In a previous post I commented on a GMC case in which a Consultant was pursued, and suspended for doing something that he had every right to do. The GMC fully admitted that the doctor in question was to be unlawfully deprived of his rights under the human rights act in order to be disciplined, as if they were perfectly entitled to do that. What he did was certainly not unlawful. And yet the same GMC doesn't seem to be inclined to pursue a paediatrician convicted of possessing child pornography.
Is it not reasonable to expect a little consistency? Competence? Propriety? Of course not. This is the GMC after all.