Kath's comments
[i:fa08fb5847]"But he has never called himself 'Dr. Christopher Hansard' and pretended to have trained as a conventional medical doctor, has he?"[/i:fa08fb5847]
That being so [i:fa08fb5847]why,[/i:fa08fb5847] in his email to me, did Paul Nelson (Canada) refer to Hansard as Doctor.
Also please explain [i:fa08fb5847]why[/i:fa08fb5847] on the following link Hansard is described as a Doctor?
[
www.nutrition-healthco.com]
Clearly the impression has been given that the [i:fa08fb5847]Master of Dur Con [/i:fa08fb5847]is a qualified Doctor, now I wonder [i:fa08fb5847]who [/i:fa08fb5847]could have claimed he was?
May I suggest contacting the General Medical Council about this
gmc@gmc-uk.org mention in particular that website.
Or demand that the Website Administrator, John Trueman, remove this reference to Hansard. (hard copies of the offending webpage have already been saved)
john.trueman@virgin.netI have raised this with the GMC, and discussions are underway, but efforts would be greatly assisted by additional emails of concern.
As to those who counsel abandoning a case based upon the reported abuses, in favour of debunking his 'story', I am reminded of a passage from Milton's Paradise Lost
[i:fa08fb5847]"Thus Belial, with words clothed in reason's garb,
Counseled ignoble ease, and peaceful sloth, Not peace." [/i:fa08fb5847]
I am puzzled by the timorous advice of some contributors, who it would seem are prepared to forgive the reported abuses, trauma and humilation seemingly inflicted by Hansard. Of course all who visit this forum could sympathise and understand the sense of intimidation, apprehension and caution, those who claim they were abused by Hansard may feel. We can see that to openly challenge such violations would naturally require a step of tremendous emotional courage and determination. Apart from a few notable exceptions, it seems however that such understandable contemplations, have generated a deflection and dilution of the response to Hansard's apparent abuses, year-upon-year.
This is refected by the incredibly regrettable fact that a decade of seeming abuse went by unchallenged, this, we are asked to believe, was due to the fact that apprentices and colleagues of Hansards were aware of maltreatment. This remarkable claim is the sole raison d'etre for no action being taken to protect clients.
Now that some courageous individuals have come forward, and documented very disturbing experiences, can we explain inaction on ignorance, or reasonably justify yet more vacillation and procrastination, however well intentioned?
In essence there apear to be two options
Confine matters to this forum, which though of tremendous value and importance, requires no active or public commitment, and cannot achieve any just and legal address? (One imagines the preferred choice for Hansard and his band of acolytes?)
or
Build upon the actions which have already been suggested (contacting the police/local authorities/insurers) by working together to form a determined and effective public campaign. The object of which is to obtain justice for those who claim they were violated by Christopher Hansard
It can be done, and many of us would surely agree that this individual should be stopped, in an effective and decisive manner.