Our thanks to John for this. The end of the piece:

It [J4MB: The panel’s report] added: “The panel found that Mrs Clark had demonstrated a fair and objective understanding of the nature and gravity of her misconduct and had demonstrated steps that she had taken, including additional safeguarding training, to avoid the risk of a repetition of such conduct in the future.”

Decision maker, David Oatley, said: “I have agreed with the panel that there are extensive mitigating factors present in this case [J4MB emphasis: extensive mitigating factors for visiting a spa while being paid to work from home?!!!] and that there is a strong public interest in retaining Mrs Clark in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest.”

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.

Our YouTube channel is here.