by Derek Draper
I have been astonished this morning by a brazen attempt to smear me by Guido Fawkes and David Hencke of the Guardian. What makes this so reprehensible is that it is not about my work here at LabourList or as an ex-Labour spindoctor. I expect to be in the firing line for those activities.
But this is different. This is about my work as a psychotherapist. Every week I see vulnerable people, some with life threatening mental illnesses and it is a disgrace to call into question my professional qualifications on the most concocted and inaccurate of grounds.
I have never claimed to have attended U. C. (University of California) Berkeley. I have always said that I gained an M.A. in Clinical Psychology from a school in Berkeley. What is being alleged is akin to suggesting that if someone says they "studied economics in London" they are claiming to have studied at the LSE. U.C. Berkeley is a college. Berkeley is a town.
The Wright Institute, where I studied is a highly respected college. It is tightly regulated by the American Psychological Association. It happens to be next to the U. C. Berkeley campus, and we could use the U.C. library and gym. but the school is wholly independent.
Furthermore I did not attend the course described by Hencke. Indeed it did even not exist when I went to the college. My course was an M.A. and involved full time study. It also involved training placements involving thousands of hours of supervised clinical work. It is probably one of the most thorough and intense psychotherapy trainings in the world.
Both Hencke and Guido point to an error the Guardian made in a "details box" when they profiled me last summer. But that information never came from me. I didn't even see it at the time. After all, I am not a fact checker for the Guardian. In fact it was probably Hencke's mistake.
Several people have told me that Hencke colluded with Guido on this, an attempt to undermine me on the day of LabourList's launch.
This behaviour is unprofessional and, as I said earlier, reprehensible. That is why I have instructed my lawyers to consider what legal action I should take and to prepare a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.
In a sense all this does is show how worried the right and their gullible partners in the mainstream media are about LabourList. But while they can attack my political activities as much as they like, they should leave my work as a therapist out of it.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Wise words indeed but I thought you were a psychotherapist?
If it doesn't follow party lines then delete it. What a great way to run a democracy. Can't wait to see your comments once anybody apart from Labour get in at the next election.
Fat chance of that though!
I joined this list to try and find out more about what Labour are up to but mostly it seems to be bleating on about the Tories and avoiding answering difficult questions.
Please stick with your line of "it's all down to the media" as you won't see the kicking you are going to get come the election.
The shame is there are a few decent Labour MP's out there who will possibly lose their seats because of the mess of others.
my colleague alex is a bit in love with you and he's straight!
I thought you'd "retired from online comment". If you've reconsidered, please re-reconsider.
You often do. Don't worry though, nobody ever takes it seriously.
Similarly many people say they went to Oxford (Jeffrey Archer?) or Cambridge for their education but omit to mention that it wasn't the real university.
It seems you have been equally vague (until now) on your CV details, so you can hardly complain if someone picks you up on it.
"Guido has more bad news for Derek - Guido has more evidence coming that Draper has misled people as to the source of his qualifications. Come on Derek, serve that writ or "you can just f**k off."
*mustn't question what we've been told*
*Derek Draper's above scrutiny*
I'm not - can't have the people detracting from 'the message', can we? Who cares what they have to say...
It’s an effective strategy for forming and bolstering public opinion: opinion poles are skewed leading policy makers to bend to a nonexistent wind; media outlets run with stories that gain “fast board reaction” and editorialise in favour of the “reaction”; the public react to the proscribed media line.
As I said it is an effective strategy for opinion forming, but as the consultants who sold this idea to Dave+1 already know, it doesn’t translate into electoral gains.
I remember "Guido" on Newsnight a while back. What an absolute embarassment - a cheap, rightwing lunatic with delusions of mediocrity.
I'm not a big fan of Draper, but I'd love to see him take Guido down a peg or two.
I've also been reading the archive of the Wright Institute's website. Perhaps I'm missing something but, from what I've seen, until 2006 they only offered Psy.D. courses[3]. In 2004 their FAQ [4] said, "We have chosen to concentrate all our energy and resources on a single program" and "A few students finish in four years, however, the average number of years it takes to complete the degree is between five and six."
Given the previous confusion in the media over which college in Berkeley, California you attended, I think it's legitimate to ask you, Derek, precisely what courses you completed in Berkeley, California (or anywhere else)?
References:
1. http://www.derekdraper.net/about3.htm
2. http://web.archive.org/web/20040608070309/http://derekdraper.net/
3. http://web.archive.org/web/20040402012253/http://wrightinst.edu/pd/index.html#curriculum
4. http://web.archive.org/web/20040404065520/wrightinst.edu/ad/ad_faq.html
I'm generally pleased that Labour's policies have taken a few steps closer to my own position but it's taking a while for Labour's people to get behind that. If you focus on improving yourself that's a better investment, and changes the cause and effect equation. This leaves Hencke and Stains powerless and looking a little sad.
