Hell hath no fury than when a wife and mistress get together with Margaret Coats at the General Chiropractic Council

September 10, 2010
By
 

image About fifteen years ago a women took erotic pictures of herself in GCC chairman Peter Dixon’s chiropractic clinic and sold her story to the Daily Star. Peter Dixon told me it was a horrendous experience because her story about Peter  was untrue. I would like  Peter to know how bad the experience would have been if the woman had gone to Margaret Coats instead of the Daily Star with her story.

The people in the GCCs office have a way of writing up allegation with sexual content as if they were writing for the Sun or News of the World. They did it to the late Graham Heale neglecting to mention that a chaperone had been present during the physical examination. They did it to Bill Worsley, Michael Hutchinson, not to forget the chiropractor who took his numerous girlfriends to Seattle, two of them found out and took their complaint to Margaret Coats who decided they were  patients because thechiropractor adjusted their cervical spines after sex. As far as Coats is concerned as soon as you adjust someone they become a patient, so if you are on the register and you adjust a girlfriend or wife you run a great risk if the relationship turns sour that they could go to the GCC for pay back.

Take the case of   Stuart Lawrence  whose case has just been posted on the GCC website. In October last year Stuart Lawrence was suspended by the GCC with immediate effect because of very serious allegations made by a former  employee.

According to the GCC statement the allegations involved “very serious matters including sexually motivated internal examinations in the guise of chiropractic treatment, inappropriate physical contact and inappropriate comments”.

“The allegations extended over a period of time and appeared to be increasing in seriousness, culminating in an allegation of sexual assault”.

The GCC further submitted that the complainant (mistress/employee) had given statements to the GCC and to the police. Stewart Lawrence told the GCC that he “totally refutes the allegations”  but admitted  that “sexual activity took place between him and his employee the complainant”. (Notice the GCCs use of the doctor title without making it clear Dr Lawrence is a chiropractor in the statement)

Of greatest concern to the Professional Conduct Committee was “that some of the particulars of the allegations against Dr Lawrence involve the use of chiropractic treatment for possible sexual gratification. The Committee considered that this conduct, if proved would pose a serious risk to the public”. The committee also noted that the mistress/complaint made an “allegation of over familiarity with other members of staff”.

I am not suggesting for a moment the allegations were not serious but this is a matter for the police “innocent until proved guilty”  the complainant was an employee rather than a patient and there must have been some doubt about the credibility of the witness and her relationship with the chiropractor

Perhaps Stuart Lawrence  was just unlucky that Mike Kondraki was not on the professional Conduct Committee on that particular day. Mike has crossed professional boundaries for sexual gratification with his students many times.

Anyway the police investigated the allegations and cleared Stuart in February not that made any difference to the GCC and Stuart remains suspended and unable to work. Below is what appeared in the local newspaper.

Chiropractor cleared of sexual misconduct

7:50am Thursday 25th February 2010

A CHIROPRACTOR who was arrested after an allegation of sexual misconduct has been cleared by police.

image Stuart Lawrence, 33, who owns Body Active Chiropractic Clinic, was investigated by Essex Police and the General Chiropractic Council following the allegations made in September.

Dr Lawrence owns the company which has clinics in Main Road, Hockley, and Rushbottom Lane, Thundersley. The General Chiropractic Council, the regulatory body for chiropractors, imposed an interim suspension on October 21 for two months for the protection of the public.

It was renewed in December while its own investigations took place. A date has yet to be set for a hearing and Dr Lawrence remains unable to treat patients. Roger Grimwade, spokesman for Essex Police, said, following an investigation, Dr Lawrence had been “released without charge”.

Dr Lawrence, who has always strenuously denied the allegations, welcomed the end of the police investigation and called on the chiropractic council to lift the ban. He said: “The police have investigated everything and are taking no further action. “The General Chiropractic Council has to make its mind up and I assume their findings will be exactly the same as the police findings.

“I have people working for me in the clinic while I take care of the business side of things. “It took six years to train to become a chiropractor so it has been very hard, but everyone has stood by me.

“If I had done anything wrong, I would have been found guilty. The police have cleared me and if the law says I am not guilty, then I would hope to be cleared.”

A report issued by the General Chiropractic Council in December said it recognised the suspension order would have “a very serious impact on Dr Lawrence”. However, it concluded the suspension was “necessary for the protection of the public”. Lawyer, Alex Tribick, of WH Mathews, who has been acting for Dr Lawrence, said: “The police have made the sensible decision not to pursue the matter, but the damage to his reputation is a major concern.

“The General Chiropractic Council have imposed an interim suspension which is still being litigated on. “It is understandable from their prospective to protect members of the public but, clearly, as Essex Police have said, there is no case to answer.

 

I am now going to take the GCC allegations and change the order they are presented. I am having to speculate and guess which part is said by the wife, who I believe is divorcing Stuart Lawrence and which part is alleged by the mistress. I would assume the information from this first part comes from the wife because the Mistress had not started working for him at this point.

In around February 2007, you advertised yourself on:

(a) the website illicitencounters.com, on which you identified yourself as:

(i) “docstu29”;

(ii) having a “healthcare & medical occupation”;

(iii) seeking a female partner between the ages of 18 and 35 for “no

strings/casual sex”;

(b) the website theadulthub.com, on which you identified yourself as:

(i) “docstu29” and “stuart”;

(ii) seeking “discreet fun with very openminded woman or couple”;

(iii) being “into S & M”;

(iv) seeking to “meet people willing to make a website with. With various

fetishes.”;

(c) the website alt.com, on which you:

(i) identified yourself as “docstu29”;

(ii) stated that you were a doctor by occupation;

(iii) published a photograph of yourself wearing a surgeon’s mask, in which

your eyes were visible;

(iv) stated that you were looking for “women or couples (2 women) for erotic

email exchange, phone fantasies, performing only (little/no contact),

watching only (little/no contact) or active participation”.

7. Your conduct as referred to at 6 above was:

(a) sexually motivated;

(b) liable to undermine confidence in the chiropractic profession and bring the

profession into disrepute;

(c) misleading in that you used the title doctor and/or doc without making clear that you

are not a registered medical practitioner.

8. From around 2001 to around 2003 or 2004 you accessed images of a pornographic

nature on computers at the Hockley Clinic.

9. Your conduct as referred to at 8 above was:

(a) sexually motivated;

(b) liable to undermine confidence in the chiropractic profession and bring the profession into disrepute.

 

Why the GCC is interested in this is beyond me unless Margaret Coats has plans to restrict all chiropractors sexual activity to the missionary position and ban sex outside marriage. If this kind of private activity brings the profession into disrepute it is only because the GCC brings it to public attention the way the News of the World would.

So we have a guy “seeking a female partner between the ages of 18 and 35 for “no strings/casual sex” in February and along comes the complaint the young Ms A, who by the following summer  is travelling with him. No doubt the police had problems with the fact that Ms A claimed that Stuart Lawerence had started making sexually motivated comments in the summer of 2007 yet she was  traveling with him, sharing  a sauna and was still around in September 2009 pressumably unable to get anyone to corroborate the story except Mrs Lawrence.

This is how the GCC puts it. 

2. During the Summer of 2007, while Ms A was undertaking a work placement at the

Hockley Clinic, you made inappropriate comments to her:

(a) about your sex life;

(b) about Ms A, using words similar to “nice bum”.

3. Your conduct at 2 above was sexually motivated.

4. On or around 19 July 2007, after carrying out an assessment of Ms A, you failed to

provide any or any adequate explanation of your proposed treatment and/or treatment

plan before carrying out treatment.

5. You sent inappropriate emails to Ms A via Facebook:

(a) at around 17.24 on 4 March 2008, stating “you look more attractive by the day!”;

(b) at around 19.03 on 18 March 2008, stating “hows [sic] life in the relationship

world”;

(c) at around 20.12 on 18 March 2008, stating “as to the interview everyone is

naked” with reference to Ms A’s job interview with you;

(d) at around 21.07 on 18 March 2008, stating “definitely naked.. unorthodox but

fun” with reference to Ms A’s job interview with you;

(e) at around 14.27 on 17 July 2008, stating “well done [Ms A]! A big X and a big

Hug as well!”;

(f) at around 13.16 on 21 July 2008, stating “skiing….. u need to find something to

ski down….. I wonder what mouns [sic] I could ski down… good between a

crevice as well”.

6. Your conduct at 5 above was sexually motivated.

7. In July 2008, while driving Ms A to a veteran athletics competition in Birmingham,

you made inappropriate comments to her in that you:

(a) asked Ms A about her sex life;

(b) said to Ms A words to the effect of “have you done it up the bum, you should try

it, it’s really good”.

