To: Dr Lade Smith, CBE, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
14th October 2025
Dear Dr Lade Smith,
Thank you for taking the time to reply in response to my concerns. There must be so many demands on your time and energy, and your kindness makes a difference. I was reminded of a newspaper article which reported that the Children’s Word of the Year for 2024 was ‘kindness’ (even edging out ‘artificial intelligence’!)
I am aware that your period of office will end next year, and wish to thank you for all that you have done on behalf of the College. You will know that I have had a long-standing conversation with the College and a number of its previous office bearers about College values in relation to behaviour on social media by its members. Now that I am well into retirement from a profession that I was privileged to be part of, I am taking this opportunity to reflect on this conversation and to share my thoughts on future implications for the College.
Back on 30 August 2018, the CEO of the College stated: “one of the behaviours we expect from our members is ‘appropriate use of social media, as set out in the RCPsych’s Social Media Policy’.” 2018 also saw the adoption of a values-based approach within the College, and in 2019 the C-I-R-C-L-E framework was adopted. I was immediately concerned about ‘courage’, the first value in the framework: courage is recognised as a positive quality for psychiatrists, but the framework fails to make clear how this quality should be perceived in any others involved in mental health, particularly patients. The C-I-R-C-L-E framework remains in place, despite the subsequent publication of First Do No Harm (the Cumberlege review) in 2020 which repeatedly identified situations where patient experience was ignored or dismissed, thereby perpetuating harm and missing opportunities to prevent further harm. I am disappointed that, as far as I am aware, the College has not responded to this review.
In January 2024, the College updated its Social Media Policy. This specifically stated that the new policy applied only to those holding roles within the College: members were no longer subject to College expectations regarding ‘appropriate use of social media’. Social media behaviour is undoubtedly a difficult area for all society. However, the College must recognise that, in permitting members the status that goes along with the awarding of the post-nominal, it must also accept some responsibility for the behaviour of those so awarded. The College also holds a special status in the statutory powers of psychiatrists to detain and treat without consent, and as such must be seen to be promoting the highest standards of professionalism. There have been recent media reports where the police, another profession with statutory powers to detain, has faced intense scrutiny because of the online behaviour, both past and present, of its officers.
Since the advent of the era of social media, professional organisations have struggled with how to best ensure professional values are maintained in this new arena. Many people have found that no organisation feels able to take responsibility for setting and maintaining standards of appropriate online behaviour. Regulators, limited by statute and resource, take an all-or-nothing approach and professional organisations seem not to recognise this area as part of the professionalism they are seeking to maintain. Those experiencing harm as a result of unprofessional online behaviour of College members face a circular pathway of repeated rebuffal, which in itself causes further harm.
What really needs to happen is for acknowledgement to be made that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and for the responsibilities of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, employers and the GMC to be coordinated and made as clear to the public as possible. It is for this reason that I have also copied this letter to the organisations above.
Thank you again for your time in reading this. I would like to wish you all the very best for the future.
Yours sincerely
Peter Scott-Gordon
Dear Lade Smith,
I really hope you read these comments. As a previous Psych patient (NHS). Peter is correct. The behaviour of social media from a group of professionals is abhorrent, school children would be reprimanded for similar behaviour.
After witnessing the bullying by these ‘professionals’, at a vulnerable time in my life, I came off social media, very affected.
I needed help from a Psychiatrist after this, but after witnessing the behaviour of this group, there’s no way I could trust a RCP Psychiatrist, especially as the behaviour is condoned by the Royal College, inadvertently, by not challenging it.
Something is wrong with your judgement.
I wrote to complain about this group, one who had been aggressive towards a patient on social media, a week later the same patient disclosed he had to be re admitted to hospital. This was mentioned in the complaint and never addressed.
The lines are blurred.
It’s embarrassing to witness anyone behave in such a ‘herd mentality’ way, but these are registered doctors who are crossing lines.
From: Dr Lade Smith CBE
17 October 2025
Dear Peter,
Thank you. Please be aware that the College provides guidance to members about social media usage and conduct. There are clear rules for those who hold official office. As stated before, we are not a regulatory authority, we are a membership organisation. If you have concerns about the conduct of a doctor, the GMC is the regulatory authority that is set up to deal with this.
With best wishes,
Lade
From: Peter Scott-Gordon
17 October 2025
Dear Dr Smith,
Thank you for your reply. I wrote to you again because I received a comment from somebody who wished you, as President of the College, to read of her experience. I feel that she expressed very well the effects of unprofessional social media behaviour by College members on patients and the consequent erosion of trust.
I understand that the College is not a regulatory body. However I remain concerned that the College is not taking enough action to address the online behaviour of its members and I fear that this could have future implications for patient safety and for the reputation of the College.
Given that you have again made the College’s position clear I will not forward any further correspondence to you.
With kind wishes,
Peter