Mariah - I agree with you that Christopher's behaviour is abusive and, if he were a member of a professional body, he would surely be in breach of his ethical code - for abuse of power, dual relationships...

Do other complimentary practitioners know - if he was not a voluntary member of a professional body (which I am assuming he was not), is there any other monitoring authority who would be responsible for monitoring such behaviour? Could we apply to them?

If not, then presumably going to the police is our only action. But what law has christopher broken? Certainly his behaviour is unethical, inappropriate and an abuse of power, but is that illegal? is running a cult illegal?

What counts as sexual abuse from a legal perspective? if you don't explicitly say 'no' but are coersed as part of a belief system... does that count?

I believe this should tell you most of what you need to know:

sho[www.rightsofwomen.org.uk]

I noticed that link might not work. But if you go here you should beable to find the pdf: rightsofwomen.org.uk

Hi Lily - and my earlier posting was meant to be addressed to you, not Rosemary - my apologies.

Those are excellent questions and a barrister can serve you best in answering them. My suggestion is that you all go, en masse, to a single appoinment. That way, you could split the cost so it wouldn't be prohibitive. You would find out where you stand legally and have greater clarity.

From a lawyer in Canada who has acted in class action suits, I learned yesterday that sexual abuse are not typically tried in this fashion; the instances are too individual. However, where you were all exposed to the same type of coercion/brainwashing/"charismatic persuasion" and approach - this may change things. Some cases set precedents.

Christopher had many wealthy clients. Maybe some would be willing to pool resources to help you get justice.

Someone may be willing to start a fund for you.

Dear Lily,

please go back and check the bottom of page 29 where I wrote how a medical board CAN and WILL sue someone who misleads the public by pretending to be a doctor. It may be true of other boards too like an acupuncture board, if they have legislation that gives them self-policing abilities. Their efforts are not only directed to their own members but to pretenders as well.


I think a class action or joined effort would be massively tricky and it would all link up anyway since all the info is taken by the same man and goes in the same file. I may be wrong, but wouldn't each case have to be looked at separately anyway? Is there any possible advantage to launching a big co-ordinated attempt? I'm afraid that would slow everyone down and possibly scare a few away.

There are two apprentices here who were sadly and badly abused. I sure hope they have talked to Inspector Watling. It will take bravery and a good dose of anger. We wish you well and hope others come forward as well.

Anyone have any idea who the new financial backer is? Can the ownership be looked up in the Joints Stocks and registry? In Cda, this is public record. Londoners, put your sleuthing shoes on!! If the owner is anyone other than Christopher Hansard, maybe a letter to them to view this message board would be....interesting. Londoners, hit the streets, We're too far away to really contribute!!

A class action, in my understanding, is a way to bring a single suit to trial where there are a number of individuals with the same complaint;
where it would be finanicially impossible for the individuals concerned to take on the cost of a separate legal action.

Keep in mind that this is a very general explanation and I would need to clarify this with a lawyer.

If you ever saw the movies, Erin Brockovitch, or Silkwood, these concerned class actions with very brave women.

Quote
HDM
Dear Lily,

please go back and check the bottom of page 29 where I wrote how a medical board CAN and WILL sue someone who misleads the public by pretending to be a doctor.

But he has never called himself 'Dr. Christopher Hansard' and pretended to have trained as a conventional medical doctor, has he? That is the only instance where it would be a crime, impersonating a conventionally trained medical doctor.

Dr.Gillian McKeith for instance. she got told by the Advertising Standards Agency to stop using her title (obtained for a doctorate in nutrition from an unaccredited college) in some circumstances, as it may mislead the public. But she wasn't done for 'impersonating a doctor' which is quite a serious thing, and the medical board would not have got involved. (Though some may have cheered from the sidelines.) :)

Quote
Lily
Mariah - I agree with you that Christopher's behaviour is abusive and, if he were a member of a professional body, he would surely be in breach of his ethical code - for abuse of power, dual relationships...

Do other complimentary practitioners know - if he was not a voluntary member of a professional body (which I am assuming he was not), is there any other monitoring authority who would be responsible for monitoring such behaviour? Could we apply to them?

No but you could try the Advertising Standards Authority [www.asa.org.uk] another thing you could try is television programmes such as 'Watchdog', ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/consumer/tv_and_radio/watchdog/contact_index.shtml they would probably find the story interesting.

A quite convincing case could be made that his story is made up, especially if those who knew him in Australia etc are prepared to back it up.

This would be less traumatic and easier to do than a legal charge of abuse, I mean you could do that too but this would be an easier thing to try, also it would help get the word out about what he is like.

HDM

It is my understanding that the original backer, having been destroyed by Hansards spending all of the clinic profits went back to Europe.

At the moment Hansard has no 'official' backer, so any actions taken would hit him badly.

James

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.net

I 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.