Jonathan Coe’s argument for regulation under the HPC seems, on the face of it, so unassailable, so cogent, and so obvious. I am certain also that he really believes in it. Why then do I find myself questioning every word? Periodically newspapers run stories about how only ‘x’ per cent of rapists are being successfully convicted. I find these figures puzzling. How can anyone know? There are, after all, two possibilities: the criminal justice system is inept, and biased against the victim; alternatively most of those accused of rape are not guilty. It does somewhat depend on what I assume to be the ‘truth’.

There is, of course, a degree of reality to the first argument, since courts do, we hope, assume innocence until guilt is proven, and it is up to the accuser to prove their case. As to the second argument – that most of those accused are not guilty: results from the courts support the view; anecdotal evidence says otherwise. The problem is that, whichever side of the fence we sit, the argument always ‘stands to reason, doughnut!’

There are no concrete figures on counsellor abuse of clients. However much Coe quotes statistics and percentages, these are still assumptions based largely on anecdotal accounts. Please understand: I do not say that they are not true; only that we cannot know them to be true. Now, I have no doubt that there are rogue counsellors. I trained with individuals who terrified me – doubly so since their particular talent, as I saw it, was knowing how to play the system to their own advantage. 

This brings me to Karen Blakey’s story which is presented by Coe as incontrovertible evidence, proof even of the dangers posed by irresponsible counsellors. What I find difficult to swallow is the idea that I must accept the story without question. I don’t say that I don’t believe the story; only that I cannot actually know that it’s true – still less in every detail. I do note that the counsellor apparently got sacked twice on the uncorroborated say so of a single individual. At least under HPC regulation he would have had the right to a hearing.

So let’s haul supposed perpetrator and victim in front of a court. (Immediately there can only be villain and victim; the story will not allow for any other interpretation.) We now have, in effect, a rape trial. The irony is that, if the counsellor is indeed the monster he has been portrayed to be, then he will ‘rape’ the client again, in public. He will not merely humiliate her; with smiling gentleness he will annihilate her. Expert witnesses will be brought in to ‘gang rape’ her. They will objectify her; the words ‘projection’ and ‘transference’ will be used to convert her from victim into a sad bundle of delusions. Is subjecting complainants to public cross-examination really a way to protect them?

Of course, counsellors with integrity will refuse to subject their clients to an ordeal of this sort. Ethically they cannot defend themselves. The unethical will do so without hesitation. There is something of the judgment of Solomon involved here, but I for one do not trust the wisdom of HPC.

There is an alternative to the rape trial: to step outside the system of accusation, guilt and punishment, and to establish a system of mediation and accountability. What I suspect most victims of crime or injustice really want is acknowledgement from the other party that what they did was wrong. An adversarial system renders that more or less impossible. Individuals cannot afford to own their wrongdoing. They cannot even afford to own honest mistakes. There is only guilt or innocence.

The concepts of blame and punishment are so ingrained in our society that the idea that a wrong doer might not get punished could seem absurd and unjust. To argue further that such an alternative would be to the benefit of both counsellor and complainant takes a leap of imagination which many people are just not willing to attempt. It might, however, be time to step outside the box of received wisdom, and to start looking for real accountability, real justice, and real protection.