This is the stage at which we now find ourselves. There seems to be a choice of approach: comply with the demand of the organisation which has up to now refused to allow us to participate, and produce the usual rational and well-though-out intellectual arguments as to why this should not be imposed on those segments of the profession who do not recognise their ethics or way of working in this NOS document; or: refuse at this point to participate as we have been offered no part in producing the NOS and will therefore be unlikely to be listened to at this point.

It seems clear that the objectives of this political process were clearly set at the beginning of the project ñ of course, this is how political process usually works ñ and clearer still that objections will not be listened to.

So, what can we do if we donít recognise our practice in the NOS as being circulated

currently for comment?

Argue the points in detail and keep trying to assert some influence on the process;

Make further representations to Skills for Health that we want to be part of the process;

Try to form horizontal alliances with other practitioner groups who find the likely outcome of the NOS and Skills for Health process unacceptable (it was said early on that there had to be agreement to regulation by a substantial proportion of psychotherapists);

Make some sort of public statement criticising the abuse of power apparent in this bias process carried out by a Public Authority;

Continue our efforts thus far unsuccessful to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act as to how the groups with ultimate power within the Skills for Health process

were selected (they all track back to the same source of influence);

Change our name to Neuroarchaeologists?!