Harrop MPTS Hearing

@Awkwardy The article is strategically written, to try to demonstrate insight and contrition, but I’m not sure that it convincingly achieves either. I doubt the Panel (if they become aware of it) will like this transparent attempt to position the GMC as the credulous enablers of an anti-trans conspiracy against noble AH. But I’m not sure whether the Panel are allowed to take the article into consideration, when assessing AH’s insight, given that it can’t have formed part of the GMC’s submission to MPTS.

And should your work place and working role involve your personal politics?

What harm might this do to your appearance (and the appearance of your work place and colleagues) to be seen as politically partisan and favouring people of one particular politics while not just rejecting the views of but actively speaking out against people personally who hold different political views? Particularly as a doctor

Hypocratic oath I think mentions this?

Just musing aloud.

The witnesses and tweets involved in the case are currently being kept anonymous, but VICE World News was sent all of the material being discussed in the tribunal, including the full dossier of allegations, witness statements, and documents defending the doctor.

Interestingly, they don't spell out the 'comment's by the defendant. Maybe he/she/furry wouldn't appear quite so righteous if they did. Are they too damning and would spoil him/her/furry identifying as more sinned against than sinning?

[quote Awkwardy]twitter.com/BenInLDN/status/1460939806071001098?s=20[/quote]
A doctor who used social media to defend trans rights could lose his job because of complaints about his posts

Interesting framing of events there by our Ben

Is sharing the confidential witness statements with sympathetic journalists actually allowed, given the process isn’t over?

I’m not sure but I would imagine his lawyers would have advised against giving action. Maybe Harrop knows he’s toast so is getting his story out there anyway.

Normal codes of conduct go out of the window when you are fighting on the side of righteousness against the heretics.

And apparently 'defending trans rights' justifies actions that land in you in a tribunal where harassment, offense and intimidation of women are possible interpretations of what you have done.

Does defending 'trans rights' justify intimidating and harassing people you disagree with? Or can it be done without actually breaking your work codes of conduct?

I think Harrop tagged the GMC by replying to others Tweets that had tagged them?

According tot he fail he tagged the GMC in some of his tweets.

I think that's a mistake by the reporters - I think it was the people he was arguing with who tagged the GMC.

What is he actually saying here? Is he admitting he's in the wrong? I can't parse it.

It is his long-held belief in equality, and his deep understanding of trans lives, that has led to Harrop being at the tribunal today.

"If it can happen to me on this issue, it could happen to any other doctor, commenting on any other important societal issue,” he warns. “Racism, climate change, whatever. People say things online because they believe they’re right - but if the debate shifts, they may come to regret it."

Is sharing the confidential witness statements with sympathetic journalists actually allowed, given the process isn’t over?

The irony contained in that article.

He continued: "I want them to understand that they make up a small minority of people who have extreme views. Although the battles you’re fighting on social media may seem like you’re winning, you’re not.”

According tot he fail he tagged the GMC in some of his tweets.

I'm laughing at one of the lines AH is quoted as saying in that interview with 'Vice'. I am as a gay white cis doctor...

I think people are really beyond help when they are attributing 'cis' to being a doctor. Can there be 'trans' doctors, too? i.e. you just identify as a doctor.

Is he really saying that he thought his warnings were part of an anti-trans conspiracy??? Wow!!!

I think I misread slightly. I think he thought the complaints that led to his warnings / conversation with seniors were vexatious and came from a wider "anti-trans network", not that the whole thing is a conspiracy theory

There is an account live tweeting @tribunaltweets

And sorry this is the fail but gives some more information

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10204933/NHS-GP-used-Twitter-account-intimidate-social-media-rivals-opposed-pro-transgender-views.html

I don't think that Vice article is quite the hagiography that AH was hoping for, given the charge sheet and his own words are in it.

twitter.com/BenInLDN/status/1460939806071001098?s=20

You say the press, but really it's disgraced former BBC hack Ben Hunte.

Have you seen some of the GMC rulings?
They come down hardest on things like falsifying timesheets and failing to turn up for a shift than any violation of a patients rights.

Harrop has been speaking to the press:

www.vice.com/en/article/m7vevb/adrian-harrop-british-doctors-career-could-be-ended-by-tweets-defending-trans-rights

Article in Vice here interviewing AH about the tribunal:

www.vice.com/en/article/m7vevb/adrian-harrop-british-doctors-career-could-be-ended-by-tweets-defending-trans-rights

[quote Motorina]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow really hard sell. There's a clear duty to know the standards. Panellists generally take a dim view of registrants who don't. Particularly when they've had them pointed out to them a couple of times already.

Plus, actually, if you need a written standard to tell you "Don't threaten people online", then what does that say about your moral compass?[/quote]
Good! (That it’s a hard sell)

I was worried about his defence chipping away at the more grey-area tweets, so that the Panel are only left with a handful that are unambiguously offensive, which are then argued away as ‘normal hyperbole on Twitter’ and/or ‘isolated moments of bad behaviour that won’t be repeated’.