As the FT reports in an email this morning:

An obvious question follows on from that. If misconduct is a polite euphemism for wrongdoing - and it is in this case - then how wrong do you have to be to be punished at this level compared, for example, to the level of error tolerated in the case of a benefit claimant who, if five minutes late for an interview is sanctioned with total loss of earnings for a period of time as a consequence?

The evidence that we have our public ethics wrong, and that as with everything else in this country, that they are biased to the wealthy is very strong indeed.