Another leak from the Clinical College!

RAPS has gratefully received another leak from a concerned clinical psychologist about an email sent by the Chair of the APS College of Clinical Psychologists, QLD Section, Dixie Statham.

Dixie is urging Queensland members how to vote for their clinical candidates and how to vote against the spill. They clearly want to protect the clinical directors on the board and the two-tier system at all costs!

You can read their latest email here.

Now we know the Clinical College is blatantly using their college email lists to promote their candidates to members, which is against against the rules of the APS Campaigning and Communication policy (3.3 APS Standing Orders).

3.3 Campaigning and Communication
3.3.1 Purpose and scope
(a) The purposes of this clause 3.3 regarding campaigning and communication for elections to the Board are to ensure that:
(i) all nominees are treated fairly;

How is it fair that these clinical candidates get the benefit of the college email lists when other candidates don’t have this opportunity? RAPS’ candidates – Michael Carr-Gregg, Kevin Quin and Joe Gagliano – are among the disadvantaged candidates.

The APS has steadfastly refused to provide email addresses to RAPS, knowing full well that a postal mail out would cost over $30,000.

Is National Office  supporting this action by the Clinical College? Has the College asked their members for permission to make use of their email addresses in this way?

This APS board will not change UNLESS ALL non-clinical members vote now and send us a proxy.  Vote Now!

Please send this email to any of your colleagues who are non-clinical APS members and encourage them to vote and send us a proxy. The motions will only be carried if the majority of the members vote in support of them.




52 thoughts on “Another leak from the Clinical College!

  1. The two-tiered structure continues to distort things. I don’t know that undertaking a specialisation is ‘upgrading’, it seems to be a product of the two-tiered system. If the two-tiered system is abolished then undertaking additional training in a specialisation would rightly be seen as diversifying, or broadening one’s skill set, ‘upgrading’ appears to be a misnomer.

  2. Why is it that clinical psychologists can come into my field of organisational psychology, if they have developed the skills, and earn exactly the same as me with no impediment from AHPRA or the APS. However, if I want to work in a clinic, after acquiring the appropriate skills and experience, I am designated a gereralist and get paid less than someone with a clinical degree? This is descriminatory in favour of those with a clinical degree.

    1. Hello John, they shouldnt be able to. Organisational psychology is a specific skill set thst unless you have the training in, you shouldnt enter into.

      1. As someone trained in organisational psychology I have regularly been annoyed that clinical psychologists think they can work in this area – possibly with a one semester course in organisational psychology. Hypocritical arrogance! I note that it seems that the ACT Department of Education has allowed their school psychology service to be shanghaied by clinical psychologists – no training in educational or school psychology required!

  3. One of the issues is the lack of opportunity for generalist psychologists to upgrade their qualifications. The lack of relevent master’s courses for experienced clinicians make it impossible to upgrade, especially if you are working outside a major city. Most courses are preparation for work as a psychologist and have unpaid internships that are not relevant or feasible for experienced clinicians. lf you have years of experience why do you need to do this? Replace it with suitable alternatives such as case studies, workshop attendance and followup activities etc Be innovative here. Add something that will actually enhance learning. Additionally, if your basic degree is over 10 years old it is difficult to obtain a place in a master’s course and most are full time on campus anyway
    Give the 80% of psychologists a chance to do a relevant and useful course of study to upgrade their qualifications but allow them to continue to work and support their families whilst doing so.
    APS has NOT worked on our behalf to help develop this pathway.

    1. Totally agree Catherine – I would have no issue with some type of bridging or further study if that was what is required regardless of the years spent in the Profession. However there are no training options which have been presented which take into account experience, or the financial considerations of stepping away from a primary source of income to work as an intern for free.

    2. Another problem with demanding an upgrade via a tertiary institution is that it discriminates against women who are already carrying a double work/family load and would find it extremely difficult to add study to that. No one seems to bring this up.

        1. And Men also have parenting responsibilities as our women pursue their careers or for other reasons. Let’s not be sexist here.

          1. Greg, men do have parenting responsibilities, but only a minority actually take them seriously enough to let them stand in the way of anything they want to do. Let’s not allow political correctness to blind us to what’s really going on.

