore she claimed that some prominent paediatricians might have misled the scientific community in terms of the strength of science relating to the diagnosis of Münchhausen's Syndrome by Proxy (MSbP) and supposed murders and injury of children by their mothers. I have no idea at all about this aspect of science. I have no idea whether there is any credible scientific evidence to indicate the specificity and sensitivity of indices for diagnosis of MSbP. I have no idea whether vaccines are always helpful. Lisa Blakemore Brown may well be wrong - but I am starting to wonder why those in power feel the need to stifle debate in this most controversial and scientifically blurry area of medicine.

There are of course never conspiracies to discredit those who forward unpopular, embarrassing or potentially costly scientific viewpoints. Those who believe in conspiracies must be mentally ill. See the next posting on querulous paranoia, and more about the Mental Health Research Network.

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Suppression of dissent - the British Psychological Society turns off the lights

What exactly is the role of the British Psychological Society (the representative body for psychology and psychologists in the UK)? Bloggers have been writing about the apparent attempt by the BPS to discredit the respected psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown and to have her officially pronounced "mentally disturbed" and "unfit to practice" (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18).

Blakemore Brown has unpopular views about autism, drug use, some powerful paediatricians, accusations of parental child abuse, some paediatric research, vaccines and the manipulation of patient "support" groups by the pharmaceutical industry. The BPS are attempting to declare her "paranoid" for believing things which are quite evidently believable to all of us who have examined the evidence in her case. Blakemore Brown appears as sane as the next person working in this controversial area.

For an example of her "controversial" writing see here: [Link].

The BPS have also allowed the nature of the "charges" to be misrepresented in public while refusing to allow her to i) discuss her own case, ii) present her case at an international meeting, or iii) publish the transcripts of her trial. The BPS have threatened legal proceedings if Blakemore Brown breaks their "copyright" on what they have done to her.

If Blakemore-Brown did do anything seriously wrong in terms of patient care, then charges should be examined in detail, and criticism should be transparent - but we have seen no evidence of this in the charges she faces. Nor has Blakemore Brown been allowed to address the misrepresentation of the charges in the only way possible - by discussing what they are.

These procedures have been likened to a 21st Century Salem Witch Trial and threaten to shut down all debate. I don't have to agree with her in order to be repelled by what is happening. This is not how debates about policy or science should work.

The BPS have reportedly spent a half a million pounds of members money and public funds on Blakemore Brown. Given our reading of the transcripts it is hard to work out how they perceive this to be in the interests of the public, their members, or scientific discussion.

Other complaints about the BPS are surfacing. The BPS have a strangely selective approach to integrity. While psychology and psychiatry are convulsed with problems of a very serious nature (see AHRP Blog, Furious Seasons, Clinical Psychology blog) the BPS has nothing at all to say about them - from the hiding of documents about the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa [Link Link] to the ongoing concerns about manipulation of information about suicide risk with SSRI antidepressants [Link]. However when Blakemore Brown asserts that that a certain pharmaceutical company is influencing a patient support group the BPS take this as diagnostic of "paranoia". Some education seems in order.

In the meantime an interesting letter appeared in the February 2007 issue of the Psychologist. I reproduce the writer's E-mailed version of it:

The BPS - value for money in the public service?
The Psychologist, February 2007

Sir

The BPS regularly refers to its duty to the public when defending itself against i) accusations of failure to support its members, ii) ostentatious advertising of members under a cloud and iii) being over-expensive.

I no longer subscribe to such a defence. Three times, spread over some years, I have sought either support or guidance on ethical matters. On none of these occasions was I offered any.

In the last instance, when I told officials that I was being repeatedly and overtly pressurised to falsify research findings for a public project, I was told that 'we don't give legal advice' and that I should consult the Code of Ethics. Apart from the fact that there is little in the Code of Ethics about corruption, other than an urging of the practitioner to behave professionally, I don't see why some guidance was not forthcoming. I was in touch with members of the BPS with responsibility for regulations and ethics; if all that is necessary is already on the web site, then I think there is a certain amount of redundancy in the organisation.

