Report comment

Looking at the comments below, I think the sympathy for this man stems from the severity of the punishment, the view being that strike-off is disproportionate to the transgressions. I am of that view. I am also of the view that he should have been punished for what he did, and I don't think anyone would say otherwise.

The SDT should have taken into account that no clients were harmed or at risk, that the effect on the profession's reputation was limited, that he self-reported etc.

Restrictions/conditions on his PC to ensure he can be rehabilitated and can't take any dishonesty into work with him. I wouldn't argue against a fine either, to show him how stupid he was to do this to try and save a few pounds. That would protect the profession and of course the public.

The question now must be how little dishonesty does there have to be to avoid strike-off?