        2. So is all the time and money that I have invested in CPD to upskill and maintain my areas of competency since 1990 as a 4 + 2 irrelevant? I have participated in accredited programs within my area of interest. Is this irrelevant? I have paid a huge amount of money for CPD provided by national and international experts. Is this irrelevant? I have undertaken recognised tertiary courses which have been competency based ie your actual performance has been assessed by “experts” plus the academic research paper assessment component. Is this irrelevant? I am currently undertaking a grad certif course at a prominent university run by “experts” at a huge cost to me and hope to complete next year. Is this irrelevant? I have undertaken many many hours of peer supervision and provided consultation and support as mandated under legislation which governs our profession. Is this irrelevant? OK SO THIS UPSKILLING HAS NOT BEEN LABELLED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY.


          If this is irrelevant and I am not a “real” psychologist ie an “unendorsed” psychologist but a junior psychologist who has recently graduated from a clinical masters followed by a clinical internship program is that “real” “endorsed” psychologist then I want a full refund for all this training and all my registration fees and APS membership fees because in my opinion I have been robbed! To whom should I send this invoice?

          1. You folk are absolutely correct! I’d imagine the vast bulk of generalists think this way and have undertaken a vast amount of CPD to continue relevant and competent. I usually exceed my CPD requirements three times over! I can only imagine that the clinical clique’s response to assisting upgrading (not that it is always required!) will be to offer yet more unaffordable, inaccessible courses and ridiculous “placement” requirements! My “placement” is my workplace – where I deal with a fairly full range of the gamut of psychological syndromes pertinent to children, adolescents, adults – in addition to couples and family counselling! Like any working psychologist I can’t take unpaid weeks off work to do a placement treating exactly what I already treat at work!

            1. Thank you for adding your voice to the cause, Gregg! If bumbling clinical graduates don’t have to do unpaid placements to be gifted their undeserved higher rebates, why should those of us with years of experience doing real work waste our time with them? Vote Clinical psychologists out of OUR organisation – Vote for Michael, Kevin and Joseph!

              1. Interesting comments Tanya, and i think its good they’re here on record and for all to see.
                Taking your proposition forward (kick all ‘clinicals’) out, the somewhat absurd conclusion is that over the next decade, and as the 4+2 pathway is ceased, there will be fewer new members and as 4+2 s retire the actual membership numbers may decline. Membership numbers of other psych organisations (whatever may emerge over the coming years) will then increase BUT we will also have a disparate and divided psychology workforce in Australia with many claiming to a peak body, but none really representing psychologists overall.
                Please watch the unhelpful and frankly derogatory comments.

                1. Tanya is a troll, Interested Psychologist.

                  If you read through some of her other comments and between the lines, you’ll note the thinly veiled derision…her agenda is to make those who believe in the RAPS cause to appear deranged and inflammatory and it astounds me that others can’t see it!

                  1. Everyone who reads your other posts can see who the real APS Clinical Troll is “Tia”. You are the one Trying to pu the blame on the Australian Clinical Association of Psychologists for the years of damage and slander the APS Clinical Clique have done to OUR profession. You are the one Posting articles here trying to make it look like Lyn Littlefield speaks up for generalist psychologists in rural areas. You are the one Telling generalist psychologists who share their stories of bring bullied by clinicals that they are just imagining things and shaming them so they stop coming to this site. You are the one attacking anyone like me who speaks out against the APS Clinical Clique. I think this shows how scared the APS is of the RAPS movement. It won’t work. Our Rage is Real. We Have Been Ignored Too Long. Non-Clinically Endorsed Lives Matter. Vote Michael, Joseph and Kevin for the APS Board. Spill the Clinicals and take back the APS for All of Us!

                    1. I must say; your commitment to this performance is commendable! 🙄

                      Speak out against the Clinical clique? Like when you reported university lecture halls filled with the chants of “two-tier forever” and “down with generalist scum”??

                      The beauty of our training is that it has taught us to critically analyse evidence.

                      I have emailed Sophie directly with my views and she knows I’m a Generalist Psychologist, but by all means paint me as a clinical underminer if you must.

                      Anyone who took the time to read the documents I posted will have seen that the narrative of ‘public safety being intrinsically linked to postgraduate training ‘ that keeps getting thrown around in this debate has been consistently and publicly espoused by ACPA. To date, the only public evidence I have seen of degradation and defamation of general and non-clinical psychologists has been from ACPA and in my views, it was predominantly their actions that have brought the profession into disrepute. But that is only my humble opinion!