I could write pages of crap and recommend some books but, I'm sure, you've pretty much got the point by now. You have to polish the brand and whatever anyone else says you have to *delete* the troll and flamebait comments. The games industry was dealing with this for years before politicians ever hit the internet. You're late to the party. Learn from people who've been there before and made all the mistakes you're making now and *don't* repeat them.
Anyway, whatever anyone says you've hauled ass. This place isn't perfect but there's nothing about it that can't be fixed and it's early days. Some people may complain but that's only because they're interested and want to share in a success.
Honestly, what Control Planet are you on? Mr Mandelson said on this site that this kinda behaviour was well passed its sell-by date. Deleting views doesn't make them go away - they just pop up somewhere else.
Is this Derek's List or Labour's?
I would especially caution against flashing legal threats around when it is you that has been caught with your pants down. Those threats will turn out to be empty and ill-judged. What do you think Hencke and Guido will do when your lawyers point out you have no case whatsoever?
Just in case you don't understand the difference: truthfulness is not saying only what can be pedantically shown to be correct in a linguistic analysis, it means that the most natural interpretation of what you say has to reflect reality as closely as possible. The former is spin, the latter is honesty.
And finally, stop contaminating this site with your tedious personal obsessions... it would be a shame if any growth in hits on LabourList could be attributed to the voyeuristic pleasure of watching your public decline and humiliation.
Now grow up and do some serious work - or move on.
MD
I very much enjoy the many thought provoking and interesting subjects, but please keep these sort of things to a personal blog as it simply does not belong here. Its very 'unprofessional'.
Or to discuss the vagaries of Derek Draper's educational status.
Not the point of the website I am guessing. Or would the Ministers who have previously contributed to this website disagree? Assuming of course the contributions actually were authored by the named individuals.
http://blog.matthewcain.co.uk/the-press-complaints-commission-must-be-reformed/
SAID you went to Berkeley, you did give that impression in the use
of wording. Deliberately, if we're honest, right?
This isn't a hanging offense. You were caught out in a spin.
By getting "high and mighty" about it and threatening legal action
you risk derailing yourself. If I were you I'd throw my hands
up, grin foolishly, and say the spinnable equivalent of "fair cop".
It'll blow over quickly and you'll garner some respect in some
quarters. Your present course of action will lose you respect
in all quarters.
Threats of legal action are just bluster, and a self-indulgent distraction from what this site should be focusing on.
The other day it was Peter Mandelson, now you, having a laugh.
...after all, I'm not a fact checker for the Guardian....
A question Derek; if the Guardian had printed something in the details box which a sensible and competent person considered to be demeaning to them would you not expect them to get on the 'phone PDQ and had it rectified? Silence signifies consent; or are you claiming that you were unaware of what the Guardian had written. If so it says little for your diligence and competence as a person of political office not to check an article written about you in a major national newspaper.
..I have instructed my lawyer...
A fool and his money are soon parted comes to mind.
Grow up. You have been caught out allowing the impression to spread that you attended a particular prestigious institution when you did not.
I'm off to get some popcorn.
Your right they should check their facts; I hear Wikipedia’s good for that.
"Draper gave an interview to Matt Keating at the Guardian in September 2005 where he didn't bother to correct the impression that he was at - not 'in' UCal Berkeley.
"Draper decided to train abroad. He moved to San Francisco, a "fantastic place for psychotherapists", and enrolled in a full-time MA in clinical
psychology at UC Berkeley, California. The course offered "very hands-on training", with students embarking on supervised consultations within the first month. By graduation, he had completed 1,500 supervised hours.
An average working week consists of three days seeing patients and one day of study, including a doctorate in psychoanalytical studies at Essex University and research on individual case problems."
Has Essex University ever heard of him either? They ought to be holding his doctoral thesis if he ever completed one. Or maybe he meant some other Essex University, not the one at Essex UK."
This appears to be a personal problem between you and Hencke/Guido.
Can't you do this whining on your personal blog?
I do find your attitude slightly odd especially as a pschotherapist.
Surely you should remain calm and reasoned but in most of your dealings with the like of Iain Dale and the Taxpayers alliance you seem to get very het up.
With regards to this incident perhaps you will be a bit more careful now before you start throwing dirt around on people in the Blogosphere.
Guido normally doesnt put stuff up unless there is a majority of truth in the article.
People in glass houses and all that....
Very funny.
The Guardian seems to have slipped into world-weary nihilism; the state of choice during Labour administrations for many allegedly left-leaning theorists who can't face the realities of power or acknowledge the difficulties of actually getting progressive things done in this most conservative of countries. Its continuing to employ a self-confessed cynical old git such as George Monbiot, who seems to be too lazy or too precious to get involved in real politics other than at the sniping level, illustrates the point...
I interview people as part of my job and CV's carrying this kind of semantic implication is common.
Once questioned, they invariably end up in the bin.
When you studied for an M.A. you list the college it was obtained from, anyone who has compiled their CV knows this.
If not, isn't there something in the point that "in Berkeley" suggests "at Berkeley"?