The Problem of Licensing, Accreditation and Chartership


In psychology group behaviour dictates we cluster together to find support and safety. In this paper we will review the need for societies, associations and clubs that organise a profession such as education, psychology and other forms of social support. In particular we will look at the business of creating rules and regulations to supervise and control members that fool the public into thinking they are protected or safe from abuse by the scam of licensing, accreditation and charterships. In summery to show that such insidious practices are in fact no guarantee of professionalism or quality control.


As far back in history as you care to go people grouped together for survival, inter-group support and comfort. In the early days of education the Church in England organised schools for the poor and set forth a standard and rules, concerning content, quality and a strict authoritarian established teaching regime. As time has gone by successive governments who took over the role of education from the Church increased legislation, rules and standards to the point that many teachers in the modern world leave the profession because they spend more time satisfying statistical requirements than actually teaching the children. The public are told that these rules and standards are in place to protect their children and investment in education but in fact are more likely to be political motivated arrangements to show successive governments succeeding in raising educational standards in exchange for votes. A typical example is the current success in A level results in the UK, rising to the point of excessive results that leave employers and universities accepting everyone almost as an outstanding performer, when in fact teachers know that their time is spent meeting examination result type teaching and not education. This means it is impossible to judge quality candidates as the best and worst student have identical results in the form of grades. How did this happen – very easy – make the exams successively easier each year until impossible to fail. Other professions however grouped privately, such as psychotherapy in Vienna under Freud (1895) created societies to discuss and control the growth of the talking cures. Here the object was not to set rules but to internally support learning and application of the psychological sciences by mutual agreement of the members. There were no experts as such, there were not bodies to regulate the application of the methodology as the early members where mutually finding their way. However 100 year later we abound with societies that set rules, agendas and ethical standards to the members with very little control by the members themselves. What is the point of these organisations, who gave them authority over workers in a profession, who agreed that they could have exclusivity?


Partly the growth in private organisations was the laziness of government to regulate so many differing types of industries and also the need to focus on economic control that directly effected the countries global affairs. So the more indirect industries such as medicine, psychology and counselling were left to their own devices and eventually given government approval to police the individual industries by consent. Consecutive governments of differing philosophies were more or less engaged in business and left self-regulatory control to these self declared groups. Some governments believed in micro control and nationalisation of businesses – others denationalisation and self regulatory rules that allowed them to distance themselves from the obligation to the public as their voters – easier to blame or criticize others if you are not directly controlling their affairs. One of the by-products of this self regulation was the different ways to raise money to keep the association or group going. The first and foremost was of course membership fees, this provided the basic income and way of disseminating information amongst the membership. Then levels of membership determining experience, influence and seniority gave rise to a class system followed by divisions for specialities that drove more rules and regulations and of course more income. At this stage most societies or associations were still membership driven for needs and support. However the need to control and regulate became an issue after criticism of experimental styles, complaints about abusive relationships, power struggles in determining who should be seen as powerful and authoritative. This is really were licensing, accreditation and chartership became a social status mark of the individual members standing in the group. However they are often marketed to the public as a standard to be relied upon. This however is far from true – they are a money making exercise pure and simple. If we look at educational accreditation this says the outside body or association sets a set of standards that the educational establishment such as a university must meet in order to be recognised as having minimal agreed environments covering teaching methods, educational value, ethical guidelines and outcomes. However it is the word – minimal that we have to be clear about. From an income stand point the accrediting body needs everyone to pass so that it can maximise its profits. It is like any other business in this respect. This has actually meant that many universities are judged by the lowest possible standard to make sure every establishment passes the accreditation and so making the whole process meaningless. Only in a system that accepts failure and closures of a university can you really claim that accreditation has real value to the public. Yet there is no record of any university closing down from the failure to gain accreditation by the ruling body. Licensing is slightly different as some countries have a system and others do not – not every country accepts and wants this way of working. In the USA to have a psychology licence merely means you have passed the minimum educational requirement for a given state and have a clear police record. You licence is not valid in any other state or country – yet many so called licensed psychologist proclaim this in other countries as attesting to their quality of work – which it was never designed to do – licensing does not mean you are any good at your job. In fact most medical doctors and licensed psychologists who end up in prison are all licensed and accredited – so there is fact is no protection to the public from anyone who decides to transgress the common or criminal law. In the UK for psychological work – Chartership is the equivalent of licensing and has all the same faults – in fact is worse in the sense that no legal standing exists for its existence. It fools the public and other professionals alike that this person has something more than the average psychologist – which is completely misleading – as they have only paid for a title that has no guarantee of service or professionalism – again most psychologists in prison have these titles.

