Harrop MPTS Hearing

Do you mean Harrops tweets that led to Harrop facing allegations and being in this hearing in the first place?

the evidence bundles aren't public. (Also we're being careful not to name the people AH was targeting)

to give you a flavour of AH tweets @BoreOfWhabylon posted this up thread

Some of Adrian Harrop's greatest hits collated in this twitter thread
mobile.twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1450541086955479047

The apparent understanding of social media by those in authority can mask some surprising misunderstandings RedDogsBeg.

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.

The tweets are here ElvisPresleyHadABaby:

twitter.com/search?f=live&q=(from%3Atribunaltweets)&src=typed_query

Or in another presentation:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

The GMC Barrister has already brought up the number of followers of AH and that his tweets were broadcast to many people, specifically in the case of the person whose name and place of work he published. I agree with you that this needs to be repeated and pressed so the panel are under no illusions as to the purpose of the Tweets and the nature of Twitter nauticant. They must be left in no doubt about the reasons AH posted those details and his other bullying and intimidating tweets.

Most of the free speech/online abuse cases I've seen reported show judges simply failing to understand how social media, and especially twitter, works. They often seem to see twitter as a point-to-point messaging system.

Unless it's TRA's and their allies complaining.

Can't find the tweets, can anyone give me an idea?

if someone under attack holds up, it doesn't mean that the attack is without consequences

• it has an air of 'she asked for it' or 'it wasn't violence because she hit me back about it ...

The tweets reporting the hearing aren't that clear (twitter is a very limited medium and reporting live speech on it must be very difficult), but I get the impression that the panel view tweets directed at an individual simply to be messaging between two people. This is absolutely not the point of twitter, it is to broadcast the exchange to onlookers, possibly in very large numbers, which means that if someone under attack holds up, it doesn't mean that the attack is without consequences because part of the intention is to get the mesasge out to the onlookers: you might be attacked next.

If this was about an exchange exclusively between individuals you'd be looking at something like email, DMs, or whatever.

Most of the free speech/online abuse cases I've seen reported show judges simply failing to understand how social media, and especially twitter, works. They often seem to see twitter as a point-to-point messaging system.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

Ch Gone through evidence of B D and E in depth and don't want them to attend. But we want to know
B: want to know date B blocked AH
E: date of blocks both ways
GP Its unneces for us to x exam but I want you to review my submission, as you may want to reconsider as we don't accept

C Doesn't mean all evidence is agreed by not x exam by law, but cannot know for sure. Make a reasonable assessment of their evidence only
GP Look at my document please.
Ch No obligation to x exam all evidence in modern time.

GP I maintain my position
RP GMC accepts position has moved on now but says if central to case then x exam may be needed. Hasn't had time to look at RPs submission yet. But some evidence has been admitted
Ch Discussion re witness B moving residence as feeling threatened

GP It's what tweet said and perception, but we need to look at intention of AH
GP Tweeter B said I'm not intimidated, and also said had greater impact on wife. Ref to email. Have to x exam on intentions and tweet contents in B
Ch Depen on evid of AH we may need to see witnesses

GP It's about what AH said. Hope I've highlighted current status of law that's relevant to this, eg Nicholas Moss
Ch Need time to look at submissions. Cannot make you x examine witnesses
Ch You need time to go thru tweets and docs

RP I need 45 mins for this
GP Same amount of time but will also need to see what RP submits
Ch Need to know exactly what's accepted and denied by AH before we can make any progress. So early lunch and final view. Adjourn and return at 1.15pm

Can you not see how easy it would be for TRAs to turn the table on us? They are protected by hate crime legislation, we are not.

