The BCA council likes disciplinary hearings because it is an easy way to intimidate and silence dissenters. BCA disciplinary hearings are always held behind closed doors, the defendant is not allowed to be present or have representation. Sometimes you are not aware of the evidence being presented against you. So if the evidence was untrue or misleading there is no one there to rebut it .
Time and time again, I pointed out to the BCA that the GCC regulated the conduct of chiropractors in the UK and there was a due process to follow if they felt I had done something wrong. Rather than follow the process outlined by the Chiropractic Act, the BCA set in motion its own process which in the event of a guilty verdict would be prejudicial to any future hearings the GCC might wish to hold as a result of the outcome. I believe this is called double jepordy.I left the BCA because the would not incorporate Human rights law into their M&As. Becaue I had to deal with numerous complaints over the years, all made by David Byfield the head of The Welsh Institute of Chiropractic,and GCC member, who prefered to use the BCA process, rather than the GCC due process which is a little more transparent.
Complaint number 1) He made to the BCA on December 19 2000. It was dismissed. Complaint number 2) He made to the GCC on April 3 2001. It was dismissed. Complaint number 3) He made to the BCA on February 5 2001 ( I had asked Sue King to have a word in David’s ear. I was admonished by the disciplinary officer for breeching the confidentiality of David’s “Witch Hunt”, the only time I have ever been found guilty of anything. Complaint number 4) He appealed decision of the BCA to dismiss the complaint on February 16 2001. It was dismissed again. Complaint number 5) He made to the BCA April 15 2003. It was dismissed. Complaint number 6) He appealed the decision of the BCA 2nd December and was aided and abetted this time by Sue Wakfield who supplied him with a supporting statement and an e-mail which she knew was misleading and incorrect (fortunately I had not deleted my e-mails).
At the time of the hearing, I had no idea that this e-mail was presented as evidence to the disciplinary committee and had no opportunity to rebut it. Even then the disciplinary committee dismissed David’s complaint again, nevertheless in the spirit of Robert the Bruce, Byfield appealed the decision again knowing full well it would go before his friends and wife who was on the BCA council.
David Byfield believed that I disparaged him and brought the profession into disrepute, by presenting information to members of the chiropractic profession that I believe they should be aware of. It started when he responded to my question from the floor at the BCA conference in Harogate in 2000 David said there “was no difference” in the service he provided from a physiotherapist that provides spinal manipulation. To compound the disparagment I had written an article in the BCA magazine Contact after David, Sue King, and Pete McCarthy penned a piece attacking another BCA chiropractor Julian Keel for a letter he had to written to Contact (They may have called him bogus).
In his very first complaint in 2000 David stated that in his afidavid that because I had quoted him at a conference at Surrey University he “found it reprehensible that a member of the BCA has to resort to such execrable tactics in an open public forum in order to make his point instead of debating the known evidence to support his beliefs and incorporating appropriate unbiased referencing protocols” .
As luck would have it, in 2002 I was given precisely that opportunity as an expert witness in a case which was before the GCCs Professional Conduct Committee, where the evidence against the chiropractor was a report by David Byfield suggesting a BCA colleague was making bogus claims about chiropractic. Only David knows whether the “mistakes” in his report were to deliberately mislead or a lack of competence on his part. The GCC gave him the opportunity to do another report which was less scathing about subluxation chiropractic, then the GCC decided not to base their charges against Jesper Jensen on Davids biased report.
The decision to dismiss David’s complaint against me had its final appeal, before his friends on the BCA executive in 2004. Sue Wakfield BCA chief executive wrote informing me of the members of the appeal committee and asked if I had any objections as she could choose another member from council, I was tempted to ask for Council member Annabell Kier (a very pleasant lady) who just happens to be David Byfield’s partner. I told Sue Wakefield that she could chose who ever she liked but warned them that if I was not happy with the decision I would seek a judicial review at the high court, for breach of the Human Rights Act. Davids appeal was turned down by BCA Council”.