8. Your conduct at 7 above was sexually motivated.

9. At around 7.00 on a date in July 2008, while with Ms A in a steam room at a hotel in

Birmingham, you:

(a) made an inappropriate comment to Ms A in that you said to her words to the

effect of “have you always been this hot and steamy?”;

(b) having offered to help with the cramp in Ms A’s right calf, inappropriately placed

your hand on her right thigh when pushing back her right foot;

(c) inappropriately stroked Ms A’s right thigh when lowering her right leg.

10. Your conduct at 9 above was sexually motivated.

11. On a Sunday in July 2008, when driving Ms A home from Birmingham, you

inappropriately touched her:

(a) on her knee, over her clothing;

(b) on her thigh, over her clothing;

(c) in the region of her inner thigh and/or vagina, over her clothing.

12. Your conduct at 11 above was sexually motivated.

13. On 23 July 2008, while Ms A was driving you to Stansted Airport, you made

inappropriate comments to Ms A:

(a) about your sex life;

(b) about her sex life.

14. Your conduct at 13 above was sexually motivated.

15. On a date between 23 July 2008 and 4 August 2008, while attending a World Veteran

Athletics event in Slovenia with Ms A, you:

(a) offered to provide an adjustment to Ms A in your hotel room;

(b) asked Ms A to remove her outer clothing;

(c) failed to offer Ms A a gown;

(d) failed to take any or any adequate case history;

(e) failed to provide any or any adequate explanation of your proposed treatment

and/or treatment plan;

(f) failed to keep any or any adequate records of the treatment provided to Ms A;

(g) when Ms A stood up after the treatment, you:

(i) asked how Ms A was “down there” or said words to that effect;

(ii) pulled Ms A’s knickers forward;

(iii) looked down Ms A’s knickers.

16. Your conduct at 15(b) and/or 15(c) and/or 15(g)(i-iii) above was sexually motivated.

17. During the period from 8 August 2008 to September 2009, while Ms A was engaged

by you to work at the Benfleet Clinic, you:

(a) provided regular treatments to Ms A;

(b) failed to keep any or any adequate records of the treatments provided to Ms A;

(c) failed to provide any or any adequate explanation of the proposed treatment

and/or treatment plan;

(d) failed to review the treatment plan;

(e) asked Ms A inappropriate questions about her sex life while providing

treatments;

(f) used your computer for matters unrelated to Ms A’s treatment during her

treatments;

(g) slapped Ms A’s bottom with “wedges”.

18. Your conduct at 17(e) and/or 17(g) above was sexually motivated.

19. During the period from 8 August 2008 to September 2009, you:

(a) made inappropriate comments to Ms A in that you:

(i) asked Ms A about her sex life;

(ii) said to Ms A words to the effect of “where’s my kiss”;

(iii) told Ms A about your sex life;

(b) touched Ms A inappropriately in that you:

(i) touched her bottom;

(ii) touched her hips;

(iii) touched her waist;

(iv) touched her breasts;

(v) stroked her hair;

(vi) touched and/or massaged her shoulders;

(vii) kissed her cheek.

20. Your conduct at 19 above was sexually motivated.

21. On an occasion between January 2009 and May 2009, while at the Benfleet Clinic,

you:

(a) provided advice to Ms A about improving pelvic floor muscles “internally”;

(b) offered to show Ms A how to improve pelvic floor muscles;

(c) told Ms A that she could recommend this to her clients and advise them how to

do it if they consented, or used words to that effect;

(d) told Ms A to remove her trousers and knickers;

(e) told Ms A to lie down on the couch in your treatment room;

(f) repeatedly inserted one or more fingers into Ms A’s vagina.

22. Your conduct at 21 above was sexually motivated.

23. You led Ms A to believe that your conduct at 21 above was a medical and/or

chiropractic procedure.

24. After the incident outlined at 21 above, you made inappropriate comments to Ms A

in that you:

(a) asked how the “training” was going with her boyfriend;

(b) asked her how many fingers her boyfriend had inserted in her vagina;

(c) asked how far up her vagina her boyfriend had inserted his fingers;

(d) offered to help Ms A again with her pelvic muscles.

