Complaint now submitted to the ICO.

Apropos nothing in particular, OfQuack have the website cnhc.org.uk, but cnhc.co.uk is a AltMed place, Charlestown Natural Health Centre, in Cornwall, providing all sorts of woo to the unsuspecting public. Needless to say, they make no mention of OfQuack on their website.

You have to wonder how much research OfQuack did when they chose their name. About as much as their quacks have done into the efficacy of their woo, I'd guess.

Good old Andy at the Quackometer has been focussing on OfQuack's openness again (or rather their lack thereof).

This time, they are complaining of 'hackers' and attempts to disable their website, but it looks like they have a completely inadequate IT policy (which sort of matches their inability to write a decent privacy policy that they can adhere to). This is on top of their Data Protection incompetence by possibly storing personal data of UK citizens abroad, without permission, without adequate controls in place and in contravention of their Data Protection Register entry. They have also removed the minutes of their November meeting, in contravention of their policy: "in order to meet our commitment to transparency, CNHC will make the minutes of its Board Meetings available". It remains to be seen if they publish the minutes of future meetings.

Yet more, however. It looks like OfQuack don't really want anyone to find anything on their website.

The reason you're unlikely to find anything from the OfQuack website coming up in a Google search is that they have deliberately prevented all search engines from accessing and searching their website! Limiting where search engines have access to is done using a robots.txt file, which all reputable search engines obey. OfQuack's robots.txt file says:This tells ALL search engines not to search ANY of the pages on OfQuack's website, so no search engine will search any of their pages and no one will be able to search for anything on their pages.

It looks like OfQuack really want to do everything they can to prevent the patients customers of their therapists quacks from ever finding out about their code of conduct (unless they already know of the OfQuack website). Well, you wouldn't want people searching for information on how to complain about a quack and finding OfQuack's website, now would you? They'd have to actually do something then!

Acknowledgement received, saying they are now investigating. Not exactly a speedy process, but who's in a hurry? Oh, OfQuack are, aren't they — trying to get a less embarrassing number of quacks registered ASAP!

Nice one, Alan. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

It looks like the minutes may not be the only thing redacted on the CNHC site. Or is it just me?

Does anyone else see blank article text for these news items?

"Register opens to Aromatherapy" http://www.ofquack.org.uk/pages/newsManager.cfm?page_id=2&news_id=10
"Website Hackers" http://www.ofquack.org.uk/pages/newsManager.cfm?page_id=2&news_id=9

Probably just a glitch, but just in case, I thought I would record it here.

I noticed the first one — looks like their software is crap, just like...oh, why bother!

Yup, it's like shooting fish in a barrel most days. I notice that they are about to allow aromatherapists to register. It will be interesting to see how many take up the challenge. And if they don't, we can kick up a stink. (Sorry, couldn't resist - they get right up my nose.)

Don't worry — I'm watching and counting them! Loved the tweet about the scented cheques, but it'll take more than that to make them smell of roses!

OfQuack open their useless register to the sweet smelling aromatherapists today:

The Press Association: New regulator for aromatherapists

OfQuack have made some changes to their servers!

Well, they've moved completely to their USA-based one, ditching their UK servers.

Remember I said one of their three main website servers was in the USA and owned by a Mexican holiday home rental company? Their DNS record now shows 208.112.52.60 as their only server. Unfortunately, they are still using the one assigned to mitaresidential.com.

Their Register site is still on a webhost, unapproved for the storing of personal data of UK citizens.

Who can we complain to about this? Or does it have to be our data before we can complain?

I've complained to the Information Commissioner, but not had a response yet (other than an automated one). I'll chase them up. I have no idea if they only accept complaints from someone affected, but that doesn't stop anyone bringing it to their attention.

The latest shenanigans with the Department of Health Freedom of Information requests (made by Andy at The Quackometer) about Charles Windsor's Foundation for Integrated Health and OfQuack:

Progress Reports for the CNHC - WhatDoTheyKnow

I thought I would get in on the act too...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a ... on_rates_f

EDIT: Have you seen the Board Report? I'm not sure of the actual publication date, but the metadata on the document say it was generated on 27 May (i.e. yesterday), so it's brand new. This can be found at http://www.cnhc.org.uk/pages/index.cfm?page_id=113, although it does not appear in the news feed on the front page, and is remarkably light on detail.

In fact, so light that I have sent them an email requesting more information.

EDIT2: Nothing particularly embarrassing in the raw data for the .doc file; people seem to have got wise to turning "track changes" off. Except that, if I'm reading this correctly, there is the slightly amusing revelation that the file from which the logo was included appears to have been called "kitemark_final". I guess the BSI aren't going to go poking about in document metadata, so they're probably OK.

Hey! Well done for finding the minutes!

The file dates come out as the time I downloaded it: is that the same for you? However, the meta data gives 19 May 2009 13:11:00 as the last print date - only a few days after the meeting (held on 14 May).

But they say nothing (not surprisingly).

Other than the interesting note about the fact they have made changes to their 2009/2010 business plan — I wonder what they were.

Did we already know that all those positions were part time, or have they had to cut back? I'll ask Andy.

(Yep, the Kitemark® reference, is not worth complaining about.)

Latest totals:

276 massage therapy
38 nutritional therapists
6 aromatherapists

314 total

The 6 aromatherapists are all already listed as massage therapists, so they don't add to the total.

So, in the 23 days since they started taking on aromatherapists, all they have to show are six — and they aren't even new people!

Just FYI, I am now in direct contact with CNHC. So far it's only for them to ask for clarification on one aspect of the questions in my email, but it's a start. Watch this space.

There's been a recent surge in OfQuack registrations!

300 massage therapy
38 nutritional therapists
9 aromatherapists

340 total

There are 7 aromatherapists who also massage therapists, but the breaking news is that there are now a grand total of two aromatherapists who are only aromatherapists!

At the current aggregated rate, they will have 536 quacks registered by the end of the year.

I can't quite recall what their target was. Could you perhaps remind me?