Report comment

Mr Field and Mr Green from thier different positions also set out the problem. An over ambitious burocracy - maybe to be charitable - on the one hand set against inefficiency - at its lowest - or getting on with the real jobs in hand for one's present clients - at its highest - on the other. And what to do about the problem when it arises.

It's obvious that untruths are unacceptable. And the longer that they're relied on, the more so. As here.

That is the problem with this case. My heart tells me that the decision was too harsh. But I didn't have to make it. With my fairly hard head, it would have been a close call, but I still think a significant suspension would have been enough. Especially, if I'd had evidence to support Mr Field's evidence. Mr Green does not say why he didn't appeal.