Report comment

@Job Five. Your final comment contradicts your argument. By saying he should be given the chance to be re-admitted, you are implicitly acknowledging that there is indeed a sliding scale. You are acknowledging that his crime was not as bad as someone who should be banned for life. It's the same reason why people who embezzle millions get tougher sentences than those who nick a chocolate bar. Because there is a sliding scale.

Few on here are actually disputing it was an act of dishonesty - the debate is simply the appropriate level of sanction.