What does this all mean?

The public should be aware that licensing of professions, accreditation of institutions and charterships and nothing more than titles and have no basis in protecting the public from shoddy workmanship, poor facilities or identifying members with criminal intent. If as an individual or establishment who pays a third party, for a means of telling the public that some organisation without legal standing is a recommendation to you or a university then you are directly conning the public and your paying clients. One of the UK’s most prolific serial killers was a licences practising doctor (Harold Shipman) who murdered over 250 elderly people. Overseen by the medical counsel as fit to practice, licences to administer medical care – a so called trusted profession. Yes all those rules, all those titles, all those associations, did nothing to protect his victims. If as seen these accrediting organisations and associations are not a guarantee of safety or quality of care or education then what is the purpose of keeping them except for the self interest of those who run them. The only real reason for any organised group is information, shared experience, insight to their professions or companionship of liked minded people. No organisation should have the power to ban an individual from working where they have no legal standing. In psychology in the past the associations have ostracised those who challenge the status quo or publish research that does not agree with their shared view, or decided a rule was outdated or just plain silly. Such as the being criticised for giving a cup of tea to therapy clients on the grounds it breaks boundary issues – it is this sort of nonsense that shows the mockery of non-legal standing groups. These kangaroo courts have been given untold power to prevent competition and victimise members who do not tow the line. If you are thrown out of the society it can prevent you gaining employment because the employing bodies think that a member in good standing can be trusted – where as in fact as the courts and prisons show us it is the very members who are in the inner circle who often wielding power are the most corrupt – you only have to see the international football association (FIFA) to see this case, as many of its top officials have been accused or convicted of corruption. So what should replace these systems or associations that have no real public value and mislead more often than clarify their standing. Why do the membership themselves support the system in the first place – money begets money – if you have a paid for title, then you can charge the public more and state you are more than just your qualifications – you are special and therefore more trustable? The public not realising you paid to be licensed, you paid to be chartered, you paid to be associated or accredited. If the public knew that is was just a paid for title – then they would be more aware to ask for more information such as real client recommendations or references.

Should we replace?

After 100 years of developing societies, clubs, professional groups we perhaps need to redefine what we want these organisations to actually do for the membership and the public alike. First I am not advocating the complete destruction of the association model. However I do think limitations on their role should be clearly defined. They should not be able beyond a membership certificate apply any other labels, or a titles of recommendation system. Their role should be as it was originally designed to be – information, sharing, like minded enquiry but not rule driven membership beyond the recognised qualifications for the ordinary membership i.e. in most cases training or learning in that field of endeavour – for example in psychology a University degree (B.A. B. Sc, M.A. M. Sc PhD) beyond that no titles should be allowed. You are only what you trained to be and no more. Existing common and criminal law already requires businesses licensing (for tax purposes), regulations in law and liability – therefore no ethical rules or association rules can be enforced that have not a ruling by a legal entity such as the courts of justice. In other words if it is not written in law or case law by a court it is not enforceable. Taking away their powers over the membership would lead to a more equitable situation where members are free to split with the main body and form a rival association and so through competition make members more empowered, if the association does not provide what a member is looking for then they have other alternatives. No government should be allowed to give away power to a third party who have no authority from the public who vote for leadership not organisations who are run by people who the public has not control over or support for simply by the ignorance of not knowing who gave these associations power in the first place – in the UK this is often done by what is called a Royal Charter – totally undemocratic system of favouritism which leads to a monopoly on the profession which in any other business would be illegal. This should be scrapped as a class ridden idea that paying for a Royal Charter somehow makes the association more legitimate than any other – becomes the same problem with accreditation that is it is about how much you pay for the privilege and not any guarantee of quality. I titled this paper with the word – scam – in this I meant that most of these systems of accreditation, licensing and charterships are merely a way to collect money while not safe guarding the public at all. Any association that makes that claim should be suable – when Harold Shipman murdered 250 people the medical association should have been liable to every single family for compensation as they licensed, recommended by association and supported his work. In fact if in law – all associations carried liability for their membership then quality control would be the first thing they would redefine. At the moment they can give titles, accreditation and charter to anyone without any risk at all. If I fail at university should I not be able to sue the accreditation body for recommending this establishment as being a guarantee for success or if after graduation from an Ivy league or Ox-Cam established university I cannot find a great job I should be able to ask for the accreditation body to make up my salary and benefits? In fact some of the non accreditation universities around the world often have superior teaching and methodology as they are not answerable to the system of accreditation in the first place.


