Message to the “Guardians of chiropractic” The horse has bolted”

July 12, 2010

imacdges I got an anonymous letter from a group calling themselves “Guardians of Chiropractic” last week. The reported some shocking goings on at the GCC but as I have not been able to confirm the story or who wrote the letter I will not be publishing its content. What I will say if its true its bad news for the UK profession, but its far to late to do anything about Margaret Coats and the GCC.

That horse bolted a few years ago, and its because chiropractors like these guardians were “chicken” and did nothing. They  knew what was going on and kept their heads down and their mouths shut and allowed Dixon, Coats and Brown bring the chiropractic profession to its knees.

The guardians claim “We represent a group of troubled chiropractors, deeply concerned at the way our profession is heading” and “It is time for us to make a stand” 

“We want the profession to know about this latest development and ask you to post this letter on chiropracticlive but at this time we wish to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions; however expect to hear more from us in the future.”

I have no interest in hearing from people who wish to hide from Coats et al. Whatever my opinion of Dixon and Brown, they are chiropractors who  believe they are acting in the chiropractic professions best interest. At least they put themselves forward  to pursue their goals rather than hoping an anonymous letter might offer an alternative for chiropractors.

Share Button


31 Responses to Message to the “Guardians of chiropractic” The horse has bolted”

  1. Ta Fragman on March 16, 2020 at 17:36

    Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!?

  2. Richard Lanigan on July 23, 2010 at 17:49

    In an ideal world the, regulators would regulate, colleges with teach undergraduates, the college of chiropractors would deal with CPD, Test of competence and re validation of chiropractors and the associations would represent their members.

    I applaud people who wish to raise standards, I have major concerns about people who want power and control.

    The people who should judge clinical competence are clinically competent chiropractors, not academics who were not very successful and for some reason they seem to think they have the answers. I remember giving a talk to chiropractors in 1993 at a conference called “Chiropractic at the Cross Roads” it was organised by Kevin Proudman. Alen Breen did not think AECC should get involved because “Kevin went to Parker seminars in the US.AECC principle Brian Kliger a good man with an open mind thaught differently and as President of the student union I was a speaker. I asked where are the role models for students. The people who were teaching us were either there because they had a vocation to teach, or they were not successful in practice.

    I did not mention names but could gather from subsequent responses the following week that it must have been problems in practice that drew most of them to teach. Are these the best people to revalidate and set standards? Most of the senior people on the College of Chiropractors are experienced chiropractors and in my opinion and most practicing chiropractors they should be in charge of revalidation.

  3. Stefaan Vossen on July 23, 2010 at 10:10

    I guess we are talking about a fear of bias? Is that right? Bias exerted by WIOC against people practicing with subluxation-based views? I concede that it is seemingly a likely bias with David Byfield at the helm … anti-trust laws wouldn’t allow for something like that in business, but that said, am I being incredibly naive for thinking that it is a job that needs doing and that there really only is issue with this IF bias has been established to have been exerted.
    I understand the sentiment of this fear, but is the GCC’s decision not only a bad one IF it turns out that the bias is exerted. In which case: is it within the remit of any organisation managing TOC to judge and disqualify access on the basis of philosophical principles?
    My understanding as flawed as it may be, is that their remit is to judge clinical competence, and let’s not be hypocritical about it,… those do vary. So maybe having medipractors manage that is not such a bad thing. Overkill maybe, but not in itself a bad thing. Or am I just way off teh mark?

  4. Richard Lanigan on July 23, 2010 at 00:18

    Rod comment reminds us this survey was conducted in 2006. We could have got rid of Dixon and Coats in 2008 but Christina Cunliffe decided her interests were better served by saving Peter Dixon.

    Like I said the horse has bolted. The GCC has been using the Test of Competence for years to select the type of chiropractor they wanted on the register, that contract was not put out to tender. Margret Coats went for a walk with Sue King came back and told council the contract was going to Glamorgan. We blogged a lot about that in 2005, so its not a surprise for me that the revalidation has been given to David Byfield again.