                      It’s all there on public record for anyone who cares to see it and those who choose to ignore that evidence are entitled to do so, if they choose.

                    2. When the 4+2 courses were introduced universities called the the 4th year a post graduate degree. In about 2013 the APS rejected it as a post grad degree and no one has actually fully explained why.

                    3. Hi RAPS Team,

                      I agree that this change in narrative has been confusing. My 4th year was called a Graduate Diploma in Applied Psychology when I did it in 2002 and my Internship through a private college was called a Postgraduate Diploma in Psychological Practice.

                      Now whenever anyone refers to postgraduate quals, they are strictly referring to masters or above, which is somewhat frustrating at best…

              2. Derogatory comments about any group of psychologists is unprofessional and unethical. Then again, instituting a two-tier system which discriminates against the majority of registered psychologists and undermines their livelihoods is unconscionable. Registered psychologists who are not members of the clinical college have been systematically demeaned and disadvantaged. They are justifiably angry and are seeking redress from injustice. All psychologists should recognise this discrimination for what it is and resist.

            2. I received “clinical” supervision for many years post 4+2 from the very experts who continue to train emerging practitioners (nothing airy fairy about that) stop minimising our CPD! I have trained under experts highly regarded psychologists and psychiatrists, stop minimising my development and i didnt venture into private practice for approx 8 yrs after whilst still maintaining supervision and attending what was back then a requirement ie APS accredited training workshops so I was lead to believe that the ongoing CPD I paid very good money for at the time was “credible” enough to ensure the development of my areas of expertise!
              Collegues new to our profession ie entering around the changed from state registration to national registration cannot understand the situation of the 4+2 who was not grandfathered but who has been defamed and descriminated against by default. They were brainwashed that only a clinical masters provided the necessary foundation!

              We remain unendorsed! Such a loaded word and the perception out there is that we remain the basic psychologist! The clinicals are silently lobbying for specialist title and there are changes to our code of ethics in the pipeline! What are the implications to our profession? ENORMOUS and in my opinion further restrictions on trade!

              I have contributed my fair share to the evolution of our profession, served thousands upon thousands of clients and their families in my nearly 30yrs of continuous practice and contributed to government as senior advisor in a critical program areas! Stop defaming me!
              BRING ON THE SPILL!

          2. What population do you work with concerned psychologist?
            Its troubling that you don’t seem to understand what clinical psychologists are trained to do yet think that you do the same.

      1. “the financial considerations of stepping away from a primary source of income to work as an intern for free”

        “it discriminates against women who are already carrying a double work/family load and would find it extremely difficult to add study to that. ”

        All issues that also affect those of us studying a Clinical Masters (the majority of whom are young women who would love to have a part-time practice as psychologists for financial support), but for some reason no one here seems to bring that up and instead dismisses our sacrifices by saying we have our degrees handed to us.

        1. I think the assumption being made J Dwyer is that students studying a Masters degree have done so in succession after completing an undergrad, they are in there early -mid 20’s and therefore they haven’t had the time or opportunity to start a practice and this is a different situation to leaving an established business with established clientele to work as an intern for no pay. It is an economic argument and one which is accurate.

          1. Exactly Matt!

            Not to mention that at this stage of our lives (late 30’s +), as someone else mentioned a while ago; there are additional financial commitments, such as mortgages, etc that further complicate this issue.

        2. Great point J Dwyer. Most of the people in my higher degree course were women many of whom were trying to juggle family and other work responsibilities. We all managed it despite the difficulty. In fact, several people in my year and the years above and below were generalists who decided that they needed a higher degree. All of them said the sacrifice was worth it on completion.

          1. Intetested Clinical, they said “it was worth it” because they got a higher tier pay after completion? Would they have had to sacrifice family time, client time, private practice time to scramble through the MPsych Clin gauntlet if they were remunerated fairly with appropriate status in the first place. What sort of logic is it to say that because one group of people and their dependents and clients suffer unfairly to get ahead that it is fair to make others suffer unfairly to be treated fairly? Why not just remove the unjust incentive to suffer unfairly that caused suffering to dependents and clients.
            Regardless of gender, I do school drop offsand pick ups everyday and spend alot of time parenting every day 24/7 as well as running a private practise. I will not grovell through the gauntlet, sacrificing precious parenting years, and neglecting my offspring and clients and staff in order to bow to an unproven apartheid regime that us hard at work trying to discredit my hard earned and proven professional qualifications, experience and competencies. An elitist apartheid regime that seeks to elevate one subspecialty academic pathway as the must have qualification, serving the interests of those who sell that story in the absence of ANY supporting scientific evidence. It’s a crime.