In short, I don't think members' subscriptions are benefiting the public and I think reorganisation, rethinking and refunds are in order.

Yours Sincerely

Cole Davis
Chartered Occupational Psychologist, London NW2

Now this is an organisation which spends vast amounts of money pursing bizarre charges of paranoia against Blakemore Brown yet fails to engage with serious problems that are widely discussed or presented to them.

The BPS is not the only professional body that has a problem with integrity. The General Medical Council is an interesting organisation which takes selective action against some (often Asian) doctors for doing silly things, while very serious "indiscretions" of senior members of the old-boys club are quietly ignored by powerful colleagues through a process of deceit, delay and secrecy (see my own complaint here, and further discussion here and here)

The actions of the British Psychological Society are especially reprehensible given the many mothers Blakemore Brown has helped, and that they were fully aware of the tragedies in her personal life. I end with three quotations as tribute to the courage of Lisa Blakemore Brown.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers."
(Pynchon T, 1995 Gravity's Rainbow. ISBN 140188592)

""It's hard to get someone to believe something when their job is dependent on not believing it"
(Al Gore, An inconvenient Truth)

"The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid 'dens of crime' that Dickens loved to paint. It is not even done in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
(Preface to The Screw Tape Letters, C. S. Lewis)

Earlier|Later|Main Page

A statement from Lisa Blakemore Brown

I have already posted about the victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown by the British Psychological Society. Since then the case has been discussed by many concerned bloggers, and commentators on those blogs (See for example here here here here here here here). Here is a statement from Lisa dated today, 8am, the day of her "trial".

PUBLIC STATEMENT - LISA BLAKEMORE BROWN
31 January 2007 8:00 am

It is my view that the British Psychological Society have pursued vexatious complaints against me from sources of dubious credibility. This year will mark 10 years since I first encountered harassment from the British Psychological Society. I will not discuss this harassment here in detail, because it is obvious.

Instead of investigating my concerns, the Society sought to use an aged method of discrediting the messenger - abuse the stigma of mental illness. I find the accusations against me to be insulting, defamatory and malicious. Many members of the public believe it is comparable to the method used in a Totalitarian Regime. The BPS has a mandatory role to investigate the serious issues raised in the public's interest. Yet, as a authority it has been misled by various individuals, some with a criminal past and has sought to victimise me for expressing my honest views on the ethical issues affecting the public.

Over more than a decade I have raised a number of issues surrounding the management of children with ADHD, Asperger syndrome and Autism. I have discussed the difficulty of pigeonholing children into these diagnostic categories through my metaphor of the tapestry. Each child is different. I have also discussed Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy. I have challenged academic thinking about some of these problems in my writings, in court, in helping individual families facing legal challenge, and in my professional practice. I have mentioned that all is not well with our scientific evidence underlying the issue of vaccines and their potential side effects. I know that many people agree with my views. Some of my views may well be wrong. But that is what academic debate is all about.

The British Psychological Society will know full well that many of the things I have raised are correct. They will also know full well that many of the matters I have raised with regard to the manipulation of these procedures are correct, and have been shown to be so. And yet you have accused me of being paranoid based on my stating of the obvious. That was the charge panel members.

I believe that the BPS has behaved very badly. They have misused psychiatric assessment. They have contributed to the distortion of academic debate, and they will have contributed to the fear that professionals feel of challenging the unknown. In so doing the BPS has also failed the public. This is Soviet psychiatry at it’s worst, and we do not expect that in 21st Century Britain.

Thank you

Addendum: 1pm 31 January 2007: I am informed that the British Psychological Society have threatened legal injunction to prevent publication of the transcripts of these hearings. Having read the case transcripts, I find them most extraordinary. They read like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. They also represent the most fundamental manifestation of the abuse of science and suppression of dissent. The British Psychological Society should be ashamed. The BPS should immediately make them available for public scrutiny. A.B

Earlier|Later|Main Page

Secrecy is the last refuge of a scoundrel - the ongoing saga of Lisa Blakemore Brown

I have already posted about the victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown by the British Psychological Society. Since then the case has been discussed by many concerned bloggers, and commentators on those blogs (See for example here here here here here here here).