    The medipractors see revalidation as the way to fulfil their chiropractic dream. They positioned themselves a few years ago setting up the The European Academy of Chiropractic ; “the only post graduate professional institution in Europe accepted by the Chiropractic profession where its awards have pan-national acceptance and credibility” They padded it out with some honorary members like Neill Kinnock et al. Byfield et al would probably have the academy take over from the College of Chiropractic.

    Writing to your representatives is a waste of paper its chiropractic representatives that have let the profession down. Rather than writing letters than will end up in the bin, read the constitution of your association and find out how to call an Extraordinary General Meeting and make sure you elect people this autumn who have a credible vision for the future, will represent your views and take on the GCC. Revalidation is a statutory requirement, the only question is who structures it?

    Chiropractors who spend their time providing chiropractic care, or the GCC education committee made up of David Byfield, Alan Breene , medical Doctor Christopher Stephens and a Physio Graham Pope not to forget Christina Cunliffe and her cunning plan to save the profession??

  5. dazed on July 22, 2010 at 16:53

    HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH ROFLMOL Rod, you crack me up! I had forgotten all the questions. Oh I am crying too much to reply……..

  6. rodmacmillan on July 22, 2010 at 15:21

    Funny what people keep1
    Electoral Reform Services was commissioned by Bankside Law Ltd on behalf of “a pan
    association group of chiropractors” to print, distribute and receive back completed
    questionnaires for its Survey of The Chiropractic Profession.
    The questions were designed by Bankside Law Ltd’s clients.
    Bankside Law Ltd’s clients were also the source of the names and addresses to which
    questionnaires were to be sent. We were assured by the Managing Director of Bankside Law
    Ltd that “my clients have instructed me they were careful to obtain the details of all the
    chiropractors from publicly available sources and that they cleared their actions with the
    office of The Information Commissioner who is responsible for policing the Data Protection
    Act before conducting the survey”.
    Questionnaires were sent out by first class post on Friday 5th May. By the (extended) closing
    date of Wednesday 24th May, 968 completed questionnaires had been received by ERS. This
    is 50.9% of the 1,900 questionnaires which were sent out.
    Each questionnaire was uniquely numbered. This was to prevent multiple participation. No
    record, however, was kept of which person each numbered questionnaire was sent to.
    This report contains the overall response to each question put.SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
    Amongst all respondents:
    31.8% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The actions of the GCC in
    disciplining chiropractors has improved the protection of the public’, whilst 52.8%
    indicated that they disagreed with this statement;
    83.8% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The GCC has done little to
    promote the profession’, whilst 8.0% indicated that they disagreed with this
    8.1% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The profession has united
    together under the GCC’, whilst 83.8% indicated that they disagreed with this
    10.5% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The diversity of the profession
    has been protected and encouraged under the GCC’, whilst 77.5% indicated that
    they disagreed with this statement;
    77.1% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The GCC, like the General
    Osteopathic Council, should appoint external, impartial educationalists to oversee
    the accreditation of the chiropractic colleges’, whilst 10.9% indicated that they
    disagreed with this statement;
    91.3% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘Professional Conduct Cases
    should be heard within six months of the charge being passed to the Professional
    Conduct Committee’, whilst 0.9% indicated that they disagreed with this
    72.4% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The Council of the GCC is
    influenced by inter-association politics’, whilst 4.3% indicated that they disagreed
    with this statement;
    9.9% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The workings of the GCC are
    open and transparent’, whilst 73.9% indicated that they disagreed with this
    7.6% stated that they agreed with the statement ‘The £1,000 GCC registration fee
    is a reasonable sum to pay’, whilst 88.3% indicated that they disagreed with this
    22.9% stated that they have confidence in the General Chiropractic Council to
    regulate the chiropractic profession, whilst 77.1% stated that they do not.

  7. dazed on July 22, 2010 at 15:06

    then write to the chair or president of your association and make your views known. Ring all your buddies and ask them what they think and would they co-sign a letter to either/ or your association or the GCC.

    Call your MP and arrange meeting or email him/her about your concerns.

  8. Lura on July 22, 2010 at 14:46

    All sounds very concerning. Trouble is with this profession, only a few people actually have the guts to do anything. I know the executive councils of the prof associations come under a lot of fire on here and elsewhere, but at least they actually stand up and do something! Most people I know wouldn’t dream of writing to the GCC to complain about anything, such is the feeling of fear of repercussions. I’m hoping that on this occasion, the professional associations will do something, although sounds like they don’t have much influence if the Guardians’ letter is to be believed.I feel helpless as I guess hundreds of other chiros do.