This paper is opinion – it is a challenge to established thinking about the system of associations and their like. I have not referenced here as this is a personal statement about a corrupt system that fools the public and is no guarantee of value, professionalism, safety or quality of the associations titled membership. I expect to be criticised by many who have a stake in the status quo – they are talking from a standpoint of ego and money interests. Remember they paid to be the person that they want the public to accept them as! The only rules we should accept are those in law -legal binding – contractual in the sense of a customer and their client. Many accreditation bodies will defend their position as guaranteeing standards when in fact no one fails the standard because they could not afford for their customers to fail – otherwise the system would crash in on itself. If the current system is to be maintained then all associations, accreditation bodies and others doling out titles should be legally bound to pay compensation if any client receiving service is not satisfied with the result. Of course none will ever do this as they cannot control their members on a daily basis, how can they spot the serial killer, the thief, the rapist and many others who are in prison but once in good standing held a licence, accreditation or chartership! Next time someone says they are licensed or some such nonsense – beware – quality and professionalism is not a guarantee.

Faculty Professors And Staff At Universities Vow To Fight Against Donald Trump

Last time I checked, Universities existed to teach the next generation and prepare them to take the helm and propel our society and civilization, and humankind into the future with the right knowledge and skills to do it. And yet, these days professors and academia in general seems to have taken up a new cause, they call it many things; social justice, equality, diversity, sustainability, progressive agenda. In fact, it appears that they believe these things to be more important to their mission than actually teaching our next generation the very subjects we’ve hired them to teach. Let’s talk.

The other day, I read an open letter from a Chemistry Professor to the faculty and staff at the local University, asking them to repost it all over social media. The letter talked about attacking the Trump Administration, which had yet to even come into power. One of the main points of the letter, also endorsed by the State University Employees Union, stated; “We will fight the normalization of evidence-free social discourse by modelling for our students and communities the power of evidence-based open inquiry in real problem solving.”

This statement appeared after an anti-Trump tirade calling the President-Elect a racist, misogynist, and hater. Let’s take this statement and break it down to find the flawed logic here. The exact words are: “We will fight the normalization of evidence-free social discourse by modelling for our students and communities the power of evidence-based open inquiry in real problem solving,” unfortunately, in the open letter he hadn’t stated any evidence, he only reiterated the hate-speech against right politically leaning folks that we’ve heard repeated by Cable Media, Left-Leaning Newspapers and surrogates of the Clinton Campaign during this much heated past election season.

Next, he talks about “Modeling Students” – wow, are we sure he don’t mean brainwashing them as socialist followers? The Professor of Chemistry (PhD and tenured) made a number of allegations as to the character of Donald Trump, and company without any evidence whatsoever, how are we to take this hypocrisy – isn’t this just “venting” because he and his friends, associates and fellow academics are upset the election did not go their way this time, why engage in 7th grade debate club debating tactics and 8th grade reading level political rhetoric tactics like this?

After all, we can read the LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times for that, did or professor miss his calling in journalism? Why do they state they want to “Fight” why can’t they just do their jobs and teach? We put these folks on pedestals, actually they put themselves there and told us to treat them as such, and once their they call us ignorant and racist. Why do we need arrogant academics to talk down to us?

If they are so great, why do they need to hide-out in academia, tell them to come out here in the real world, run a business, get a job, run for office, join the military? Maybe that saying; ‘those who can’t teach,” is more correct than we’ve been led to believe? Maybe Ronald Reagan was right. “It’s not that the left is ignorant, they just know too many things that simply are not so.”

Academic Liberal Professors Are Worried About Their Social Warrior Justice Progress

Is the political career of the social justice warrior dead? Are they needed anymore? With all the so-called progress they’ve made you’d think they’d want to take a victory lap – and yet, just as they were preparing to do that, and take it one step further, their movement was caught short by a larger wave – a Tsunami and Rogue Wave of common sense. Still, the buzz words of equality, sustainability, social justice are still alive and well at our academic institutions and they are not going to give up without a fight. Many are banding together in solidarity to show their groupthink ideals by way of protest and propaganda.

Not long ago, I read an Open Letter from a University Professor to the faculty and staff of his institution noting that President-Elect Trump had “expressed and espoused points of view and political positions that are objectively racist, misogynist, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and anti-science.”

However, I dare to ask; is this really true?

Regarding this list which was written/borrowed: “racist, misogynist, bigoted, anti-intellectual, and anti-science” – I actually disagree with all of those charges on Donald Trump’s character and the ideals of the potential members of his stated cabinet and inner circle appointments. I believe if one looks closely those charges against the character of these men and women and President-Elect Trump are nothing more than the hateful political rhetoric of the Clinton Campaign, CNN, Rachel Maddow, etc.

