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 Ben Harris
If afraid that if I were to apply your logic that the use of the word 'gay' in this headline implies that his sexuality was an offence, then I would have to apply the same logic to the use of the word 'sex', because readers would otherwise infer that sex is an offence.
You disagree that readers would presume the word 'sex' refers to heterosexual sex unless prefaced by the word 'gay'. But the fact is that according to Govt/Stonewall statistics, gay sex is considerably less prevalent in the population than heterosexual sex. 6% vs 94%, so logically, when discussing the subject of sex, most people would start with an assumption that we are talking about the 94%, not the 6%, surely.
I am profoundly against discrimination and bigotry in all its guises. However, whilst sympathetic to one part of Mathew's comment, I am genuinely troubled by the idea that news headlines should be censored in the way you suggest.
I also support Matt and Ben's comments. Absolutely no need for the word 'gay'. You say that you reserve the right to cause offence....fair enough. But why would you wish to cause offence in an online magazine such as this that is supposed to provide "The online community for veterinary surgeons"?
gareth I didn't say I wanted to cause offence; I was just making a more general point that in this day and age, society in general is quick to play the 'offence' card, as though it is something that we should all be spared; that it is in and of itself a reason to suppress discussion or facts.
I have speak up in support of Arlo and his decision both to use the word gay in his headline and also to refrain from bowing to unilateral insistence to delete it.
Sadly I think that the (over) reaction has the whiff of self-service about it, and instead of a simple shrug of the shoulders and an "oh well" before getting on with other aspects of life, this fairly strongly worded campaign will probably do your organisation a greater disservice than any of his headlines ever could.
The headline is merely reporting fact.
I feel that the word 'gay' in the headline could have been omitted, the title is long enough without it to be honest. However I don't see why it should be removed. I agree with Arlo and George that is merely reporting a fact, I don't see it as a discriminating fact, but as a descriptive one.
Those who know me know that I'm a very inclusive person, here's my reasoning:
If we decided to remove the word 'gay', then why not removing 'sadomasochistic' too? Consenting bodily harm is illegal in the UK, but permitted in other parts of the first world. If Arlo was to remove the word 'gay' because of the offence caused, he'd have no choice but to remove the SM word too, otherwise he would be discriminating against law abiding people who practice it outside the UK. Only my opinion, happy to be corrected.
Stuart Munro Mathew Hennessey Ben Harris gareth George Cooper Bob Russell Francisco Gomez I've made my case. But I am not so self-assured as to deny the possibility that I might be wrong, and Gareth, your post hit a nerve in a slightly tangential way. So I've put it to the vote here: www.vetsurgeon.org/.../23839.aspx. I shall go with the majority decision.
I don't feel that this matter is something that should be just 'shrugged off' as unfortunately episodes of passive (and sometimes active) homophobia occur too commonly and can have a profound effect on the LGBT+ community. Unless these episodes are challenged it will not be possible for all individuals in our professions to have equality, something which is at the core of the BVLGBT+.
I stand by my view (and that of many of our members) that the use of the word gay in the title has been used only for sensationalism as the sexuality of the person in question is clear from reading the article. Being gay is not a crime, having gay sex is not a crime, and the use of the word in the context is damaging to the LGBT+ community as it links a group of people to a crime and illegal activities.
The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) is the independent regulator that promotes and supports the highest standards of journalism in the UK. IPSO’s Editors’ Code of Practice sets out the standards that the media industry agrees it should adhere to. The Editors’ Code of Practice states that “Details of an individual's race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability must be avoided unless genuinely relevant to the story.” In this case the inclusion of the word ‘gay’ in the headline is not genuinely relevant to the story. The case has been reported by the BBC and elsewhere without the word being used in the reporting and with the relevant facts being clear.
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.
Hi Arlo. Many thanks for your post and editing the title. Please could you also do the same on vetnurse.co.uk? Thank you.
Victoria Nielsen I've done so!