  4. Fair? What is fair about you insulting our training as your clique has done for years, simply because most of you had the label “clinical” handed to you with no effort via Grandfathering? That is why you will NEVER have my vote, and why we must all vote for Michael Carr Gregg to save psychology in Australia.

    1. And what about those Tanya who have ‘made the effort’ as you put it? I have both clinical masters and a clinical doctorate, plus another masters…. i agree that unfortunately some were given access to the higher tier through grandfathering. Others with postgrad should have gained the higher tier. But i dont think its true that ‘most’ had it handed to them without ‘effort’.

      1. RAPS said it clearly – How can a couple of post graduate years at university, chosen by biased university selectors and only learning theory, compare to more then 10 years of demonstrated competency in practice plus 300 hours of CPD training and supervision during that period? Please stop the insults of comparing what generalists do to earn the title of psychologist with the easy path of book learning clinicals are handed.

        1. ‘Only learning theory’, ‘book learning’…. this would be laughable if it wasn’t so distorted Tanya. While trying to push your ‘experience counts’ argument (which may have some merit) you distort and minimise the extent of training in postgrad, or you simply dont know what constitutes postgrad training pathway and instead use derogatory terms as above. I can tell you from my experience it was no easy path, many years of multiple sacrifices. But very worth it in terms of the training.

          1. Yes! not just learning theory. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy too! and Psychopharmacological allusions too! Why don’t Clinical Psychology just rename it Clinical Behaviorology, start a new discipline and let us Psychologists get on with being psychologists.

            1. Hmm…. ill take the high road here. Gregory, i was certaimly taught and supervised in cognitive and behavioral therapies, as well as systemic / family therapy. I also learnt quite a bit about modern psychodynamic practice, with all of the above couched in Rogerian and humanistic principles. Yes, psychopharmacology was taught, more so to understand this in the broader mental health / GP prescribing system. Important to understand this in both public and private contexts when referred to by GPs, psychiatrists, and paediatricians, but just a small part of the overall ‘treatment’ picture. Maybe you and others need to update on what is covered in postgrad courses, which of course also support individual interests and pursuit of differing therapy modes. If this isn’t modern psychology Gregory, or atleast a part of it then I’m not sure what is, and I’m not sure what you are doing.

              1. I dont need to be indoctrinated into the medical model thanks. I worked for years in governmental health service and GP referrals and attwnded drug lunches and dinners at fancy restaraunts by big Pharma and received gifts from psychiatrists who had too many clocks and pens and radios and…..

                1. Hi Gregory, just reading through the posts – so what’s your point here? From what I can see ‘Interested psychologist’ has outlined the therapies taught in postgrad, not just CBT or behaviourism, nor is there any emphasis on psychopharmacology (and this would also be the case in health and counselling masters). You are saying you don’t need to be indoctrinated into the medical model, but no one is actually saying that is how it should be, nor does the post by Interested Psychologist. Can you clarify? Or is it criticism just to be critical of what you don’t like to hear?

                2. That’s intetesting as in almost 20 years of work in public practice and 10 years of private practice i haven’t been to any expensive or fancy drug dinners or received gifts from psychiatrists. Still not understanding the medical model comment – didnt we study psychology to become psychologists? There are certainly elements of psychology that cross over with medicine but we also provide an important contrast to medicine. So, is this going to be an intelligent discussion or just blind barbs being thrown? Comparison of penis sizes won’t get us anywhere either Gregory.

                  1. Sorry “Interested” and “David”, I just caught up eith your comments in this thread. Penises aside, I think I should draw uour attention to the recent APD Clinical Psychology Journal with articles on Competencies. My comments were about the reality of Australuan Vlinucal Psychology’s fetishisation and adoration of medical models, CBT and DSM. Just read your own journal and see it in black and white. My guess is the brown nosing to meficine is all about the $$$.
                    Sorry you missed out on the drug lunches. The food was good, the pens generally good and novel (and some were bigger than mine, some smaller), But the presentations were invariable hogwash thinly veiled marketing promotions using highly questionable science that was rarely questioned.
                    I had a clock given to me by a Clunical Director Psychiatrist with a black face (the clock) and a drug and bigpharma name emblazoned on it, which I was able to delete with black permanent marker. Do you approve?