I can - I wasn't taking issue with you. It was more a cry of despair, really.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

Chair do we need to go through every tweet then? Re her employer only? 55 posts in total.
RP Yes they're all relevant as refers directly or indirectly to E
Ch Detailing a tweet [we don't have the bundle]
We'll need evidence and burden is on GMC

RP Yes. Data is provided in the tree. If tweets aren't directly relevant they should still be used. Ref to the schedule
Chair Bearing in mind the importance of the allegation, shldn't the GMC state which exactly deal w threats/intimidation? Now saying all so we need

..to cross referencethe evidence
RP Yes
GP Agrees that all are in the category as it's the volume that's important [AH nods in agreement]
C We now know the GMCs case. All 55 tweets. AH must now admit or deny all
GP Denies they're inappropraite
Ch You must confer. We must go ..

Ch...thru the tweets. Leave this to you
RP All these tweets are set out already. Need further instruction
GP Have you got my new submission re Duty to cross examine?
RP Can I add to p11
Ch We need the context to tweets as need the conversation AH's tweets are based within
RP Yes

Interesting to see the DM framing it as Harrop's pro-trans views rather than the usual "the other's" transphobic views.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

New docs from GMC re where to place tweets but RD hasn't been able to assess this new info yet so will be given time to look at this new categorisation of the info and the info itself. Insulting vs inappropriate determination

Also Chair says he was in error saying that AH does accept the evidence by not cross examinating. Not needing to determine a witnesses feelings as a relevent fact. For 3 indivs is whether was planning to intimidate, but this isn't the only factor

Re 14g: RP to clear up misunderstanding re admittance of this now.

14 g stem re innappropriate is denied
14g2 admits continuing to post, not sure when realsised
14g1 admitted to all tweets but has difficulty w some wording, exactly who it is referring to. Doesn't accept who it's referral to
C Isn't up to mpts to determine who is referred to

RP says yes this is a matter of evidence and not up to tribunal. But AH's x exan will determine nature of tweets ie who to

Thank you to @Motorina and @MissLucyEyelesbarrow for some fascinating and informative posts. I would add that I think the one exception you mention earlier, MissLucy, might be a factor.

And thank you @FindTheTruth

Thanks motorina great analogy makes the distinction very clear, your posts on here have consistently been very helpful in understanding what is going on

👍 @Motorina

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
Good morning on Day 2 of Dr Adrian Harrop's tribunal (abbreviated to AH). We are due to start at 11am today. I will use initials RD for the GMC representative Mr Ryan Donoghue and GP for Harrop’s representative Mr Giles Powell.

I still have an issue about it being painted as being about "sides" what side of the argument the people he harassed are.

I know they can't have a wide ranging investigation of all the other, perhaps more minor, transgressions but his behaviour does go beyond what is presented.

For instance despite disciplinary meetings he continued to court problems at work. He tweeted a thread complaining about the GP practice he was with because he had draped his room in rainbow flags and senior partners (who presumably were supervising his practice) objected.
Most of us would doff our caps and say "ok, sorry, won't happen again" but he co to yes to argue, triggered practice meetings and complained about it all on twitter.
I'm at work and got to go but I'm pretty sure I have the tweets somewhere.

Also being presented as pro trans/GC I may be wrong but do I detect a whiff of troublesome uppity women complaining and deserved censure frankly but he has crossed a line so we have to do something about it ?

Thirding!

Another vote for an excellent analogy @Motorina

@Motorina I just wanted to say thank you for your posts as they are very interesting and useful!

But what he did went beyond disagreement. I would expect any GC doctor to face similar investigations if they showed such open and public contempt for trans people including doxxing and tweeting implied threats.

Exactly this.

What a great way to explain it Motorina.

Thank you, @Motorina, for your input. I know you have knowledge of the way tribunals work and it's been very helpful to read your comments.

I certainly don't, generally speaking, want anyone to lose their job. If I did it would make me no better than The Cancellers. However, doctors and people in similar roles do need to tread carefully and Harrop, despite warnings, has not trodden carefully at all. He's amply shown he hasn't learnt a thing, funny really since he was always telling women to learn lessons when we 'transgressed' in his view.

Watching with great interest.