My correspondence with the British Psychological Society asking to attend her hearing (the first day of this repeated hearing is today) is below. It stands for itself. I understand that several other concerned doctors and colleagues had similar responses. With apologies to Samuel Johnson.

From: Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke (British Psychological Society)
Subject: Re:Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 01:36

Dear Ms O'Roarke,

I would like to attend the hearings involving Ms Blakemore Brown. Assuming that Ms Blakemore Brown herself would not have any objections, please let me know whether that would be possible.

Pending your answer I will ask her permission.

Yours Sincerely
Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:01:31 -0000

Dear Dr Blumsohn

If Ms Blakemore-Brown wishes to make an application for you to attend the hearing, she can apply to the Chair of the Hearing. The Chair would then decide whether to allow that application.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer


From: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 12:00

Thank you Ms O'Rourke.

It must however surely be the case that the hearings are either secret or they are not. I understand that FTP procedures may sometimes be subject to some element of secrecy, but the only legitimate reason for this is to protect the interests of the respondent.

I wish to discover the status of these proceedings.

1) Upon what basis will the Chair make such a decision (presuming that Ms Blakemore Brown does not object?).

2) Since I am not acting on behalf of Ms Blakemore Brown it is not clear to me why she should "make an application for you [me] to attend the hearing" any more than you yourself should make such application.

Yours Sincerely

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: RE: Ms
Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:20:03 -0000

Dear Dr Blumsohn

The hearings are private to protect Ms Blakemore-Brown's privacy. If she wishes you to attend she can ask the Chair to admit you - ie make an application. That application can of course be made by her legal representative if she instructs her to do so.

The Chair will, I assume, make such a decision based on the interests of Ms Blakemore-Brown primarily, but also the interests of the public and the overriding principle of ensuring a fair hearing of the matter. He will take legal advice from the Committee's legal assessor before making a decision. That legal advice will be shared by Ms Blakemore-Brown.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer


From: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 15:55

Thank you. I do now have such permission. Can you notify me as a matter of urgency (today) as to whether I can attend - I will need to make travel plans.

If the answer is no I would appreciate knowing the reasons for this and a copy of the relevant procedures.

Kind wishes

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn


From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:07:46 -0000

Dear Dr Blumsohn

As I explained in my previous e mails, your application would need to be considered by the Chair, with confirmation from Ms Blakemore-Brown in writing that she wishes you to attend.

The Chair is currently out of the country and I do not believe he is due to return until Monday.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

From: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: Fri 26/01/2007 16:42

Dear Ms O'Rourke

You state:

"As I explained in my previous e mails, your application would need to be considered by the Chair, with confirmation from Ms Blakemore-Brown in writing that she wishes you to attend.".

The words "in writing" do not in fact appear previously. I note your statement that the Chair is out of the country.

I would nevertheless appreciate a copy of your documentation with relevance to secrecy of proceedings (under circumstances where a respondent does not wish such secrecy) and the need to ask the Chair and legal assessor. I would imagine this would be a public document. If helpful, please regard this as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Kind wishes

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: Dr Aubrey Blumsohn
Subject: RE: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:57:56 -0000

Dear Dr Blumsohn

I apologise that my previous e mails did not make it clear that any consent from Ms Blakemore-Brown would need to be evidenced in some way. I believed it to be self-evident.

The Society's procedures are set out in the Society's Statutes 14 and 15. These can be found on the Society's website.

The Society is not a body covered by the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

From: Lisa Blakemore Brown
To: Christine.ORourke@bps.org.uk,
Subject: Re: Ms Blakemore-Brown
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 10:31:27 -0500

Dear Ms O'Rourke

I have no objections to Dr Blumsohn attending the Hearing. I have nothing to hide.

Sincerely

Lisa Blakemore-Brown

From: Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: Re:Ms Blakemore-Brown
Sent: 29 January 2007 02:42

Dear Ms O'Rourke

please send specific reference to your procedure pertaining to the requirement to avoid transparency.

I understand that Ms Blakemore Brown has sent an E-mail to you denoting her non-objection.