  5. Come on, please, be honest.
    I acknowledge that the email you refer to may not be in accord with the rules.
    But…all of the generalist psychologists are members of their BRANCHES.

    Surely you have the right, if not the moral imperative, to contact all Branch Chairs to request all their members to have a look at your website before voting.

    I have some sympathy for your cause. Yes, I am a clinical psychologist, and was the Director of Professional Practice from 2002-2006. seriously, there are many inaccuracies in the information you are disseminating.

    Your belief that 4 years of training will provide the Australian public with the best psychological input is seriously flawed – pleas read Oren Griffiths comments about the need for training – along with being fair and the use grandfathering.

    Yes, I am also running for the Pres-Elect position, but my motivation is to provide the Australian public with best psychological support possible.

    Please -look at the big picture

    1. It’s not the four years of training, Hugh. It’s for many 10 years of demonstrated competency in practice plus 300 hours of CPD training and supervision during that period. How can this compare with a couple of post graduate years at university? And clearly the outcomes are against you.

      1. You make ‘a couple’ of post graduate years at university sound like not a lot…. similar to Joe Gagliano’s comment in his video that ‘Clinical’ psychologists don’t have the responsibilities that other psychologists have and havent possibly struggled like other psychologists.

    2. Hugh I think you are missing an important part of the debate as is Oren – if a Psychologists training ended at the 4 year point you would have a valid argument…but it doesn’t, just as a Masters trained Psychologists training doesn’t end at the 6 year point. If it is your belief that the extra knowledge a Master’s trained psychologist supposedly has can only be achieved through university study then it says something about the quality of workshops and seminars that are run just about every day. This is the flaw of the 2 – tier system – it makes an assumption that post-university all further learning has ceased and therefore you have different grades of Psychologists – on paper, academically – yes you have a person with a different title – but then it comes back to the argument about therapeutic outcomes.

      The APS has prolonged this debate by not solving it, they have been complacent by being aware of it and ‘hoping’ it would go away. The current Directors can complain that the RAPS campaign has made their job difficult…well good, because they now, finally have to come up with a workable solution – not an academic argument which, I believe, the majority of clients seeking Psychological services in Australia do not care about – they just want to find ways to work through whatever it is they seek a Psychologists help for.

      1. Nail on the head, Matt! Why should we have to sacrifice time and money doing pointless “bridging courses” when there are an excellent range of PD events that guarantee that we generalist psychologists produce excellent outcomes with our clients, especially when the body of research shows that outcomes are the same regardless of whether it is a generalist or clinical psychologist providing the service.

        1. If you wanted a special new home, would you prefer to hire a builder who’d undertaken an excellent range of PD events in design or an architect?

          Qualifications matter.

          If you chose the builder, would you expect to pay him/her less for their design than the architect? Of course you would. Because the architect has a qualification.

          1. To design and build a good house that works well O would definitely go with the
            hBuilder with experience. Pay him what he is worth and bonuses for good outcomes. Let us have an outcomes based payment system for psychology clinicians and see how many graduates go to higher degrees instead of practical focussed workshops and trainings.
            Definitely the experienced builder over the inexperienced architect. Many people go that way.
            Now, are you suggesting that Clinical Psychologists are designers and other psychologists do the hard yards? Maybe there is something in your analogy after all.
            I think your analogy reveals the love of the impracticality of elitist academia, prejudice against the hard workers that actually create change in the real world an an alignment of Academic Clinical Psychology with the Vocation of Architecture of which it is often said, “they are building monuments to their own egos in a bid for immortality.” or words to that effect.
            Just let us get on with the pravticalities of building a better world and stop throwing riad blocks in our paths to satisfy needs to feel superior and greed for money and power lust.

    3. It is 6 years of training including 4 years of Uni and 2 years of intensive supervised practicum. plus plus plus.

    4. Hi Hugh,

      I am concerned by your statement “Your belief that 4 years of training will provide the Australian public with the best psychological input is seriously flawed”

      I would like to turn the tables, so to speak, and suggest that your statement is seriously flawed due to it being misleading and/or inaccurate on at least three accounts.


      You infer 4 years of training. This is not true. The 4+2 pathway is SIX (6) years of training. The two (2) year provisional internship of the 4+2 is a critical part of the training model/learning curve of this pathway to building professional practice acumen in our psychologists.

