Report comment

Anon @ 15.57 - except the "published standards" are nothing more than an expression of largely subjective criteria.

The Gazette reports the charges related to "lack of integrity and failed to uphold the confidence the public places in the profession" and so at least for the latter charge they inherently relate back to public opinion.

As far as more specific standards, from previous Gazette reports my understanding is that the charges accepted by the SDT relates to messages from July 2015 to December 2016. That predates the SRA's warning notice on offensive communications published in August 2017.

The warning notice does (now) make it clear that replies on social media outside of work can lead to regulation. It also does (now) include examples of behaviour which they have investigated and referred to the SDT, and that list includes "using language intended to shock or threaten". That's the only example that appears relevant to me.

The only comment from Mr Lewis the Gazette has printed was "Happy to celebrate your death too. I have not got time for your hideous evil."

My assumption is that Mr Lewis was replying to someone who had wished for his death, presumably in graphic terms. Of course the SRA accepted at the hearing that they had not investigated the context and obtained (any/all?) of the messages Mr Lewis was replying to.

However, on the basis of the 1 reply quoted so far, was it a lack of integrity or failing to uphold the public confidence? I just can't see how it was, and if anything I suspect that reply was a model of restraint.