Royal College of Psychiatrists: “Necessary redactions have been made”

A month before I resigned from the Royal College of Psychiatrists I made a Subject Access Request asking for College communications that involved me to be released. At the beginning of this month I recieved a large bundle of printed material from the College that exceeded 300 sides of A4.

Of this material supplied by the College 93 A4 sides had been COMPLETELY redacted and another 94 sides had everything redacted other than a subject heading, date, and/or partial address list [in other words NO content was provided].

Of the remaining material 32 A4 sides were full copies of my communications over the years with the College in relation to ethics, transparency of competing interests, and realistic medicine.

This is an example of one of the pages that was not fully redacted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists:

There was not a single page where material had not been redacted, and this from 2015, is an example demonstrating communications about me by the most senior Fellows of the College [Professor Sir Simon Wessely was then President. Professor Wendy Burn has since succeeded him]:

There were only a very few examples of where some content had been left, as in this one:

And here, an example of much more recent communication about me from RCPsych Scotland:

And this one on the following day:

It is now clear that the Royal College of Psychiatrists adopted an official strategy to my inquiries about ethics, transparency of competing issues, and realistic medicine:

And finally, a partially redacted response shared with the President and CEO, that would seem to indicate a tone of disdain for those who may write to the Royal College of Psychiatrists with concerns about patient wellbeing and safety:

I have shared the Subject Access response on my blog as it gives a glimpse [through a deep dark sea of redactions] of approaches taken by organisations, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to vital matters such as ethics, philosophy, transparency and candour. In general terms, inquiry after inquiry have concluded that without openness to consider such matters, learning will be hampered and unnecessary iatrogenic patient harm will continue.