Would you report, and who to??

That is also incorrect. There was never an attempt to deceive and that was not what the charge that I was found guilty of said either. It is simply use of a professional title whilst not registered with the appropriate authority. I'm delighted you managed to clarify the point re PII - I hope you suggested the HPC amend their website until they have properly implemented the change?

 

That`s true. Mark was not found guilty of deception. I know `cos I was there yer honour.

Although I must admit that I found the tongue in cheek remark by the barrister of "mischief" rather charming...She did what she is paid to do and she did it well. Shame the chairperson of the bench could not pronounce `chiropodist`, let alone `podiatrist`.

 

How confusing everything with the HCPC is. Their website clearly says 'the court found Mark Russell guilty of an offence with intent to deceive' !

 

Indeed. This has to be their most confusing statement;

 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I was not aware this was on their website and there was certainly no charge of intent to deceive. Given the fact the I had written twice to the Registrar prior to deregistering advising him of my intent unless he responded - which he didn't - and given the number of webpages - both my own and third parties like PA as well as the information given to patients and colleagues during the last five years - I find the suggestion of deceit wholly incredible and wrong. I am also surprised that comment should be made whilst an appeal is in progress.

The question is - if I wanted to evade regulation and deceive everyone - for whatever reason, why not simply adopt a unprotected title in the first place and not even trouble the HCPC with a reason to prosecute? The 'mischief' in all of this is simply taking a stance for something I think is fundamentally wrong - where an institution, charged with public safety is actually creating a situation - through its own statutory function - of increasing the risk to the public substantially. Claiming to do one thing, whilst doing the opposite, is rather more deceptive than anything I have done in this case. If anything, the statement on the HCPC website reinforces that view, especially in relation to the evidence in court.