Having read on David Colquhoun’s blog that the GCC wanted to “waive the rules” regarding complaints, I noted a suggestion that those not in favour of the GCC doing so contact the Privy Council. I did so, concentrating on my opinion of the GCC’s ability to provide accurate and meaningful definitions. Since then, I have received an email – and noticed a relevant post by a chiropractic blogger.
Richard Lanigan* has claimed on his blog (on 19th June) that “Yesterday The GCC chief executive Margaret Coats saw her salvation in hurrying up the section 60 amendment which would have allowed the Investigating Committee to weed out vexations cases against chiropractors. The furious response of the sceptics** to this decision has made Coats reconsider and she has decided to push ahead with all the 500 complaints”. It seems that the GCC are now attempting to change the registration rule “that states that chiropractors who are subject to investigation or any proceedings before the Professional Conduct Committee are not required to pay £1,000 for annual retention of registration”. [Quote is from Lanigan’s blog.] I assume that the GCC are still going ahead with the section 60 amendment, though. Otherwise I wouldn’t have had this (very brief) email from the Privy Council:
I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email which is receiving attention.
I would have thought that if the section 60 amendment had been abandoned, the Privy Council would have simply told me. I will provide updates as and when I receive them. If the section 60 amendment has been abandoned by the GCC, though, then it has been rather a fast u-turn.
*Richard Lanigan is a blogger I normally disagree with, but some of his posts have provided some interesting insights into the workings of the GCC.
**I’m guessing that these unnamed sceptics are probably Zeno and David Colquhoun.