u/FickleText4141

I don’t why I haven’t seen more posts specifically talking about this, but before any of these allegations came out I’ve been seething to see Nathan back as bosun. Personality aside, he’s not very good at his job. The last season he was bosun on deck so many things went wrong, I was shocked to see him back this season and within the first charter the boat crashed. Captain Sandy has a real soft spot for him and she treats him with kids gloves every time he messes up.

And then on his personality. He can’t emotionally regulate himself, he’s gets angry at his crew for smiling. He has no concept of leading group morale by having a positive attitude instead he openly swears and shouts at the people below him. Then he threatens to physically harm Joe on a night out for saying Gaels name. No person in a position of leadership should ever be able to get away with behaviour like that. If anyone else on the boat behaved like that they’d likely be seriously reprimanded or fired. But instead it’s not even a conversation. He keeps telling us what a good guy he is but I don’t see it anywhere.

I think the message he sent to Max in the final scene of the most recent episode is very revealing. His priority in the boat isn’t to just do the best job he can and let his work speak for itself, instead it’s to extinguish any possible threat to his ego. Is Joe a back stabbing guy? Yes he is, but it would be short sighted to expect that the person right under you didn’t have some ambition to be in your role. The answer to that competition for him is to triangulate things and he does this whilst being off the boat away with his girlfriend and baby. It gives you some insight into his priorities and state of mind.

So far I don’t think I’ve seen a bosun who has lasted this far considering how many times he’s messed up. But then to be asked back again? Am I crazy? IMO Nathan should still be a deckhand and he should undergo some leadership training alongside some therapy before he’s even considered for the position.

Hi everyone I am in the UK So can only speak to what is currently happening in the UK therapy landscape.

On one hand, Clinical and counselling psychologist are protected titles in the UK and must complete a PHD to get this title. The courses are selective and require years of experience including a degree and masters in psychology to get into and complete.

On the other hand, there are alternate routes which offer diplomas and people at any stage can use the title psychologist, psychotherapist, counsellor, therapist (these titles are unprotected meaning anyone can use them at any point). These diplomas are effectively just paid for certifications no selection process is required to get into and complete them. There are confusing terms such as BACP registration (150 hours) and accreditation(450) that may make the person look very legit, but just mean that certain hours on an approved course were completed and that the person pledges to adhere to the ethical framework. Accreditation is the more qualifying of the two.

What people don’t know is that a level four diploma is equivalent to 1st year degree in psychology with some clinical hours, this is not even 1/10 of what it takes to finish a doctorate to become a clinical or counselling psychologist. I’ve posted about this elsewhere and had huge pushback of people saying that the counselling profession should not only be open to people who can afford to go so far in their studies.

I agree with this take and I believe that there is a place for people who take alternate routes to become a Therapist. However, a quick look on psychology today finds people completing levels of diploma and calling themselves a psychotherapist or psychologist and charging upwards from £70 for sessions. This includes also listing the clinical presentations that they’re able to work with as OCD and complex trauma as well as children and adults, and modalities that they are able to work from such a psychodynamic and CBT. This is way beyond the scope of what the diplomas are able to teach.

A counsellor at this level can confidently work within a humanistic modality, perhaps somewhat drawing integratively and at the very most charging £35 for sessions. That is the most ethical use of the experience that also makes therapy accessible at a certain level for a wider population.

Worst of all is that the average person is not aware of these differences. Surveys in the UK have shown that a huge percentage of the population do not understand the differences between terms. I see multiple posts on here with people who describe shocking indiscretions from their Therapist and I wonder if they are based in the UK and often want to ask how far they have gone into understanding their Therapist qualifications.

I am most frustrated at the people who complete these diplomas and think it is ethical to advertise themselves in this way and take advantage of people who don’t know better but also inflate their clinical competence way beyond what it is. A therapist with a diploma is not necessarily a bad therapist but if they cannot be upfront about what they are able to do and charge accordingly this is already a huge ethical red flag.

What can we do? When you come across a counsellor find their education listed and paste it into ai and ask Ai If it they are charging at a level that is within their clinical competence. I believed someone accredited can charge 60 pounds and anything less must be below that. Someone with diplomas at registration level or less who is charging above 40 pounds is absolutely swindling you and should be barred from the profession.