Sammy Woodhouse is a survivor of the Rochdale grooming gangs, the idea for a charity for women who have had children resulting from sexual assault was her idea and she did a lot of the groundwork. So Dr Fringe can shove her passive-aggressive heart emoji
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
As Dr Fringe is obviously reading here I'd avoid sharing any details of what information the journalist is requesting.
If you've done nothing wrong you don't have anything to worry about, eh Jess
If you've done nothing wrong you don't have anything to worry about, eh Jess
So the BPS have basically just rewritten the rules on consent - ie, if you consent to one thing, someone else can do something you have not consent too.
This has absolutely epic consequences for the entire profession - please make a point to tweet the BPS raising this - including their senior staff.
They cannot rewrite the process of consent, this is unacceptable - can you imagine if they did this with a person who was claiming sexual assault by a BPS registrant?
This has absolutely epic consequences for the entire profession - please make a point to tweet the BPS raising this - including their senior staff.
They cannot rewrite the process of consent, this is unacceptable - can you imagine if they did this with a person who was claiming sexual assault by a BPS registrant?
What I find unforgiveable is that it feels like they are actually using the fact that SA is a member of the public and so wouldn't necessarily know the rules around ethics and consent to wriggle out of acting. This means they are doing the same as JT. Even if they believe that consent was given---which is hard enough to accept, given the nature of how that was relayed, ie SA saying it in an email--that consent was only given to a blog. Even when consent is fully granted and proof exists, ie a signed consent form, ethics allow for consent to be withdrawn for future publications. Are they actually saying that a professional owns your data for the rest of their lives and you can't ask for them to stop using it, ever??? That will have 'epic' consequences for the profession. Who would participate in research if that is the deal? I note they don't appear to have responded to professionals who have raised these issues, ie people who DO know the ins and outs of ethics.
"There was not sufficient evidence to say that she did not reasonably think she had consent" The more I am reading it the more it seems like they are admitting that there was no consent process at all. "She did not reasonably think she had consent" Ie, she knew full well she didn't have consent? I am reading this in two ways now...
SA has been very clear she has not consented to this - that right there is the evidence. SA did not consent, has repeatedly stated she did not consent to anything being in the book and has repeatedly asked for those section to be withdraw.
SA has been very clear she has not consented to this - that right there is the evidence. SA did not consent, has repeatedly stated she did not consent to anything being in the book and has repeatedly asked for those section to be withdraw.
And if she doesn't like the outcome she can always blame patriarchy, ageism, homophobia, classism, radical feminists, etc.As Dr Fringe is obviously reading here I'd avoid sharing any details of what information the journalist is requesting.
If you've done nothing wrong you don't have anything to worry about, eh Jess
SA is informing them that she had not consented so they don't need, "sufficient evidence". Surely the onus is on JT to provide sufficient evidence *of consent*?
Essentially they are calling SA a liar. Talk about adding insult to injury.
Surely GDPR covers at least some of this too? I don’t know the ins and outs of GDPR legislation, but surely SA has a right to know what info of hers is held by JT and to ask for it to be destroyed? Couldn’t that include removing it from a publication? Perhaps someone more in the know can comment
It would be very damaging for Jessica to not come out and state that this is NOT how consent works - in a way the BPS have put her in a position where she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.
She should speak out about it as it goes against all her teachings on consent - but she would be admitting fault if she does.
GDPR does cover this if other people notified SA that she was in the book ie there was enough information to identify her.
She should speak out about it as it goes against all her teachings on consent - but she would be admitting fault if she does.
They refused to respond to her SAR request and I believe it is now in the hands of the ICO as to the lack of information provided. However, that may have changed.
GDPR does cover this if other people notified SA that she was in the book ie there was enough information to identify her.
Anyone got any receipts of her saying consent must be ongoing? Would love to rub her own words in her fringy face
I'm sure there are other examples but she states it explicitly in this tweet, although she's talking about SBP book:
I have just found these. Yes they relate to sexual consent rather than ethical research consent but I think the point still stands.
Also the “writing about traumatised clients” is something Jess should address as it’s clear people think she is working therapeutically with clients and she’s not because she isn’t qualified to.
Attachments
I think the quote about the 2nd book is probably more pertinent to this situation. Even if you wave it under her nose she will dismiss it and block you
Her and her fringe are Teflon coated. Several people on here have made the point about her misleading people with the idea that she is either medically trained and/or has clinical training. It's entirely deliberate on her part.
No, we don't raise it with her - we raise it with the BPS who raise it with her...
I'd love to be proved wrong but I have zero faith that the BPS will do anything, as we have seen already. This has been discussed at length here. I'd genuinely be delighted if they did but
Well, the BPS is a charity - so it's possible to go to the charities commission too.
"TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF A KNOWLEDGE OF PSYCHOLOGY PURE AND APPLIED AND ESPECIALLY TO PROMOTE THE USEFULNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF ITS MEMBERS BY SETTING UP A HIGH STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE."
They are not doing this - and this is their governing statement on the Charity Commission website. So I will write to the charities commission as well as BPS. And I will be contacting their trustees as well. They are listed here on the Charity Commission website, I would hope they will be very concerned regarding the consent definition issue.
"TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT AND DIFFUSION OF A KNOWLEDGE OF PSYCHOLOGY PURE AND APPLIED AND ESPECIALLY TO PROMOTE THE USEFULNESS AND EFFICIENCY OF ITS MEMBERS BY SETTING UP A HIGH STANDARD OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE."
They are not doing this - and this is their governing statement on the Charity Commission website. So I will write to the charities commission as well as BPS. And I will be contacting their trustees as well. They are listed here on the Charity Commission website, I would hope they will be very concerned regarding the consent definition issue.
I cannot get over the cost of the VictimFocus accredited trainer course. I mean…what is it? Surely it’s a total con. I cannot imagine where in the world that’d get you? I’m sure people would do much better getting experience working for Refuge, Solace or other local charitable, voluntary or statutory organisations and putting their money towards genuine academic counselling or professional qualifications. Total snake oil salesmen. And her wife with ‘you’re beautiful’ in the comments. The fan girling is adolescent and they are the most unprofessional, idiotic, laughable pair out there. Academia can rest easy, these two are posing no threat.
Unfortunately they are a threat to academia. If they can get away with this level of consent and BPS back them up then what precedent does that set? How can any potential future participants trust researchers?
They are a threat to many mental health patients as well via mental health services, and emergency services.
This is not safe.
This is not safe.
How the duck can she be stopped?!
- Status