Kind wishes

Aubrey Blumsohn


From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
Subject: RE: Lisa Blakemore Brown
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:50:30 -0000

Dear Dr Blumsohn

I have now heard from the Chair of the Fitness to Practise Committee that he has refused your application to attend the hearing. Ms Blakemore-Brown and her legal representative have been informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

From: Aubrey Blumsohn
To: Christine O'Rourke
Subject: Re:Lisa Blakemore Brown
Sent: 29 January 2007 14:06

Dear Christine,

With similar respect, I ask that at the very least you provide a reason for such refusal given that Ms Blakemore Brown wishes transparency (and has specifically expressed non-opposition to attendance).

Regards

Aubrey Blumsohn

From: "Christine O'Rourke"
To: "Aubrey Blumsohn"
Subject: RE: Lisa Blakemore Brown
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:12:40 -0000

Dear Dr Blumsohn

I am sorry but the Chair has not authorised me to give you a reason.

I am sorry that I am not able to be of more help.

Yours sincerely

Christine O'Rourke
Professional Conduct Officer

Earlier|Later|Main Page

The victimization of Lisa Blakemore Brown

This blog is about the distortion of scientific debate, most particularly by powerful forces in medicine. It is about the way in which industry, professional bodies, government regulators and powerful individuals collude to prevent scientific debate and to victimize those asking difficult questions (www.nhsexposed.com). It is about the way those entrusted with authority behave.

I have been contacted by many individuals who have found themselves in difficulty. Some of these stories are urgent enough for me to want take a break from my most interesting correspondence with Dr Larry Games Vice President at Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals.

One such case is that of the psychologist Lisa Blakemore Brown, a specialist in Autism, ADHD & Aspergers [website] [Book]. Blakemore Brown has been involved on the "wrong side" of the debate about the psychiatric disorder Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSbP), maintaining that many parents have been falsely accused of injuring their children. There have been high-profile releases from jail of women such as Angela Canning. MSbP is a disorder in which an adult invents or deliberately creates a child’s illness to draw attention to themselves. She has challenged prominent doctors such as Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall who, in her view, have promulgated a wholly inappropriate approach to scientific evidence. She has irritated pharmaceutical companies. But instead of debate Lisa has encountered its very opposite. The abuse of science goes right into the heart of a prominent professional body. Her colleagues have stood by in silence.

I have no special knowledge of the science that underpins the debate surrounding autism, MSbP or vaccine side effects. But I do know that debate is important. It is the lifeblood of science. I will be discussing much more of this tragic case over the next few weeks. It is not only a tragedy for Blakemore Brown, but also part of the tragedy of medicine.

For now I simply place in the public domain a letter written this week by John Stone and myself to the British Psychological Society. It speaks for itself.

Ray Miller, President,
The British Psychological Society
St Andrews House
48 Princess Road East
Leicester LE1 7DR 14 January 2007

Re: Lisa Blakemore Brown

Dear Mr Miller,

We are writing to express our concern regarding the treatment of Lisa Blakemore-Brown (LBB) by the British Psychological Society. The actions of the Society are such as to cast serious doubts upon its motives as well as upon its plausibility as a professional regulatory body.

It is disturbing that the Society appears to be acting to suppress open debate about controversial theories. Our purpose here is not to get involved in this debate, nor do we necessarily agree with her views. Ms Blakemore-Brown's views are in fact irrelevant. She is entitled to hold any views and to express these, no matter how uncomfortable they are to yourselves. This is enshrined by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. It seems that the Society have developed an unhealthy obsession with preventing free speech through abuse of mental health diagnosis. Its actions may also be construed as a breach of the Harassment Act 1997.

It cannot be in the interests of society, human rights, patients and of the British Psychological Society to suppress open debate and academic freedom through such mechanisms. The society seems to have encouraged an endless series of unsupportable complaints against LBB, and then progressed them despite evidence that they were not sustainable. The society itself then generated an entirely different complaint (about her irritated response to these very complaints). This is not a proper example for resolving scientific or academic disputes. It appears to be more a method of silencing a critic.