  9. dazed on July 22, 2010 at 13:16

    HI Lura, yes WIOC administer the TOC and I too believe that there is a clause in the revalidation process to force people into taking the TOC if failing revalidation……..

    I heard that all four associations actively supported the CoC bid for the revalidation contract. We should all be asking our associations what they have done about this.

    Those who feel strongly about this might like to write to the Chair of the GCC asking that their letter go to Council at the next meeting on 18th August. Letters would need to be there at least 10 days beforehand to be included on the Agenda. Might be a good idea to send a copy of your letter to Rob Finch at CoC too so that he knows how the profession feels.

  10. Lura on July 22, 2010 at 12:07

    Meant to say, I’m glad the McTims have done something, does anyone know what the other prof associations are doing? Surely if they all supported the college of chiropractors bid then they must be feeling pretty miffed?

  11. Lura on July 22, 2010 at 12:00

    And I think I am right in saying that they already operate the test of competence? Does this mean if you ‘fail’ revalidation that you have to take the test of competence there? I think I read that somewhere.I feel very anxious about this and wonder seriously if anyone is going to do anything about it? I feel very sorry for the college of chiropractors, at least they are a ‘pan professional organisation’ as the Guardians state in their letter. Does anyone have any suggestions what we could do? i feel very strongly about this. Should we start writing to our MP’s??

  12. dazed on July 22, 2010 at 09:48

    The MCA has written a strongly worded letter to the Chair of the GCC. Personally, I am appalled at this decision which puts so much power to validate and revalidate the profession in the hands of one educational institution.

  13. Lura on July 22, 2010 at 09:09

    I read this site most days, great site Richard by the way and thanks for what you do. I feel motivated to ask; what have the professional associations done about this then??? Surely we are not going to take this lying down??? I will be ringing my professional association today to ask this very question. Is no obe else incensed about this???

  14. dazed on July 21, 2010 at 16:57

    Well, I’ve managed to get hold of a copy of the letter as it seems the ‘Guardians’ have sent it round to the associations so it is now in the public domain.

    Personally, I am not surprised to read its contents. It has been clear to me for sometime that the revalidation process was being steered towards the nhs model of safety and that is completley disprotortionate to what we do.

    neither am I surprised to hear that WIOC has yet another contract from the GCC to run and make money out of us all.

    “Dear Richard,

    We represent a group of troubled chiropractors, deeply concerned at the way our profession is heading. It has recently come to our attention that the College of Chiropractors has failed in its bid to win the contract for revalidation and the contract has instead been awarded to the Welsh Institute of Chiropractic. You may not be aware of this fact yet. We see this as a complete travesty.

    Our information is that all the professional associations strongly supported the College of Chiropractors’ bid and this just seems like yet another case of the GCC ignoring the wishes of the profession and doing exactly what it wants. It is not even clear whether the decision has been made by council; which leaves us wondering who is running the GCC and more to the point, who are the real key decision makers?

    The College of Chiropractors is a pan professional organisation and belongs to us and truly represents the profession. The College of Chiropractors was the only real choice and in our opinion, the only organisation that would be accepted by the profession.

    It is our hope and belief that the profession will reject this latest imposition by the GCC and refuse to cooperate with the revalidation process until it is in the rightful hands of the College of Chiropractors. It is time for us to make a stand. We will be encouraging all our friends and colleagues not to participate in such a flawed system.

    We wait with anticipation to see what, if anything, the professional associations will do to address this latest travesty!

    We want the profession to know about this latest development and ask you to post this letter on, but at this time we wish to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions; however expect to hear more from us in the future.

    ‘Vitally’ yours,

    Chiropractic Guardians”

  15. fed up on July 13, 2010 at 14:10
  16. fed up on July 13, 2010 at 14:09

    Is this the Guardians in question?

  17. Richard Lanigan on July 13, 2010 at 11:38

    I am sure this will be public very soon and who ever breakes the news to the profession will also have to get off the fence and criticise the GCC.

    For example when I broke the story that the GCC had gone to the Privy council to change the act so chiropractors under investigation would have to pay there registration fees,it let the associations off the hook when they should have been fighting their members corner. The GCC got away with it then and we are where we are. Its up to the associations to sort out this latest mess.

  18. dazed on July 13, 2010 at 04:05

    But Richard, this current blog is like a newspaper and as Editor and chief reporter why not publish and be damned? If these people have given you information hat is likely to be bad news for the profession why not let us see it and make up our own minds? You could put a disclaimer ovr the top stating that the information is unverified.

  19. Richard Lanigan on July 13, 2010 at 01:38

    Let me start this posting by saying to Stefaan that the UK chiropractic profession has not grown nearly as fast as the osteopathic profession. Surrey had to close their course because of the GCC, Kingston University was very keen to have a chiropractic course, but they would have had to fork out to much for the clinic facilities wanted by the GCC. Then you have the GCC refusing registration to many foreign chiropractors. There are twice as many osteopaths as chiropractors and chiropractors halve four times as many PCC hearings. Osteopaths pay £350 a year and its discounted for new graduates. Their future is rosy so when I recently took on a new associate the advantages were clear. I hired an Osteopath and I am delighted with her and I can not see myself hiring chiropractors while Coats et al are in control. It would not be fair on a chiropractor to invite the GCC investigators scrutiny to get at me. I am not against regulating chiropractic, and I would agree with Stefaans comments on the difficulty a regulator faces, however I am against bad regulation which is worse than no regulation. Basically a few chiropractors want to control the development of the chiropractic profession and the have Margret Coats ear. Then you have the chameleon Peter Dixon who just likes being chair and hopes one day to have an OBE for services to chiropractic.

    @Rosemary said. “I think you’re being a bit harsh. I don’t know who these ‘guardians’ are but I can understand their concern about repercussions. As you’ve de-registered, maybe you feel differently but I think that for many chiropractors, they’re not apathetic, they’re fearful. Chiropractors need to stand together and if that means starting off anonymously, what is wrong with that? There can be a lot at stake with those who have families to think of”

    I have a family four children. We are not living in East Germany and you can not do anything simply because you do not like someone. While colleagues have made many complaints about me nothing has ever stuck. The BCA, the UCA, the SCA and MacTimoney leadership knew that Margaret Coats has/is misleading the profession on many issues. Why have they never demanded an investigation into the activities of Greg Price. What Coats takes advantage of is you have 4 associations all trying to feather their nests and none wanting to lose influence, not realising the dont have any as long as they continue to fund Margaret Coats, Richard Brown and David Byfields agenda.

    I came second in the GCC elections and would have topped the poll my a mile if, I had not agreed with the UCA executive for their members to vote for McTimoney candidates so there would be balance on council. Christina Cunliffe topped the poll. We were so close to bringing them down. We had ten votes and two of Dixons supporters were not attending the meeting which gave us a majority of 2 in a confidence vote. I left home that morning telling my partner I was a genius for engineering the fall of Coats and Dixon after only 9 months.

    Unfortunately I was not used to rolling in the mud and not nearly as clever as I thought I was. Unknown to me Peter Dixon got wind of what was proposed and agreed something with Christina Cunliffe and she helped him have the thorn in his side removed from council.

    The bottom line is chiropractors do know most of this stuff, they were delighted for me to put my head above the parapet and charge the GCC and with the exception of Rod McMillan they were no where to be seen when the shit hit the fan. They did and said nothing when Margaret Coats had Peter and Christina Cunliffe engineered my removal.

    After my removal, I tried to organise a conference with 10 former GCC members speaking about life on the GCC and regulation and the proposals for regulatory reform. None of the associations wanted to be seen involved in such subversive activity. After 7 years waiting for the “Chiropractic Guardians” to come out of the shadows I got tired waiting and resigned from the register. I only started blogging again to protect myself when the GCC were trying to entrap me into saying I was a chiropractor. I dont blame anybody for keeping their identity secret from the GCC, what annoys me is when people have bullets to fire and they want me to fire them because they dont have the courage of their convictions.

