ForumGarden

I think five years with two and a half served is too little. These people will never see their money again. The alcoholic woman was taken advantage of in an especially crappy fashion. No, I'd say more like twenty years would be a starter and no time off for good behavior and I wouldn't deduct that 213 days of jailtime sevred from her sentence either.

helefra wrote: Good answer there RG. How about removing her right to counsel anyone else, like a doctor can lose his/her licence to treat any patient.


Can't be done. You can say that you are a counsellor, psychotherapist, analyst

or whatever, set up premises, and start seeing people. There are no controls

AFAIK.

RedGlitter wrote: I think five years with two and a half served is too little. These people will never see their money again. The alcoholic woman was taken advantage of in an especially crappy fashion. No, I'd say more like twenty years would be a starter and no time off for good behavior and I wouldn't deduct that 213 days of jailtime sevred from her sentence either. mad:


Mary McCullagh has "previous", too. What about 10 years?

Its funny that way life, people gain a position of trust and power and then proceed to sc*** you to high heaven no matter what the cost..

personally these people make me sick for this kind of behaviour.

helefra wrote: I do know that you can't stop someone from counselling, but if stricter laws came into being where people were given a licence to counsel, maybe, just maybe, these situations may not occur.


Perhaps - but are there not situations (currently) where a "counsellor", however

unlicenced, has been helpful? Would having a licence stop (hopefully) the few

incidents such as this one involving Mary McCullagh? They might lose their

licence, but the damage would still be done! I think that the law is OK on this

sort of thing - she was dealt with - however, I do not think that the penalties

for mant transgressions are harsh enough. This, IMO, is the problem.