Quote Originally Posted by janiejynx View Post
Their function, apparently is to decide if suspension or restriction should be imposed while allegations are investigated - sort of "allegations have been made - if they were true, danger would exist, so we are imposing a restriction till we know if they are true or not". Sounds Looking-glass World, but I think that's the case.

Possibly so, but that sounds insanely upside down to me indeed. What such a panel or committee has to judge rationally and give cogent reasons for holding involves

(1) whether the allegations hold in medical science (with rational probability)
(2) whether the allegations hold in law

If the allegations are anonymous, they seem to me to be invalid by that fact alone, in this kind of case but perhaps British law disagrees.

As it concerns medical science, a medically based argument should have been given. As it takes away a person's possibility to practice, legal grounds should have been given, including assurances about restitution and damages if the supposed investigation that is to follow does not support the allegations.

Anyhow, I see no reason or rationality in this, not even when making very wide allowances for prejudice and ignorance.