      Please do not underestimate this training pathway and the quality practitioner it has produced over the years!


      You infer anyone who sees merit in the 4+2 training path has a flawed perception even though evidence does clearly suggest that the 4+2 trained psychologist ends up producing equivalent outcomes in their provision of mental health services to the Australian public.

      Outcome research across Medicare Better Access, ATAPS and Headspace demonstrate equivalence in outcomes across training pathways. Clinical master’s trained and non-clinical ‘generalists’ working clinical caseloads have both shown to produce great outcomes in treatment across mild moderate and severe cases.


      You infer anyone who speaks to the legitimacy of the 4+2 pathway is promoting it as ‘providing the best psychological input’. This is not true. Promoting the merit of one training pathway does not demote the merit of another.

      Throughout the key posts from RAPS on this blogsite there is a clear expression of equivalence and the promotion of merit across all training pathways currently on offer.


      You are standing for election as a potential representative of psychologists across ALL training pathways who are working across ALL fields of practice.

      I therefore suggest, under such circumstances, you should become more versed in the quality and strengths of all our training options and in the great work of all our psychologists currently working across Australia in all fields of practice through all training pathways on offer.

      Kind Regards,

      1. So Clive,

        Rather than asking a respectful poster to clarify their position, you would prefer to silence the contributions of a person who may well end up on an influential board?

        To your points:
        1) So many people here comment on the clinical training pathway as two years – it’s eight at a minimum… are you correcting them?
        2) Many of these providers assign different types and severity of presentation to different categories of psychologist (e.g., I understand my local Headspace refers complex cases from “generalists” to “clinicals”) – referring on isn’t an available outcome for clinicals in many of these instances
        3) If the 4+2 and clinical postgrad +2 are equal then aren’t they both “the best psychological input”? Suggesting equality is not inferring invalidation of one or both pathways
        4) You are clearly an influential voice for an organisation who promote themselves as a CONSTRUCTIVE voice for ALL psychologists and yet look to silence dissent in the most hypocritical fashion. I therefore suggest, under such circumstances, you should become more versed in how constructive debate tends to operate.

        The game of simply refuting points you disagree with is easy – being constructive isn’t… you have repeatedly demonstrated no motivation to work with the concerns of someone whose opinion differs to your own. Hugh has tried to reach out to a group who clearly disagree with him. Are you capable of doing the same?

        PS: I don’t know Hugh at all. I am far more familiar with Indi (AKA Dr Jones)

        1. Hi Lost Ark,

          Thank you for sharing your thoughts. And I appreciate you trying to work out my motives that underpin my comments too; considering that’s all a part of our day job as psychologists 🙂

          So, to clarify; my goal is not to ‘play a game of simply refuting points’ or ‘silencing dissent’.

          My goals are to:

          1) share publicly the evidence as it stands,

          2) confront directly any game of smokes and mirrors that try to nullify the evidence as it stands,

          3) wrestle through with colleagues, via candid and very public debate, the meaning of the evidence as it stands,

          4) rectify erroneous perceptions through raising awareness of and reminding colleagues of the very real qualities psychologists across all training pathways hold in treating clinical cases,

          5) validate the legitimacy of all training pathways on offer for psychologists training in Australia today.

          While these are my goals for communicating on this blogsite, I am also more than happy to accept evidence that proves what I have shared to be wrong. I mean this sincerely from the ethical stance of a scientist-practitioner whereby we are all ethically obliged to advocate for the evidence; rather than chase personal whims or unfounded political agendas.

          This RAPS blogsite, in the true spirit of constructively open and honest debate, has allowed colleagues from across Australia to participate in an uncensored free flow of communication between the diverse range of conflicting opinions and perspectives faced within our society today.

          I encourage you to take a step back and see afresh the forest instead of getting bogged down in the muddy waters of the swamps to clarify what the fundamental essence of the debate is; that has prompted this blogsite.

          Regardless of how questionable or honourable you conclude my motives to be; the essence of concern being raised and debated through this blogsite is that expert clinical practitioners who have trained across various pathways, treating across the box and dice of mental illness and producing quality outcomes are being told both inadvertently and blatantly that they are not as competent as their clinical master’s trained colleagues.

          In the various ways this opinion is presented and through the various angles it is approached – I do refute that!

          Kind Regards

Leave a Reply