The complaint against Peter Dixon was not sent to the PCC and he was able to remain as chair of the General Chiropractic Council

March 15, 2011

Margaret Coats legal interpretation of the chiropractic act is different from Osteopaths, every complaint where there is a case to answer is supposed to be sent to the Professional Conduct Committee. There is an exception to this rule, except when someone in the chief executives office writes on the complaint “not to be sent to the IC”

People from Coats office inform the complainant  that the complaint was rejected by the IC and that is the end of the matter, unless someone likes me gets a look at the files. In his March 2010 Newsletter Peter Dixon informed the profession how

“We are addressing these matters
in the public interest, and it’s
important to emphasise that:

l the performance of all our
statutory duties and activities
remains unaffected; it’s business
as usual, except for the volume
of work

2 every complaint we receive
is considered impartially,
according to our statutory
duties and processes; the 600
plus complaints received will be
considered in the usual way”

As I have said above the “usual way” sometimes means some serious complaints have written on the top “not to be given to the IC. Peter Dixon’s investigation stated he had no problem with Greg Price having done this or why a complaint against a chiropractor trying to get £2,000 out of a patient was buried and was never investigated.

It begs the question was this the method used to dispose of the complaint against Peter Dixon in 2010 or did Margaret Coats just growl at members of the IC. In June 2009 the legal advice given to council was that it would be necessary to suspend any member of council or committees against whom complaints are made. The suspension of Peter Dixon would have left Margaret Coats very exposed and as the majority of complaints have been referred to the PCC how did Dixon and the other council members get off. I have heard from 3 Chiropractors who are charged with quoting from council member Stephen Williams book, how did he get off?

The information below is what the GCC presented to the CHRE to show how Margaret Coats was saving the sinking ship. I would point out the CHRE has not had one meeting with the CPA to discuss their lack of confidence in the regulator



Share Button

Tags: ,

10 Responses to The complaint against Peter Dixon was not sent to the PCC and he was able to remain as chair of the General Chiropractic Council

  1. Richard Lanigan on March 16, 2011 at 16:20

    Of course its true. This is how the GCC operates. Steve Willaims was one of the guys I got on well with on the GCC. He is a nice person, he is passionate about chiropractic however his loyalty to Peter Dixon and Coats is misplaced. This is not about Steve the person its about the organisation he represents

    I dont believe Steve would have planed this or sought favors from Coats, they needed him when they were short of applicants for council, he is the token nice guy on council, their guy who goes to conferences telling people its going to be better just give it time.

    Interesting the point about Osteopathy, I thought they were Osteopaths.

    What is a fellow of the College of Chiropractors, I thought it meant I was more qualified than the ordinary members when they gave it too me. When people put all those letters after their names is it not to suggest they have some kind of “expertise”. Its all bullshit and its no wonder the skeptics believe they have a point when the scrape the barrel to highlight our”lack of education” and apply it to all chiropractors.

  2. eugene pearce on March 16, 2011 at 11:23

    Interestingly it is a legitimate defense that the information provided on your website was from a reliable source, BCA, book written by a council member. Those with the extract on their website should use this as a defense as it then leaves the author exposed. The BCA allowed members to use this defense even though it left them legally exposed when members quoted their pamphlets. It is why the GCC will not prosecute colic asthma tension headaches as it leaves them legally exposed as it was on their information literature at the time. Because Williams book does not count as advertising and web content does it does not constitute false advertising.

    I also believe (I might be wrong here but my dad was a Cranial Osteopath and Physio) we have been unwittingly cought by legislation copied from the Osteopathy act to prevent Cranial Osteopaths become registered osteopaths, ie you cant have a specialism of osteopathy. This was then used by chiropractors. Its ridiculous whats the difference between Chiropractic Paeditric Specialist or Certified Chiropractic Sports injusy specialist and has a special interest in. My local Orthopaedic registrar isnt a GP with a special interest in Orthopaedic surgery.

    And if some cases arent going to IC that breaches the current rules as all cases have to be investigated and the PCC decides if there is a case to answer. If true, that stinks.

  3. bigandy on March 16, 2011 at 09:56

    hi greg darling… remember me????… XX get in touch …. love u and leave u !!!

  4. Richard Lanigan on March 16, 2011 at 09:45

    I laughed when I saw this, it is from a dummy e -mail address.

    A few years ago we found out Greg was working monitoring complaints at the UK psychotherapy regulatory body. He had been given a reference by Margaret Coats to get employment there. Obviously when I published what we had on him their members wanted rid.

    Requests for information about Price were sent to the GCC all refused under Data protection. Margaret Coats and Peter Dixon got their lawyers to conduct an expensive investigation into who had provided information to UKCP about Price. I was the first to be interviewed and told them it was me before I had been elected, when I came out I informed the council members it was me. However the lawyers went through the process of interviewing everyone. Graham Heale and myself had a good laugh about that in the bar afterwards. They were sitting there being asked if it was them and they are saying no it was Richard.

    Then one evening, not having logged on for two years Cognitio AKA Greg Price loged on and did a few postings. He was obviously drunk and for a laugh I edited them, and was open about it. Peter Dixon tried to use this to claim I could have edited all of Prices e-mails and that in fact it was me who had made Cognitio’s postings to discredit him. Forgetting I had copies of Prices resignation letter. Price had done so many anti chiropractic postings he could not even remember where he had done them all.

  5. THE GREGSTER on March 16, 2011 at 07:59


  6. Rebirth Of Cognito on March 15, 2011 at 18:07

    Its getting bad…. I bet the “Professional Committee Sitters” are getting worried…. what will they do when the GCC gets audited…. ( which will be soon….. :) :) :)

  7. Richard Lanigan on March 15, 2011 at 09:29

    This is what I said “how did Dixon and the other council members get off. I have heard from 3 Chiropractors who are charged with quoting from council member Stephen Williams book, how did he get off”?

    Stephen Willaims is a member of council now seeing that the GCC decided they would not prosecute chiropractors for quoting from the GCC website why not a book by a chiropractic council member. I believe Margaret Coats herself was the complainant against Robin Pauc for what he put in his book. So why has Margaret Coats not taken action against Stephen Williams for whats in his book “Pregnancy and Paediatrics a chiropractic approach” On page VI of the book it states
    “Dr Williams runs a family-based practice in Southampton specialising in paediatrics and craniopathy”.

    Now I would ask you to read what Stephen Hughes was admonished for “specialising in the treatment of infants and babies.

    So Bob there does seem to be one law for loyalists to Peter Dixon and Margaret Coats and one law for the registrants or perhaps you still think I have not got my facts straight and would like to help me see the light.

  8. Stefaan A.L.P. Vossen on March 15, 2011 at 08:02

    Hi Bob,
    I think that Richard’s comment on Williams was not implying that he had a vexatious complaint against him from Hennes or Perry but rather that he made statements in his work which was not good enough to support the cases, despite his being a council member. and as such teh question is raised how Stephen got away with making those statements at all. The answer to Rich’s question is that it is not in breech of ASA regulations to write something in a book.

  9. Bob on March 15, 2011 at 06:18

    Er get you facts right Richard, there was no complaint against Williams brought by Hennes as he didn’t have a link to the BCA website

  10. chirochick on March 15, 2011 at 06:14

    Oh dear this just keeps getting worse, what happened when it was uncovered and went to the pcc?


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

Join other followers: