Health and Care Professions Council determination — substantive hearing
Biomedical scientist struck off over offensive social-media posts
An HCPTS panel struck Malcolm E Needs off after finding that repeated discriminatory social-media posts amounted to serious misconduct with a high risk of repetition.
MedicWatch editorial · Published 13 October 2022 · Updated 23 September 2026
Erasure (struck off the register)
Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction
What does “struck off the register” mean?
The regulator directed removal from the register in this decision. The decision explains when the direction takes effect and any appeal provisions. Check the official register for the practitioner's current registration status.
Concerning Malcolm E Needs, biomedical scientist (Health and Care Professions Council BS30961).
Decision date: 13 October 2022 · Hearing started 12 October 2022 and ended 13 October 2022
In plain English
The HCPTS panel struck biomedical scientist Malcolm E Needs off the Register after finding that a prolonged series of discriminatory and seriously offensive social-media posts amounted to misconduct. It found no evidence of insight or remediation and a high risk that the behaviour would be repeated.
Charges
The allegation was that Malcolm E Needs posted or reposted a series of inappropriate and unprofessional messages on Twitter between February and October 2021 concerning race, immigration, sex and gender. The panel found most of the specified posts proved and found that the conduct amounted to misconduct.
Findings
The panel found that Malcolm E Needs's posts went beyond protected political expression and formed a prolonged stream of seriously offensive and discreditable material. It found no evidence of insight or remediation, a high risk of repetition and current impairment on both the personal and public components, and directed that he be struck off.
Mitigating and aggravating factors
Aggravating factors
The Registrant had, over a period of 8 months, tweeted content which was seriously offensive and discriminatory, targeting most of the groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act; no evidence was presented as to any remorse, reflection or remediation; and there remained a high risk of repetition.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published Health and Care Professions Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.
Spot something incorrect?
If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.