Welcome to NWC - Our site is under maintenance.

Further to the article in the MEN, you will note there is NOT a single client complaint or comment, in the absence of a complaint, what is this article really about?

If true, why wasn't the matter referred to the police? If true, where are the complainants? The article is NOT true, it is LIES & A SMEAR CAMPAIGN

Smear Campaign
It is clear various parties in the article have 'conspired' to remove a competitor from the marketplace, after our interest in a local council contract for drug and alcohol services which is operated by Lifeline. Our successful detox treatments are a direct threat to the 'useless' support services offer by various charities who have never detoxed a single patient as their services are based around retaining addicts on drugs (in treatment) and not helping them to get clean and/or stop using drugs. We welcome a full investigation into this fact.

As stated by Dr Dalrymple 'The bureaucracy of drug addiction needs drug addicts far more than drug addicts need the bureaucracy of drug addiction'.

A leading British doctor and author of 'Doctors, Lies & Addiction Bureaucracy', Dr. Dalrymple argues that his profession has totally misunderstood addiction & continues to perpetuate the myth to protect its own existence. As a result, 'a self-serving, self-perpetuating and completely useless medical bureaucracy has built up to deal with the problem' including useless charities who maintain addicts in treatment to safeguard their own existance.

Our successful drug and alcohol detox treatments are a direct threat to these useless charities hence the 'smear campaign'.

We have raised our complaint with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) however it is on 'temporary hold' in light of the Leveson report and the PCC not being 'fit for purpose' as it run by the press. Lord Justice Leveson was very critical of the press and their 'ethics and culture' or rather their 'lack of ethics', the MEN article being a typical example of 'junk journalism'. Parent company Trinity Mirror have also been implicated in the phone hacking scandal with the arrest of 4 senior journalists, one of which sat on the PCC ethics committee!

The MEN have offered no evidence to substantiate their claims and allegations as they are 'untrue' yet refuse to remove the article which is in clear direct breach of the editors code:

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

We provided a full explanation to the MEN in response to their initial questions but they ignored our reply and printed 'lies and half truths' to sensationalise their article and destroy a business without any justification. The headline alone is a blatant lie, at no time have we ever claimed to 'cure addicts'.

Successful Franchise
In relation to the Drivertime issue, it is IMPOSSIBLE to miss-sell a franchise due to the 3 month due diligence process designed to uncover any misrepresentations. All franchisees took references and went to visit existing Drivertime offices which they were encouraged to do as part of their due diligence. The Drivertime franchise was a successful business with franchisees trading up to £600,000 in the first year with profits in excess of £28,000 and over £1m turnover in year two however ALL the financial accounts and other financial data were excluded from evidence in the hearing so the Drivertime ruling was 'fatally flawed'.

The Unfair Hearing
The court hearing was a farce. It had no jury, a trainee judge and we represented ourselves in the High Court in London. The hearing was progressing very well until the other side made an application on day three to exclude ALL financial data (weekly sales list, weekly turnover figures, client data and financial accounts) from the evidence. We objected to this application as without the financial data it would be impossible to prove the viability of the franchise but the judge granted the application.

At this point we knew the hearing was 'compromised and had a predetermined outcome' as the financial data was the only way to establish the credibility and the viability of the franchise business or ANY other business.

No one can explain why the Judge excluded this crucial data if the hearing was fair? The only conclusion is the hearing was 'bias and unfair' due to this action. At this point we lost all confidence in the hearing as it was clear the judge was not impartial and his subsequent ruling bared no reality to the franchise business which was very successful as accounts he excluded showed.

For example: Drivertime Norwich claimed in court in his oral evidence he had not made any money from his Drivertime franchise but his accounts showed he had a turnover of £565,000.00 in sales and made £28,000.00 profit in his first year of trading, he also bought another franchise area of Ipswich in his second year of trading. Despite having his accounts in front of me showing £565,000.00 in sales and a £28,000.00 profit I was unable to challenge his oral evidence as the court had excluded ALL financial information from the hearing. The franchisee's lied and the hearing had no credibility.

The evidence also shows the Drivertime Norwich never achieved a sales turnover or profit higher than when he was a Drivertime franchise after he had transferred the franchise business into his own trading name to avoid the franchisee management fees.

2003 - Franchisee £565,303
2004 £475,518
2005 £439,885
2006 £476,403
2007 £404,831
Total Turnover £2,361,940.00

This is also true for the other 'hostile ex-franchisees' involved in the hearing that had left to trade independently to avoid the management fees, that without our support their business went into decline despite the overall economy being in a period of sustained growth, this is not a failed franchise.

The MEN omitted these 'facts' and published the flawed ruling anyway which in itself is a breach of the editor's code: 'the Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information'.

New Press Regulator
We await the formation of the new press regulator which 'could be delayed due to compensation concerns' and note the comments 'The launch of a new press regulation body could be delayed due to fears that a new arbitration unit, recommended in the Leveson report, would spawn a new industry of "ambulance-chasing" lawyers seeking big money compensation from newspapers for breaches of the industry's code of ethics' (similar to the banks & PPI miss-selling) this illustrates the sheer volume of complainants due to the blatant disregard for the Code of Ethics shown by the press and the 'LIES' they publish.

Malicious & Unfounded
The 'malicious' MEN article is a 'smear campaign' and nothing more, they have provided no evidence to support their claims and allegations and had no complaints yet still refuse to remove the 'untrue and offending' article providing clear evidence of 'actual malice'.

We welcome a 'full investigation' into this article as various parties have serious questions to answer regarding their conduct and comments.

If you would like help then please contact us on the form bellow and we will contact you shortly.


/.

Full Name *



Telephone / Mobile no *

E-Mail Address *

Treatment For?



Comments*

Thank you