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
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:
(ii) having a “healthcare & medical occupation”;
(iii) seeking a female partner between the ages of 18 and 35 for “no
(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
(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
(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
(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
(f) used your computer for matters unrelated to Ms A’s treatment during her
(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,
(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
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
(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
(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
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)
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
(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
(c) the number of treatments recommended by you as referred to in 2(a) above was
- All they want is to have me apologise to Margaret Coats for all the things I have said about her
- “Regulators like the General Chiropractic Council have different and inconsistent methods of engaging with patients”
- Making the complaint fit the GCC Code of Practice so charges can be brought.
- Business as usual; declares General Chiropractic Council chairman Peter Dixon as he rearranges the deckchairs.
- Former General Chiropractic Council member, Dana Greens letter to new council members in December 2007. “GCC is not fit for purpose”
- How the General Chiropractic Council Conducts an investigation
- I am not calling Peter Dixon President of the College of Chiropractors a liar, but…….
- Margaret Coats reputation! What reputation?
- GCC chair Peter Dixon fiddles while Chiropractic burns
- Reformed GCC reappoints Peter Dixon as Chairman