Following a trial at Newcastle Crown Court in April 2014, Mr Thompson - who according to the Guardian had at one point been tipped for the job of Chief Veterinary Officer - was convicted of the manslaughter of David Kochs at Mr Thompson’s flat during a crystal-meth-fuelled 'extreme' sadomasochistic gay sex session. He was also convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm (also on Mr Kochs) and possession of methylamphetamine, a Class A controlled drug, both offences occurring on the same night. Mr Thompson was subsequently sentenced to a total of fifteen years’ imprisonment.
Whilst the RCVS opened a case against Mr Thompson in February 2014, it only received confirmation from the Supreme Court of the final conclusion of his subsequent (and ultimately unsuccessful) appeals against his conviction and sentencing in October 2015. The Disciplinary Committee therefore served a Notice of Inquiry on Mr Thompson in November 2015.
Mr Thompson admitted the convictions but did not attend the hearing, due to his current imprisonment, nor was he represented at it; he also declined the opportunity to attend by video link. After due consideration, the Committee decided that the Notice of Inquiry had been properly served and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in Mr Thompson’s absence.
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Thompson had been convicted of the three offences listed in the charges and concluded that he was not fit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Speaking on behalf of the Committee, its chairman Professor Alistair Barr said: “[We are] satisfied that the type and nature of [Mr Thompson’s] criminal conduct falls seriously below the standard expected of a member of the profession. [We have] noted that Mr Thompson recognises the disrepute his actions have brought on the profession ... and consider that [his] conduct is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
“In the circumstances, [we have] concluded that, in the public interest, there is only one proportionate sanction that could be imposed, namely the removal of Mr Thompson’s name from the Register.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Dear @Mathew
Mathew Hennessey George Cooper Ben Harris gareth
I would like to be absolutely clear about a few points:
NO, the word gay was not included in the headline for sensationalism. I know, I wrote it. It was included in the headline because it is the job of the headline to summarise the story, and the fact that the manslaughter took place not just during a sex session between two men, but as a result of it, means that it was legitimately part of a summarising headline.
I agree that the litmus test of whether it is legitimate to refer to sexuality in a headline is whether or not it is relevant to the story. I am quite clear in my own mind that given the manslaughter was a direct consequence of the sexual behaviour, it was relevant.
If that had not been the case and it had just been a story about a gay man killing someone, then sexuality WOULD NOT have been relevant.
This is why the headline does not run counter to the IPSO Code of Practice (in addition to which the headline does not refer to the individual's sexuality, just to the type of sex involved. For all I know, the man could have been bisexual or heterosexual).
You keep saying that by using the word gay within the context of a headline that includes illegal activities, it suggests that being gay is a crime. I think this argument is patently absurd. The headline also links being a veterinary surgeon with crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex and manslaughter, but you wouldn't suggest that being a vet is a crime.
You say that the headline links a group of people to crime and illegal activities. On this point, I agree with you. However, that is not a reason for censorship, or would you argue that you could never use the word 'priest' in a headline about paedophilia, or 'banker' in headline about fraud? That would be a very dangerous path to take, as history has shown us.
For all these reasons, whilst being broadly sympathetic to your 'cause' I profoundly disagree with you, and I am very uncomfortable with the idea that news (whether it be the headline or the story) should be censored such that it only presents any particular group of people in a positive light.
Last night I ran a poll to see what members thought. Whilst it still seems to be the majority view that the headline was fair, the result is closer than I thought it would be. Clearly a significant percentage think the headline should be edited, and honestly, I don't think I feel THAT strongly to stick to my guns (I mean, changing the headline is not going to change the world). So I'll go and edit it, but not without having my deep sense of unease about doing so on record.