25. Your conduct at 24 above was sexually motivated.

26. On an occasion between January 2009 and September 2009, while at the Benfleet

Clinic, you:

(a) offered to check if Ms A’s “training” had been working;

(b) instructed Ms A to remove her lower clothes;

(c) said words to the effect of “you can take your top off if you want”;

(d) repeatedly inserted one or more fingers into Ms A’s vagina;

(e) said words to the effect of “have you done this and come with [your

boyfriend]?”;

(f) said words to the effect of “it’s always better if you orgasm with it as it’s a better

contraction for your muscles”;

(g) said words to the effect of “you should get a whole fist up there, it’s much better”

(h) said words to the effect that you had put your fist “up there” with girls;

(i) touched Ms A’s clitoris with your thumb.

27. Your conduct at 26 above was sexually motivated.

28. You led Ms A to believe that your conduct at 26 above was a medical and/or

chiropractic procedure.

29. On 16 September 2009, while at the Benfleet Clinic, you:

(a) said to Ms A words to the effect that you were feeling “horny”;

(b) inappropriately touched Ms A’s waist;

(c) said to Ms A words to the effect of “show me your tan line”;

(d) said to Ms A words to the effect of “you’re boring, show me how you’re being

kept down there”;

(e) said to Ms A words to the effect of “behave yourself, stand still”;

(f) leant the back of your body against Ms A while she had her back to the wall;

(g) put your hand or hands down the front of Ms A’s underwear and touched her in

the region of her clitoris;

(h) attempted to insert your finger or fingers into Ms A’s vagina.

30. Your conduct at 29 above was sexually motivated.

31. You knew, or ought to have known, that Ms A did not consent to your conduct at 29 above.

 

Then there are also a number of allegations from a couple who came in and did not like the chiropractic care plan that was recommended. It is not clear if these allegations are connected to the wife who presumably is the person making allegations about practice protocol in 2003 or the mistress. 

This is what they are.

2. From around 2003 until at least February 2007 you took radiographs of all or most

of your patients at their initial consultations.

3. In taking the radiographs referred to at Particular 2 above, you:

(a) failed to ensure that each radiograph was clinically justified;

(b) failed to comply with regulation 6 of the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure)

Regulations 2000.

4. From around 2003 to around 2008:

(a) you recommended to all or most of your patients a similar treatment plan

irrespective of their differing conditions, ages and anticipated responses to treatment

and this was not clinically justified at the time;

(b) you encouraged all or most of your patients to pre-pay for excessive blocks of

treatment;

(c) you trained and incentivised your staff to encourage such pre-payment.

5. Your conduct as set out at 4 above was not in the best interests of patients.

2. From around 2003 until at least February 2007:

(a) you recommended to all or most of your patients a treatment plan involving 3

treatments per week for 4 weeks, followed by 2 treatments per week for 4 weeks

followed by 1 treatment per week for 4 weeks and this was not clinically justified at

the time; and/or

(b) in offering standardised treatment plans to all or most of your patients as referred to

at 2(a) above, you failed to evaluate adequately each patient’s health and/or health

needs; and/or

(c) the number of treatments recommended by you as referred to in 2(a) above was

excessive.

Share Button

Related posts:

  1. All they want is to have me apologise to Margaret Coats for all the things I have said about her
  2. “Regulators like the General Chiropractic Council have different and inconsistent methods of engaging with patients”
  3. Making the complaint fit the GCC Code of Practice so charges can be brought.
  4. Business as usual; declares General Chiropractic Council chairman Peter Dixon as he rearranges the deckchairs.
  5. Former General Chiropractic Council member, Dana Greens letter to new council members in December 2007. “GCC is not fit for purpose”
  6. How the General Chiropractic Council Conducts an investigation
  7. I am not calling Peter Dixon President of the College of Chiropractors a liar, but…….
  8. Margaret Coats reputation! What reputation?
  9. GCC chair Peter Dixon fiddles while Chiropractic burns
  10. Reformed GCC reappoints Peter Dixon as Chairman

Tags: , ,

  • Rosemary

    Let’s send in a mystery shopper. Who’d like to see Peter put to the test?

  • Heidi

    And I also wonder if anybody has experience of treatment in a clinic by Peter Dixon rather than behind a desk as a chairman? Is he any good?

  • Heidi

    Interesting, does Peter Dixon have anymore skeletons in the cupboard?