Irritation with a professional body is not in any event an offence. Neither is annoying a professional body. Disagreement with the professional "view" is not a reason to refer an individual for psychiatric assessment except in a Stalinist state. This approach of the BPS is wholly anti-academic and unprofessional. To quote Kingsley Amis "If you can't annoy someone, there's little point in writing". It is also not a prime facie offence to perceive oneself to have been bullied, as the BPS seem to be suggesting.

Having read the case transcripts, we must confess that we find them most extraordinary. The transcript of the first three days of the Fitness to Practice hearing July 2006 reads like an encyclopaedia of legal and psychological abuse. If LBB has responded with irritation, this would seem to be understandable.

• Lisa had been coerced into "hearings" despite having left the society years before. The main charge was modified progressively until it bore no relation to the flawed original charge. The modified "charge" of supposed mental illness (so called "paranoia") was not revealed to Lisa for months after the process had been set in motion.
• Evidence was assembled by the panel as if having been provided by Lisa herself, and presented to others in a jumbled order and without context to suggest mental incoherence in her correspondence with the BPS (a supposed offence).
• In one instance it emerged that the material was forged. Despite that, the original complainants were not invited to be cross-examined, and no action was taken against them after the information was dropped.
• An independent psychiatric report declaring LBB perfectly lucid, quite normal and fit to practice was rejected, and others were requested instead. This is a rather interesting approach for a "psychological society" towards the reliability of such reports. This interesting approach of the BPS appears to be on the basis of the findings of the reports themselves rather than upon the methodology used (since the panel seemed quite happy to consider an assessment based only on LBB's correspondence with the BPS complaining about her treatment, compiled without seeing "the patient" and without any relevance whatever to her clinical practice). More convincing evidence supporting justifiable paranoia and predetermination would be hard to find.
• A psychiatrist declared Lisa to be unfit to practice with the diagnosis of "paranoia" without examining her, and on the basis of material constructively assembled by the committee. Having read the transcript relating to this material we find this "diagnosis" intriguing, and wonder whether a majority (or even any) other psychiatrists or members of the public would reach such a conclusion based on the same information if we were to provide it to them. In any event the material bears no apparent relation to her practice, only to her views about the suppression of scientific debate.

The society has acted callously over a sustained period seeking to undermine and silence Ms Blakemore Brown, despite her unfortunate family circumstances. It has used the practice of psychiatry and psychological assessment in a non-evidence-based way as a tool for destruction. It cannot improve the reputation of the society to be seen to act in such an arbitrary way using its own tools of trade.

The society must bring this charade to an end before any more damage is done, both to society itself and to the chances of proper public discourse in an atmosphere that is free from fear.

1. We would appreciate the views of the society before taking this matter forward in terms of public discussion.
2. We are unable to find any list of the psychological traits that would render an individual unfit to practice and would appreciate a copy of the same. If supposed "paranoia" or "irritation with the BPS" is on such a list, perhaps bullying should also be added.
3. In addition we would also request that the society provide what scientific evidence it has in relation to the, indications for psychiatric assessment in such cases, as well as the reproducibility and plausibility of such reports.
4. So bizarre are the case transcripts, we believe that open discussion is required. We intend to publish these in full, with appropriate commentary as part of a campaign to prevent such behaviour by professional regulatory bodies. If the society can see any reason such publication should not take place, we would appreciate it if you would let us know those reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Mr John Stone

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

Please contact me if you want to help (Email me)

On 25 January 2007 we received the following "reply" addressing none of the issues raised. The discussion with regard to confidentiality was particularly surprising in that the BPS has since threatened legal action if Blakemore-Brown publishes the transcript.

[Address]

I am surprised that you have seen transcripts of proceedings which are confidential for the benefit of the respondent to those proceedings, and which the Society has neither intention nor authority to publish.

This matter has yet to be concluded, and consequently no comment can be made on it.

I would remind you that the transcripts belong to the Society and are confidential to Ms Blakemore-Brown and any publication would be entirely inappropriate and a breach of confidence.

Yours sincerely

RAY MILLER
President, British Psychological Society

Earlier|Later|Main Page