On the issue of “anti-science” – actually that isn’t so either. With regards to Trump’s comments on Global Warming (mankind’s CO2 — a trace gas — causing catastrophic warming), an unproven theory with no concrete ‘smoking gun’ on causality of CO2 and long-term climate temperature trajectories during this current 10,000 warming trend which has allowed humans to expand their populations to 7.7 Billion globally – Donald Trump’s position is one of skepticism, and the idea that 97% of climate scientists can deem the theory correct by consensus isn’t science anyway, nor is the IPCC a scientific organization – it is a political one.

With regards to Stem Cell research backtracking, these comments in Scientific American and other places are conjecture as to the Trump Administration’s policies. It seems the academics are oh so worried that their world view, careers and lives are about to be ruined by the new Trump Administration. It’s too bad that academia is peddling fear in order to ensure their pensions are fully funded, that tuition fees remain high, and that academic research funding continues to pour in. Personally, maybe ‘we the people’ need to rethink group-academic-think. Consider this.

How to Find Good Legal Services Abroad

Advancement in technology has made it quick and easy to set up businesses abroad. Whether the business functions out of a brick-and- mortar office or a virtual one, doing business on an international level has become the norm. Conducting business in a foreign country entails familiarity with the host country’s laws. The legal intricacies of international trading could be quite challenging, and without the right legal guidance, a business owner may well end up paying penalties and fines, and saddled with legal hitches. What does it take to find good legal services abroad?

Areas of Specialization

One of the travails of establishments operating in a foreign country is finding good legal services. Lawyers usually specialize in one particular type of law, or other related areas. A lawyer may generally work on immigration cases, while another one may be a tax specialist. Note that there are lawyers who only render advice to their clients, and not represent them to actual court litigation.

General areas of legal practice include: personal injury, criminal law, tax, employment and family law. It is best to choose a lawyer that specializes in one’s legal concern and one that has a firm foundation in the laws of the host country.

Different Types of Lawyer

Foreign Legal Consultants may be classified as lawyers working for international law firms based in foreign countries. These attorneys may advise clients regarding the requirements and conditions of the host country’s law, but they may or may not be licensed to practice law in the country where they are based. If court representation is needed, a licensed lawyer in the country where he works is required.

Solicitors and Barristers are specialized lawyers who may be practicing in foreign countries. Solicitors generally do not represent clients in court, but advise them, and may put together legal cases for barristers to take to court.

Notaries usually do the functions of attorneys, but depending on the country they practice, their job description may vary. Notaries may draft transfers of property titles and wills. In some countries, notaries are Ministry of Justice appointees and may act as administrators in estate settlements.

Where to Find a Lawyer

Searching for a lawyer in a foreign country is no longer too tasking. Overseas embassies and consulates of most countries have listings of local lawyers who have expressed their willingness to assist citizens of another country. For example, an American in Thailand may go to the U.S. embassy and he will be furnished with a copy of local lawyers willing to assist a U.S. citizen.

There are international bar associations with local chapters that could help foreigners with their legal problems. Most of these associations and similar organizations have standing agreements with accredited members in other countries.

Law firms maintain websites. This should make it doubly easy for anyone needing legal counsel to find a qualified lawyer through this mode.

Law schools have credible law professors who may be practicing or may know a practicing lawyer in his circle. If the legal advice and drafts are needed, senior law students could handle these requirements.

Surely local contacts could refer qualified lawyers to meet one’s legal requisites.

Considerations When Selecting a Lawyer

Before settling for an attorney, there are several points to consider.

First, it is to your benefit to ask the lawyer in consideration his qualifications and experience. You may ask the lawyer’s strategy and plan in representing you. It is not impolite to ask how much his retainer fees are.

Do not hesitate to ask questions regarding your case. As your lawyer, he is expected to explain every plan and activity in a manner that you can understand.

Be very careful when turning over documents and money. Make sure that your lawyer understands and can tackle your legal concerns in a manner that is satisfactory to you. See to it that the lawyer-client confidentiality clause in the foreign country meets your expectations.

These pointers should enable you to find a qualified foreign lawyer to handle your legal needs in a suitable and agreeable manner.

Female Prisoners Are Prone to Co-Existing Conditions

The female prison population in America has been at an all-time high owing to extensive law enforcement efforts and leading to more stringent drug sentencing laws. According to the 2015 report by “The Sentencing Project,” a research and advocacy center working for the effective U.S. criminal justice system, “between 1980 and 2014, the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 700 percent, rising from a total of 26,378 in 1980 to 215,332 in 2014.”

