Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Julie Turner — Wed, 02 Mar 2016 01:43:04 GMT

A person killed someone else allegedly under the influence of an unspecified substance in some way or another. There you are: a statement not mentioning gender, sexuality, profession, pr anything else which might upset anyone.

I feel very sorry for those affected by this heinous crime, especially friends and family of the victim

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

salome2001 — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 21:49:37 GMT

“[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."

Exceptional understatement.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Gerry Henry — Tue, 01 Mar 2016 17:22:13 GMT

How do you pronounce Kochs, its not what I think it is ... is it ?

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:34:59 GMT

[mention:9cd468c92aaf433da936893dc25c8152:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] I've done so!

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Victoria Nielsen — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 09:17:01 GMT

Hi Arlo. Many thanks for your post and editing the title. Please could you also do the same on vetnurse.co.uk? Thank you.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 05 Feb 2016 08:54:24 GMT

Dear @Mathew

[mention:d3489b0c7b1d4066bca03bda86bd1ef8:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:237f84b3f4174d8da70274f5cf048f72:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:0d95bdcd3d92410da5e19f306e021838:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:43f6a290f3e14f619c7d0878ed9b8378:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05]

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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Mathew Hennessey — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 21:31:15 GMT

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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 16:58:09 GMT

[mention:e328764a008a4c4c83ad5425b217a832:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:d3489b0c7b1d4066bca03bda86bd1ef8:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:0d95bdcd3d92410da5e19f306e021838:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:43f6a290f3e14f619c7d0878ed9b8378:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:237f84b3f4174d8da70274f5cf048f72:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:62be6336c1bb484eb81236262d2ac5a6:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] [mention:1ea52c326e77493f9148fbb75c9cb2e8:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] 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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 14:33:48 GMT

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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

George Cooper — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:56:25 GMT

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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:46:44 GMT

[mention:43f6a290f3e14f619c7d0878ed9b8378:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] 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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

gareth — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 13:33:29 GMT

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"?

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:35:23 GMT

Dear [mention:0d95bdcd3d92410da5e19f306e021838:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05]

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.

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Ben Harris — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 11:58:29 GMT

Dear Arlo,

I must write in support of Mat's comments. The headline lists Kirk Thompson's offences and the inclusion of the word 'gay' implies that his sexuality is also an offence. I strongly disagree with your argument that "it would be a reasonable assumption to expect readers of all orientations to assume that the word 'sex' in a headline refers to heterosexual sex unless prefaced by the word 'gay'": When reading a headline I would rather not make assumptions about whether the subject of the headline is from a minority group or not. Applying your reasoning would lead to headlines including details such as ethnicity, religion or skin colour of minority groups when it is not relevant. The inclusion of the word 'vet' in the headline is of course justifiable as the whole reason the article is published on your site is that it may be of interest to vets that a vet has been struck off.

I would like to join Mat Hennessey in requesting that you remove the word 'gay' from your headline.

As you are not a vet you will not be bound by the RCVS code of conduct, but I'm certain that there are other bodies to which you must answer, if not the requests of members of the profession that use your site.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Harris

RE: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet struck off

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 08:49:38 GMT

[mention:e328764a008a4c4c83ad5425b217a832:e9ed411860ed4f2ba0265705b8793d05] No, if it had been a heterosexual act which caused the death, I would gone with a headline of: Crystal-meth sadomasochistic sex manslaughter vet'. The reason for that is that if you look at estimates for the number of gay people in the UK, it varies between 1.5% and 15%, with the 5-7% being the figure accepted by the government and Stonewall. Therefore, it would be a reasonable assumption to expect readers of all orientations to assume that the word 'sex' in a headline refers to heterosexual sex unless prefaced by the word 'gay'.