  • CDC

    Who in the health care chain does not have cook book treatment plans for their patients? Medication for sure!! Pysio? Ortho? Other post surgery? When I think of it they ALL more or less prescribe same treatment to patients with same/similar conditions. What´s the fuss about? If you have done a thorough examination and if you have some experience you probably know approximately how much to treat the patient. Exactly? No. Therefore similar or exact treatment plans and then you modify as you go.

    Prepayment? So what. If it makes it easier for the patient to do one or two payments instead of do it every time and if the office prefer one or two transactions instead of 10 or 30, who is it to say that´s forbidden? If the patient does not want to, pay as you go or go some where else? What is the big deal?

  • Andy

    Excessive treatment is one thing but having standardised treatment plans is something the NHS have been doing for ages. Our local physio dept will treat patients 4 times regardless of the chronicity of their condition (that’s why chiropractors are so busy). This one size fits all appraoch is also not always in the best interests of the patient but thats the way they work. Similarly NICE set treatment guidelines (usally a maximum) that seem to be arrived at following concensus view rather than being evidence based.

    The GCC need to be careful if they want to open this can of worms.

  • Dan

    @ Dave, At what point can the BCA state that any more than twelve adjustments is not really defendable without even examining the patient? what research do they have to back that up?

  • rod macmillan

    You could not make it up

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    Using the services of prostitutes while away from his wife on council duty. Then there was other stuff about others downloading porn others shagging patients and others shagging their students.

    The only bit I knew for a fact was Mike Kondraki was a big letch for students at AECC. The other stuff came from reliable sources on council and there was a resignation. I dont want to go into it because I see nothing wrong with Wayne Rooney or whoever using the services of an adult provided the prostitute gets well paid for what they are doing.

    However one would have to say the GCC does not hold its own members to the same standard it expects from registered chiropractors

  • Paul

    Dave – prepayments are too easy to take advantage of I agree but 12 adjustments? 12 per what month? Per year Per annum. BCA advice is like toilet paper – best used up against your ass.

    Price – what a plonker. But smart enough to have something up his sleeve to be able to coerce Coats into that glowing reference.

    Richard what were the allegations of sexual impropriety?

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    Wher do I start, perhaps we should dedicate this blog to Price.

    Greg Price was GCC registrar Margaret Coats deputy since its inception and she hired him. Price was the first line of contact for a patient making a complaint to the GCC. So for example if someone called up complaining that the chiropractor kept them waiting (which is not a breach of the COP)as in Monica Handa’s or Bridget Gilmores cases, Greg price would look in the gutter trying to find things that would constitute a breach of practice so they could present the complaint to the Investigating Committee so the complaint was sure to go before the PCC. Sometimes they would ask Richard Brown to give his opinion on the complaint they had produced and make the necessary changes and present it to the IC. http://www.chiropracticlive.com/?p=109

    With this approach to vexatious complaints you could predict something like the mass complaints coming from skeptics and in 2007 after my election to council I warned Peters Dixon of this risk. He said if you blog you should expect people to write unpleasant things about you.

    In October 2006 I started “blogging” in the format of a discussion forum. The GCC decided I and 21 members had defamed Margaret Coats and Greg Price on the site and sought a High Court injunction to have all the members identified http://www.chiropracticlive.com/?p=100 .

    I hired a techy to identify all the members so I could contact them and warn them of what was happening. One of the members was a real nutter posting under the name “Cognito”, who claimed to be a chiropractor and a member of the BCA, telling everybody how wonderful the GCC was.

    At the time allegations of sexual impropriety had surfaced in relation to members of the council and cognition made some comments about my penis how I smelt like shite, that kind of thing. The techy gets back to me and tells me these postings were being made from a computer in the GCC network. It appeared the GCC had found a novel way to promote itself on my blog and anti chiropractic websites all over the world. http://www.chiropracticlive.com/?p=113
    http://www.chiropracticlive.com/?p=114

    We presented the evidence to the GCC lawyers, the GCC never admitted who Cognitio was but Greg Price resigned quietly with a reference from Margaret Coats and went to work for another health regulator. In his resignation letter he said Coats was the best person he had ever worked with. If you want more detail read my statement at my removal hearing http://www.chiropracticlive.com/?page_id=398

    Or for evidence of the cover up of the police investigation into allegations that Price took money to make complaints go away http://www.chiropracticlive.com/?p=397

    Price resigned in 2007 his fingers were on all the complaints prior to that and Coats has refused point blank to investigate his activities, in fact she has covered up for him time and time again. This is why I mistakingly called her a liar,not realising giving incorrect information to council members does not in itself make someone a liar.