  20. Rosemary on July 12, 2010 at 19:08


    Mmm,maybe I didn’t make myself totally clear. I understand that it probably takes a fair amount of money to finance buildings etc. I am not objecting to regulation, I am objecting to the people who are doing the regulating. Knowledge of a totally different health paradigm (chiropractic), honesty, good ethics and the passion and drive to take the profession forward costs about the same as ignorance, dishonesty, poor ethics and the seeming desire to take the profession out. Furthermore, I think chiros would be happier paying their 1K if they were getting an association with the former qualities when, as it is, they have the latter.

    Yes I did think you seemed to be attacking those who wish to remain anonymous. Don’t you understand – it’s not that chiros don’t believe in what they stand for – they are fearful of the GCC’s spitefulness and loathing of anyone who dares challenge them. I don’t know if you have a family to support but many do. They fear for their livelihoods and, therefore, the wellbeing of their families. Justifiably so, in my opinion. You surely know as well as I do, the distress that the GCC have caused many good chiros by putting them through spurious complaints – even digging for anything they can find that was nothing to do with the original complaint. Some of these chiros have been put through hell for a long period – I don’t blame anyone for remaining anonymous. It’s not about “this day and age” as you put it – it’s about the attitude of a dictatorship called the GCC and the imbalance of power.

    By the way, you say about associates being treated poorly – it happens the other way round too. Associates can and do behave very badly – employed or not.

  21. Stefaan Vossen on July 12, 2010 at 18:21

    Hi Rosemary,
    I thought about this previous post for some time before sending it out, quite aware of the fact that it may cause some interesting responses. I don’t disagree with your findings and observations, and am certain that there are aspects which really could be improved upon within the GCC.
    -I don’t think the chiropractic doesn’t “deserve any better”, I just think it can’t afford any better. Processes like these are very expensive at the best of times and you don’t buy much office for a grand a year. I went through the exercise of looking at what I think it would cost to run a GCC,… I couldn’t do it for any less than £4M pa. Unfortunately the chiropractic profession has not grown at the rate and pace that was estimated at the onset, partially because it was an over-estimation, partially because lots of our colleagues have lost their passion, their drive, their love for the profession and don’t make everyone feel like they should want to become a chiropractor. The chiropractors I hung out with would never allow a student to pay a bill, would pay their expenses to go to seminars, take them out for lunch. That passion, love and belief has been passed onto me and all I want to be doing is pass it onto others. Wouldn’t everyone? But instead I see much bitterness, employers trying to milk their employees, students being told “there is no work out there for you”,… no wonder we’re not growing with that kind of attitude. I am not wanting to be all holier than thou or blaming others, I am just as much at fault as all of us. I am hiding away in my office working all the hours I can work, considering myself too busy to get involved. I know this is all just BS and a way of justifying the fact that I am scared of being judged or getting it wrong. I am working on it. Are you too?
    -I don’t quite understand one of your comments as you seem to pretty much agree but phrase in slightly different terms (referring to testicles and drooling rather than penises) but then calling it mean and uncalled for? Maybe you felt I was attacking those who remain anonymous or was referring to the people behind the letter Richard received? If they have something valuable to say why not do so openly and proudly? I understand people feel a little unsure and maybe that it may be a little risky, but in the name of conviction, passion and determination, in the name of asking people to rally behind the cause,… surely we can put faces to causes? If they believe so little in what they stand for, then why should I trust they will carry it off? There are some great ideas whom I would not want to see championed by some, because I feel they couldn’t carry it off. The idea is only a part of the equation. You may think this mean, but I have been ’round politics for long enough to know Tony won (and Gordon lost) with a smile… Not to mention of course that I cannot understand how the authors can seriously feel it necessary to hide behind anonimity in this day and age?
    Don’t take this as an attack on them, but rather a tease to get them to stand loud and proud if they truly believe in what they stand for, which I sincerely hope.
    Kind regards,
    I think people are entitled to their anonimity if they so wish, I have no problem with that, but the only person to make the world a better place from behind a pseudonym was Brooke Magnanti (please don’t take this literally I am just bantering).

  22. Rosemary on July 12, 2010 at 16:40

    No, Stefaan, I don’t think you do get it. The GCC are not doing as great a job as we can afford, as you put it. I’m amazed that you think that. Chiropractic deserves better, way better! The problem is that the GCC are coming from the wrong place. They don’t trust chiropractors or chiropractic. How could they? They don’t even understand it.

