Harrop MPTS Hearing

IIRC some of the tweets about heading out for some golf were particularly sinister because of previous charges/convictions relating to one of AH's SM friends in which a golf club had been used as a weapon.

Am I remembering this correctly (and if not then apologies) and if so has that been raised?

Adjourned until 0930 tomorrow. Presumably AH will be cross examined from then.

It is not unusual for charges to be worded in the alternative like this. It give the registrant the opportunity to make partial admissions but also it give the panel the opportunity to find something proved that they might not have if it was worded differently

But didn't the panel summarise incorrectly, thus wrong-footing RP?

Interesting, GP wants to "avoid a show trial" which is why he isn't cross-examining the witnesses. Obviously doesn't want to give them a platform. He's prepared to risk not testing their evidence / credibility.

"GP Doesn't avoid you looking at credibility. Everyone has polarised feelings ... about this which hightens emotions. Wants to avoid a show trial. Look at what actually happened and you need to determine the reality and I'm happy to take this risk"

Some argument about AH being cross examined, a health issue AH has has been mooted, apparently he is likely to be cross examined for 3 days?

From 10 May 2018 to 23rd November 2019 you inappropriately used your Twitter account to post tweets that were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature, as set out in Schedule 2.

We don't have sight of schedule 2 but presumably this is the document that contains all the tweets.

Charge 2 is worded "and/or" and Harrop will have admitted or denied that these tweets were inappropriate and/or offensive and/or insulting.

It is important that everyone is clear about what he has and has not admitted to.

It is not unusual for charges to be worded in the alternative like this. It give the registrant the opportunity to make partial admissions but also it give the panel the opportunity to find something proved that they might not have if it was worded differently.

In the long run clarifying things at this stage makes everything run more smoothly later on.

So the rug has been pulled out from under RP's feet. And the judges seem to be blaming him for needing extra time, even though it's actually - as far as I can understand - their cock up. No doubt the barristers on this thread would argue that it was ever thus 😉

It looks like they are not denying that all the tweets are inappropriate. Just that some of them are not inappropriate and they are taking the time to separate them out to make things clear.

Super difficult to follow what is actually going on from the live tweets today - are they quibbling as to which tweets are included in the complaint?!? Surely that is already laid out. Why does anyone need time today to read through the tweets - have they not done their homework? And does AH think he can get off on some technicality that his behaviour was inappropriate, but not intended to be offensive, regardless of whether his targets were offended or not? Which is the opposite of how things usually work in law by my understanding - if you feel threatened, then it’s considered possible abuse/assault/harrassment regardless of intention, if the victim perceives the crime as motivated by a protected characteristic then it’s hate crime, perception of the victim is prioritised over intent of the perpetrator. But in this case they are arguing the opposite? Have I misunderstood?

Thanks to everyone for the clarification, as I was a bit lost, too.

And, yes. The Arlene Foster judgement was a pleasure to read.

Seem to be arguing which tweets were direct about E and E family at the moment, comes across as squirming to get off the hook.

Thanks FindTheTruth.

They're just squabbling over the wording of the charges. It's not unusual at this stage. It's better they get it right as it will make it easier for the panel when they come to decision making.

God he really is a littel creep isen't he.

Today's strategy seems to be to nitpick which tweets exactly for hours until everyone is ready to scream, and then to say that no they weren't offensive.

Yeah........

Today seems to be about technicalities.

Harrop also appears to be denying that any of his tweets in relation to person E were either about her or in any way inappropriate.

So gaslighting then. She was being over sensitive and imagined it all.

@RedDogsBeg INAL but from what I can gather this hearing is about these allegations that as a Doctor under the medical act 1983, he used twitter representing himself as a Doctor to make insulting, inappropriate and intimidating tweets. And now the Chair of the hearing wants to see every tweet relating to the allegation and they're discussing which tweets in their evidence bundle should be looked at

I am lost with what's going on in the case today.

Certainly no flies on that Judge Purgatory and agree the judgement was an absolute joy to read.

I don't know what the judge's starting point was, but by the end of Arlene Foster's defamation case against Dr Christian Jessen, the judge seemed to be an expert on social media. The judgement was an absolute joy to read.

I recall one case where the judge, coming across as being perfectly sensible, made a comment suggesting that twitter works by someone's tweets only being visible to a recipient and to the sender's followers.

Judges should know this stuff, ffs.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

Afternoon session on Day 2 beginning soon. I may have a problem tweeting as my laptop won't upload any Twitter messages in which case I'll make notes and post these later

RP We're not ready to proceed yet (GMC). Will be an amendment of charges by GMC to improve time usage of court by 2pm.
Ch: Then GP will need time to assess the wording
GP Likely to be an issue re offensiveness, I'm happy to indicate which tweets should be referenced but this...

...won't be ready in 20 mins. We dispute the stem of 14
Ch Always the case of 14g were not inappropriate
GP Yes but No wrt the employers and those that refer to her family
Ch Is it likely to save time?
RP Tweets need exploring in x examination so all matters will be explored.

RP But if the stem isn't admitted?
GP 17 tweets don't refer to E, employer or family so these should be removed which would improve times
Ch GMC is taking too long to make decisions. Now 2.15pm is the latest time available to feed back instructions

Ch We expect refinement of wording by then. Also awaiting GMCs response to GP's document this am.

Ch to RP re this morning's document - is AH no longer accepting that his tweets wrt to A were in order to intimidate or were they not?

Adjourned to 2.15pm