    There are many people with their own Price story. As Rod MacMillan loves to say “you could not make this stuff up”

  • dave

    It does seem rather perverse to me that pre-hearing accusations are put on the web for the public to see. I can see the logic in a notification that there will be a hearing but do we really need to read this Stuarts porn in graphic detail?

    That said, as it is out there, it’s pretty difficult to have any sympathy for the chap. It is blindingly obvious and we have been reminded time and time again that there is no such thing as a consensual sexual relationship between a chiro (or any sort of healthcare type) and a patient. If you are in any way tempted to stick bits of your anatomy into her anatomy then you should not be treating her, end of story. “Fisting” is not a technique that I can recall at AECC. Transfer her care to someone else, just don’t do it. That fact alone will get him struck off and he will get it “up the bum” from the GCC. If he can’t see that then he really shouldn’t be a chiro.

    The other bits of treating everyone with the same treatment plan and excessive prepayments over several years are also areas of potential grave concern. There have been oodles of these practice management firms, Gibson, Chimes, those “two yanks are a comming” seminars, and all sorts of others from accross the pond. They are all the same and claim to be “bullet proof”. The BCA sent us something yonks ago saying anything more than 12 was not really defendable. If (and a big “if”) he did really prescribe 60 clinic appointments in a little over 6-mos with large prepayment and really did do this over several years he’s probably in a heap of trouble and it strikes of someone who has no concept of boundries or ethics.

    Quite how the skeptics haven’t caught onto this nonsense yet is beyond me as it is a pancreatic cancer ripping through our profession.

    Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe that someone “docstu29″ met online for no string casual sex was actually on the GCC and thats how they found out? Perhaps with disgust that he wasn’t a “real doctor”.

    Who is this Greg Price?

  • Paul

    It would be interesting if this Stuart is reading this blog and pursues the invasion of privacy route and sues the GCC for what in all probability will collapse his business

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    @ Barney; Because the BCA council always bails the GCC out and chiropractors accept being screwed by Coats et al.
    Richard Brown has been contacting chiropractors, scaring them telling them how horrible the experience of a public hearing would be. Skeptics watching and blogging about the hearing. The advice is hold your hand up let the PCC decide your faith and who care if chiropractic is left with as much credibility as snake oil salesmen.
    Oh and remember to sign a statement promising not to sue the BCA if you are found guilty after taking Browns advice.

    @Dave when I was on the GCC council, I was the only GCC member who wanted to ban prepayment plans. The fact is they are there and many chiropractors use them and that in itself is not a breach of the code of practice. The patients were only seen three times according to the allegations so what is their motivation to pursue this??

    By including the sexual allegations in the complaint the BCA insurers probably wont cover the legal costs so perhaps he is one of the BCA chiropractors that is been thrown to the dogs and skeptics. There is loads of stuff on my Face book profile I would not want patients to see, its for my friends. Only someone intimately close to Stuart Lawrence could have told Coats about those dating sites. and his username and without the cooperation of the IP they will not be able to prove its him. I became a bit of an expert on this tracking the internet activities of former GCC deputy registrar Greg Price. Remember he was not even sacked for what he did on the internet.

    Stuart Lawrence is being charged with not making it clear he was a chiropractor on the site, so he is only bringing the profession into disrepute because the GCC made it public which may constitute an invasion of privacy.
    Surely the fact someone is using these sites to meet willing partners would suggest they are not using the patient files and preying on patients. With all the publicity, presumably others would have come forward if the allegations were true.

  • dave

    got me thinking and read the full list of the gcc website and the full newspaper article the coppers droping the charge doesn’t mean he was “cleared”, “not enough evidence to proceed”, two very different things.

    The newspaper article was written like a press release, very different tone than on the previous newspaper report when you google his name.

    Nowhere in the GCC website does it imply its the ex-wife who made the last two complaints, the accusations are recommendations for returning 60+ visits to clinic in roughly 6-mos with prepayment encouraged 6.(a-c) in second charge, 2 patients same treatment plans. If true taking the piss innit? Plus failed to refer for somesort of heart stuff. Doesn’t really sound like an ex wife, more like a GP complaining.

    In the final complaint it is stated for several years, 2003-2008, everyone got the same treatment plan and x-rays (would assume above numbers, but a bit of a leap?)

    This strikes at the very heart of regualtion with the sexual stuff. With regulation comes responsibility. Adjusting someone and fingering them, girlfriend or not is not really an adequate defence, you still treated them. Can’t say i ever wanted to adjust the missus after giving her a good rogering, but then been married for a while and she doesn’t really fancy me anyway. Its very clear in the regulations, if you fancy someone, have someone else treat them then it avoids this very mess. If you do treat someone, you need to keep records. THATS WHY WE HAVE REGULATIONS!

    The website stuff became the GCC’s business when he used “DOC” stu29 and implied a healthcare worked. Silly boy, should have said shaggerstu29 or something else.

    if you look up company accounts for his clinic, one of his directors, a chiropractor, resigned in feb 2009. The last two complaints read more like an ex employee Hmmmm
    Either way, he might want to sell the movie rights.

  • Barney

    The last three out of three PCC cases were thrown out either because the GCC ‘offered no evidence’ or ‘the allegation was dismissed’.

    Considering that these cases are scheduled for several days, dismissing them at the beginning of a hearing results in a colossal waste of money [the panel and legal assessor are still paid for their full time and the legal teams - both presenting and defending - partially reimbursed, not to mention costs for preparing the case, expert witness, etc.]

    If a private company showed such incompetence they would no longer be trading.

    One wonders how the GCC manages to cock things up so often.

  • rod macmillan

    They could have decoded it a bit, is shopping at M&S a problem now?
    I go there all the time

  • Garland Glenn

    A few observations:

    1. Essex Police cleared the doctor of the accusations. This would imply that there wasn’t enough “proof” or evidence to warrant charges or reasonably substantiate guilt.
    2. Ms. A is obviously motivated by revenge and purposed to inflict damage to Dr Lawrence. This calls into question the reliability of Ms A’s testimony. Especially in light of the Essex Police not finding supportive evidence.
    3. The accusations of the wife (we assume it to be the wife because of the nature of the knowledge required to make the accusations) in the first part have nothing to do with the delivery of chiropractic care and are therefore outside of the GCC’s jurisdiction and shouldn’t even be considered. The fact that he may call himself a doctor on a web site is irrelevant as he isn’t in the act of delivering care.
    4. The nature of Dr. Lawrence’s sex life, provided it does not violate any laws within the UK, is outside of the GCC’s jurisdiction and is therefore “none of their business”.
    5. The GCC should be exceedingly cautious in pressing charges against Dr. Lawrence in light of the Essex Police precedence.
    6. The GCC has opened itself and therefore the profession up to the liability charge of reckless slander in placing questionable accusations in the public forum. This is exceedingly irresponsible. I should think that a sharp solicitor could find his / her way into what even monies are left in the GCC’s account after all these ridiculous “advertising” cases are heard.
    7. Ms. A was a consenting adult before she became a patient. The GCC does not have jurisdiction over the employer / employee relationship. The British Government has that jurisdiction and, by way of the Essex Police, stated there wasn’t a charge to answer.
    8. Protecting the public is important however Dr. Lawrence hasn’t been accused of providing substandard or negligent care to the general population. At some point the doctor’s reputation has to be factored into the equation especially when there must be serious doubt as to the validity of the testimony against him.

  • http://nil dave

    Priceless! couldn’t make something like this up and have it be believed. it really shows why you shouln’t shag your mistress at work, what was he thinking??? The last two charges read right out out of a terry chimes treatment plan. Not exactly a “bullet proof” treatment plan like he claims. I can’t believe people do this stuff. Love the Docstu29 bit would love the see the pic of him in the surgical mask at his hearing. googled docstu29 and looks like he likes ducati bikes, should be one going cheap now…

  • fed up

    In Italy he would be voted ONTO the GCC.

  • Paul

    don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this.

    revenge is a dish best served cold.

    do the GCC have the power to intrude into your life outside practice?

    Can anyone point me to the photos in the Star LOL

  • http://spinaljoint.com Richard Lanigan

    I may go to one of these websites, next time I am seeking a 24/7 receptionist. I wonder if these girls are familiar with Microsoft Office.

  • rod macmillan

    I now realise that my life is very boring

  • Barney

    Good God! I doubt News of the World could do better!

Follow

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

Join other followers: