My story about the CIPD member named as a BNP activist on a leaked membership list, which featured on the front page of Personnel Today this week, has got the forums and message boards buzzing.
The debate over whether the CIPD took the right stance towards this individual has been raging on Personnel Today's community forum HR Space, as well as the institute's own online forums.
It does raise the important issue of self regulation and what role a professional body should play. Professional regulation is seemingly low on the CIPD's agenda - there is not even a mention of it in its annual report.
The institute also refuses to disclose the number of disciplinary panels it has held in the past three years and the outcome of those. Back in 2005, my colleague Mark Crail, writing for IRS, came up against the same brick wall when posing a similar question.
Just why is the CIPD being so cagey when it comes to professional regulation? Why won't it publicise how many complaints it receives under its code of conduct, and whether it has expelled any members?
As one leading HR commentator told me earlier this week: "It is precisely when law and practice are contradictory and hypocritical (eg. members of the legal BNP are restricted) that the CIPD has to show clear leadership to its members through a reasoned and coherent approach.
"Its reputation for shirking such responsibilities and failing to practise what it preaches, at what could have been a defining moment, leaves its members weak and professionally rudderless."