But when it comes to ethnicity, the Hispanic women are twice as likely to end up in prisons as compared to their white counterparts, whereas black women are four times more likely to be incarcerated than an average white woman. Such a phenomenal rise in the numbers of female inmates is probably linked to various drug-related offenses, escalating severity of offenses, and inadequate community sanctions and treatment for women who violate drug laws.

There is a high prevalence of mental health problems among jail inmates, and in case of female inmates, the rate of mental disorders can be higher than the general population. Further, women in prisons are three times more likely than the general population to report poor physical and mental health, which may also increase their vulnerability to substance abuse.

Is treatment more important than incarceration?

According to the 2014 report by the National Institute of Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank dedicated to reducing society’s dependence on imprisonment, “Two-thirds of drug offenders leaving state prison will be re-arrested within three years, and that nearly half of the released drug offenders will be returned to prison either through a technical violation of their sentence-such as failing a drug test-or on a new sentence.”

Studies have shown that most of the female prisoners suffer from chemical dependency and mental health problems stemming from interpersonal victimization. Unfortunately, at present, there is no significant treatment to address the co-existing conditions faced by such women.

The need of the hour is to provide facilities for an early diagnosis and treatment for those who are highly prone to criminal activities and the resulting dual diagnosis condition. The government should work on ensuring alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders battling with dual diagnosis. Moving them to alternative treatment options would ensure appropriate treatment in therapeutic settings, curb overcrowding in a correctional set up, as well as minimize relapse rates and incarceration costs.

Steps to treat dual diagnosis in a clinical setting

Nowadays, integrated intervention is the most widely accepted method to treat dual diagnosis because it focuses on both the mental illness and the substance abuse. The steps followed in a typical clinical setting are:

Detoxification: During the process, the patient is monitored 24/7 by a trained medical staff for up to seven days, wherein tapering amounts of the substance, or its medical substitute may be administered to ease the effects of withdrawal.

Inpatient rehabilitation: Patients suffering from serious mental health conditions and risky patterns of drug abuse are generally admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation center for a more comprehensive and closely monitored care aimed at eradicating the underlying causes.

Medications: Depending on the various mental illness symptoms a person is experiencing, specialist doctors prescribe different medications to facilitate a smooth recovery with minimal withdrawal effects.

Psychotherapy: It deals with making patients aware of their mental health conditions and how their beliefs and behaviors influence their thoughts.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT): It helps people with dual diagnosis learn new coping strategies to change ineffective patterns of thinking.

Self-help and support groups: It is a platform for like-minded people to share frustrations, successes and referrals for specialists in order to promote recovery.

Advantages Of Choosing A Good Personal Injury Attorney

Most of the times, people often wonder as to why they need a personal injury attorney to represent their case. The truth is that, when you have an expert at the helm of the affairs, you can be sure that your case would be taken forward nicely in the court and that you will receive due compensation for the injuries caused to you in the accident. It is a bigger pain not to get proper justice than to suffer the actual pain of the injuries; therefore, ensure that you immediately call an expert when you are involved in such a case so that you are not exploited by the court authorities or anybody else. Here are some of the top advantages you will get when you hire an expert who has ample experience dealing with cases like these.

1. Reimbursement amount

When you submit your claims to your insurance company for the damages suffered, the company agrees to a particular reimbursement amount based on its rules, and it credits the same into your account after a series of formalities and procedures. If you feel that the insurance company has agreed on every low settlement amount, you can immediately take the help of a legal expert who specialises in these wounds and accidents to discuss the same. After a thorough analysis of the extent of your wounds, he will give his report on what should be the actual reimbursement amount that you should be expecting. If the insurance company is paying less, you can agree to file a case against them and trust your expert to get you a bigger compensation.

2. Local laws

For the same type of mistake, laws are different in various parts of the world. Therefore, when you are involved in any accident like these, you need somebody who is well aware of these changing rules and one who follows the legal system carefully. When you choose to represent yourself, you may suddenly be caught unawares when the court takes your claim lightly and lets you go without paying any compensation. With a professional to take care of your case, you can rest assured knowing that he would take care of the updated rules and the loopholes in such a way so that you get maximum compensation/reimbursement.

3. Knowing the different strategies

Sometimes, you need just to discuss and settle the case with your opposition so that you get due compensation. At some other times, you need to fight it the hard way to get your dues. The key is to know the difference between these two instances. A true legal professional will advise you accordingly and stop you from wasting time and money from dragging too cases too long and fighting for your dues. Instead, he will suggest you settle it amicably with the other party, so that the case turns into a mutual win-win affair for both of you. The experience that these experts bring into your case is priceless, and you should make the most use of them to get maximum compensation.