All they want is to have me apologise to Margaret Coats for all the things I have said about her

September 13, 2007
By

This is my second letter of apology to Margaret Coats after she hijacked the September council meeting because she was not satisfied with me simply taking down postings which criticised her which is what the council agreed that I should do. The council was terrified Coats would sue for constructive dissmisal, I said I would not apologise to her and  I offered to resign. Dixon and other council members pleaded with  me not to resign and apologise to the odius woman. Linda Stone said if you want to change the GCC you need to be on the inside, I heard a big sigh from Coats when she said that and agreed to sign an apology which was written by Stephen Williams and Alan Breene. Dixon came over and thanked me and I told him this was the end and I would not give one more inch, 24 hours later Dixon was looking for more.

Below is the letter I put on the chiropractic-uk forums.

Over the last seven years I have probably been the GCC’s harshest critic and have used these forums to air my views. I was elected onto the GCC in June and accept the principle of collective responsibility for decisions of council, if I am to have the right to argue for a regulatory process that balances the interests of the profession with the interests of members of the public. This means I cannot publicise my views every time I disagree with a council decision. Despite my past criticisms, I have been treated with respect by other members of council and after the first meeting I do believe there is a desire for council to take on board many of the concerns the profession has. Particularly in relation to regulatory matters.

I had always assumed that it was belligerence by the GCC, rather than the fact that The Chiropractic Act allows least flexibility of any of the regulatory bodies with regard to weeding out vexatious complaints. If there is a case to answer it must proceed to PCC regardless as to whether the allegations would even amount to unprofessional conduct. Most of us assumed that if a complaint went to PCC, it was because it was a serious offence and personal views and agendas were influencing the decisions of the investigating committee. The investigating committee is not allowed to assess the merits of a complaint only to decide whether there is a case to answer under the code of practice. Yes or No. I think it is important for me to clarify this now and correct the impression I have given in many of my postings.

After the election I was asked as an employer of GCC staff if I would consider removing some of my postings. I could see that having my criticism of council employees on the internet was not congruent with my responsibilities as a good employer. I decided to wait until after the first council meeting to decide what I would do. I now believe that my purpose is best served by remaining on council and removing my derogatory criticisms of Mrs Coats. This is my decision, no one has put pressure on me to do this, I am certain it is in everybody’s best interest and I hope it does not spawn an avalanche of conspiracy theories.

I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my statements regarding Mrs Coats and withdraw all such statements and hope we can work harmoniously together in the future.

Share Button

Related posts:

  1. Margaret Coats could care less about the chiropractic profession
  2. Margaret Coats reputation! What reputation?
  3. The only way to get information out is to breach confidentiality
  4. Chiropractic Patients Association have no confidence in the GCC
  5. Investigating complaints
  6. The GCC no lovers of free speech spent almost £100,000 trying to censor this site
  7. Peter Dixon tries to cover the mess
  8. Peter Dixons election manifesto

Tags: , ,

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: