The Chiropractic associations are working on their strategy for pointing out to the General Chiropractic Council that they are failing in their statutory duty to protect the public and set standards for the chiropractic profession. It is important the associations understand this, as they can not moan about the GCC giving registrants a hard time. Regulatory reform was designed to do just that post Shipman. Not that any of these reforms would have stopped Shipman.
The strategy should be about building up a portfolio of evidence that MPs and journalists would look at and start asking questions, thats what I focused my statement on when I was kicked off the council. Now there is no doubt that convincing MPs that the GCC was not fit for purpose would trigger a Privy Council inquiry which would get rid of Coats and Dixon, however this strategy could also draw the conclusion that the Chiropractic was unable to regulate itself which was a major concern of the Department of Health in 1994 when they were preparing the Chiropractic Act. By any standard the chiropractic profession has failed the DOH’s test.
BCA people on the GCC have pointed these risks out to Richard Brown and I am not sure he knows what to do next. He is between a rock and a hard place, concerned whether to push ahead and risk bringing down the GCC and self regulation, not forgetting the BCA itself which may haemorrhage members if he does not play his cards right. I would say Browns first duty is to the chiropractors he represents and to make sure they get the best advice available to defend themselves from these vexatious cases. If that brings down the GCC so be it.
Its ridiculous for GCC members to lobby for the profession to go easy on them when the solution is there for all council members to see. Coats must go, Peter Dixon recognised that in 2007 and over the next few days I will try and shine a light on the game Dixon will play with the profession behind the scene in an effort to save his own skin and his chances of an OBE. Dixon knows Coats has to go and if he does care about the profession as he has claimed for years he will go and take Coats with him and allow others to sort out this mess they have created. Over the next few days I will shine a light on Dixons ability to say what you want him to hear and convince you he is on your side.
The e-mail bellow was the beginning of the end for me on council, In September I had removed my criticism of Coats off the internet as requested by council. In November they wanted me to apologise for the postings, which I did, By December they wanted the apology in neon lights so Coats could show the profession she had me by the short and curly’s like everyone else.
I had gone along with Dixon as no doubt did Tony Metcalfe at the BCA “SGM” meeting in 2007 in the belief Coats was on her way. Graham Heale trusted Dixon to do that by the end of 2008 and I had to go first to avoid a constructive dismissal case being brought against the GCC which they could not afford. In December 2007 I realised Dixon was full of shit and that he was so incompetent that he needed Margaret Coats at his side to do the graft for him. The correspondence leading up the e-mail of December 9th shows how Dixon operates and I will publish it all over the coming days so the associations know what to expect in the coming weeks.
On 9 Dec 2007, at 19:45, Richard Lanigan wrote:
Take all the time you want. ( To decide what to do about my refusal to put apology in neon lights to Coats)
The fact is, it is out of control because Margaret has been out of anyone’s control since day one. Thats why we are still talking about my postings three months after they were taken down as opposed to the real issues which Margaret has been prevaricating over, the role of the office in relation to complaints.
I have no idea how this will all pan out for me, but I would have thought Margarets days as GCC chief executive are numbered either way, don’t let her drag you down with her.
Peters immediate response was:
Thank you Richard,
I can assure you that I am well aware of the reality!
Unfortunately Peter Dixon did loose sight of the reality, as he did when he was President of the ECU. Anyone thinking of giving him the benefit of the doubt should ask Eli Magnuson she compiled a report on Dixons four years as president of the ECU.