    Having once attended a GCC meeting instead of another committee member, I was shocked to find the meeting resembled something like out of the ‘Spitting Image’show – when they portrayed Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet members pathetically agreeing and fawning over her. The GCC meeting was just like that – “yes Margaret, no Margaret”. It was awful and somewhat surprising to me, considering that I had thought that some of the members had more balls than that. Afterwards, one of the members collared me near the lift and said “Do you see what we have to put up with?”

    The ‘iron lady’ ruled the roost while everyone else slobbered and grovelled around her.

    There is nothing wrong with regulation but it should be by people who understand chiropractic, support it and want the best for it and out of it – for the consumers sake. They should be people of integrity and sound moral and ethical fibre. I have seen very little of that from where I stand. Furthermore, they should not have on the council, narrow minded people steeped in a totally different paradigm – pharmacists, etc. Their blinkered uneducated view only contributes to the mess.

    And your reference to the bunch of soft people – that’s just mean and uncalled for. Let’s stop circling the wagons and shooting inwards, Stefaan.

  23. rodmacmillan on July 12, 2010 at 16:10

    Hi Stefan
    Well done for using your own name and saying what you think; sensible discussion on the issues, seeing other points of view and being willing to change are all needed in this and every other profession.

    Proportionality means having control mechanisms relative to the risk of harm and the likelihood of it happening; this is a fundamental part of risk assessment. As a person who repeatedly took serious decisions in my previous occupation I am bewildered by the fantasy land inhabited by some colleagues, it really is this simple;

    1. Do good exams, if you are unsure refer out.
    2. If they are not getting better refer out
    This is chiropractic not open heart surgery; the code of practice could be pretty much simplified to the two points above. Midwives, ambulance crews and fire brigade officers have a lot more responsibility, this is not academic, real risk involves people dying, not some drivel bit of paperwork badly filled out. Why are 40% of the above professions not being charged? The answer is the regulation is a lot better. I have lost count of the number of deaths and serious injuries I have seen, or been in charge of , as a fire brigade officer and as part of a team I have rescued more than 300 people trapped burnt mangled and very seriously injured. I know what a real risk is having risked my own life to rescue others. Protecting the public is what I did for 27 years, just who has this quango saved? And what did they save them from?
    This is adversarial disproportionate and very expensive.

  24. Rosemary on July 12, 2010 at 16:06

    Come on Richard, please publish the letter. The guardians, whoever they are, should be encouraged to make a stand. I have long thought that like minded chiros need to meet in one place, openly discuss these issues, share their fears and realise that they need to unite as one to go forward. This would have the potential to make more of a difference surely, than sharing views on facebook, blog comments etc.

    I think that many chiros don’t even know the half of it. I didn’t until I came across your site and read stuff like Zeno’s blog. I asked a couple of chiros if they’d ever heard of Zeno alias Alan and they hadn’t. They really had no idea that there are people out there with such a venomous hatred of chiropractors that they are willing to spend huge amounts of time and effort going after them. Of course, everyone knows about Singh but little of all the stuff behind it.

    Things are, in fact, worse than most chiros know. I’d like to know who the guardians are because I’d like to join them. I would hope that many others would too.

  25. Stefaan Vossen on July 12, 2010 at 15:41

    As Richard knows, I am not really into GCC-bashing. And I think that some of those who do so indiscriminately, seem to me, to sometimes forget that the GCC was set up to fulfill a function which is both important to the profession and morally correct. I am so far not commenting on whether or not the execution of those goals is successful, just on its foundational morality…
    Bearing this in mind, whilst fully ackowledging that I occasionally struggle to organise my backside from my elbow, I find it difficult to agree with people picking on an organsiation which is trying to regulate what must be one fo the most random and unregulatable professions in the world.
    I understand the sentiment and understand the grievances, but at risk of being boo-ed: £1000/year is a small price for knowing that fraudsters, idiots, liabilities and criminals are being kept out of my profession.
    I know there is more to it, but I think that this is after all its starting point, so let’s start with the beginning.
    I am one of Simon Perry’s “36″. He came round to my office and I jokingly left a GCC leaflet behind about the treatment of colic,… he did see the funny side of it, but didn’t even know I was someone he’d written a complaint about. At the time of the complaint I was self-employed and had asked the owners of the clinic to remove the comments from their website… I still have case to answer. How that is even possible I do not know, but one thing I do know: they are just doing their job. Whether they are doing it well is really down to the job description.
    At risk of being apologist: like with all things law and regulations: something true today, in a certain context and use, may not apply and require refining to deal with tomorrow… when people are being creative like Perry and Henness tomorrow has to be dealt with today and that, to say the least can be challenging.
    Do I think they are doing a GREAT job? No, not really, but they are doing as great a job as we can afford. Great execs come at great expense and the grip of the “iron lady” is really only so relative to the bunch of soft *%&*s that keep on moaning but keep their rhetoric quiet “out of fear of retrobution”…
    Maybe I just don’t get it.


  26. rodmacmillan on July 12, 2010 at 15:06

    Yes many people are rightfully fearful, the whole process of registration is unnecessarily stressful, the high fees the vote of confidence; however try to see the funny side of it;

    A tiny profession, huge egos, lots of associations, fat men in bad suits, it is more like a comedy show. I might write one “How to win friends and influence world opinion against the dangers of law abiding caring professions”

    You will recognise me, fat bald bad suit, great sense of humour and I use my own name. It really does say a lot about the quango culture that law abiding people are fearful for their livelihood, the sooner the government does a cost benefit analysis of this type of regulation the better, proportionality and costs seem a dim and distant afterthought.


    Any resemblance to a slim hairy well groomed chiropractor is unintentional.

  27. Rosemary on July 12, 2010 at 14:23

    Hi Richard,
    I think you’re being a bit harsh. I don’t know who these ‘guardians’ are but I can understand their concern about repercussions. As you’ve de-registered, maybe you feel differently but I think that for many chiropractors, they’re not apathetic, they’re fearful. Chiropractors need to stand together and if that means starting off anonymously, what is wrong with that? There can be a lot at stake with those who have families to think of – they may well need to know that a sufficient number of like minded chiros will back them before they ‘come out’. It’s easy for Dixon and Brown, they’re on the same side as the GCC so what’s brave about that?

    I just feel it would be better to support any group like the guardians rather than damn them. What about it?

  28. Barney on July 12, 2010 at 13:46

    Well, Rod, I admire you for using your own name! Bloody brave I can tell you; however, I can understand those that fear repercussions having been at the receiving end of the GCC on more occasions than I care to remember. As one of my colloeagues recently wrote:

    “….good to be away from That Awful Woman… the more I look back on those strange years, the whoppers, the nastiness and the little band of useless acolytes, smiling as they stabbed backs… plus the chair, who was more of a whoopee cushion!”

    It was ignominious – and while one accepts that governmental officialdom is fraught with ‘politicking’ – the GCC were exceptionally vile.

  29. rodmacmillan on July 12, 2010 at 09:41

    Hi Richard

    I am highly concerned about repercussions, I never get a Christmas card from the GCC; I am obviously very worried. My friend Christian Farthing is doing very well off the register, so are you. Maybe not being on it is good for business.
    Maybe you get a card? Other signs that I am worried by them include me howling with laughter at the CHRE report. I also now realise that I might not get invited to Wicklow street to sit on a committee , this repercussion is very worrying as earning £750 a day less whilst having to sit on a committee is worse than doing a job I love with people who like me, duh!

    Those sneaky repercussions, you can see them everywhere. I am so repercussed I might just join the Irish Mctimoneys , keep my £1000 and buy myself a Christmas card.

    In short, you have as much or as little power over your life as you choose , I choose to have a great day, I choose to be a chiropractor. I also use my own name, it save me getting confused.

  30. Richard Lanigan on July 12, 2010 at 01:36

    You have to laugh Rod when you hear people talk about “repercussions”, unless the GCC has a hit team out on us and they just have not been sucessful yet.

  31. rodmacmillan on July 12, 2010 at 01:29

    I can understand people feeling nervous, personally I think that those funny names in the past were great, how on earth did he think up “cognitio”?
    Still my name is Rod, short fat bald and very cheerful.


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

Join other followers: