Harrop MPTS Hearing

From the MailOnline article - am I misunderstanding this para?

In the case of C, Dr Harrop left a series of clues relating to where the man lived and the university where he worked as a lecturer. A website reference added to the post was for a bed and breakfast near his home.

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

I thought C was the golf playing ally with an alleged criminal conviction, according to the charge sheet? And it was B that was doxxed and intimidated?

*no

I cannot imagine my doctor doxxing somebody and saying "I don't want you to feel safe"

God know. Its unthinkable for someone whose entire career and value relies on trust.

I don't think the mail got the constant references to golf

The DM is extremely canny and the golf-player is extremely litigious. I suspect that they prefer not to speculate as to the meaning, until it has been spelled out in the MPTS, at which point they can report it as part of the factual record of the hearing.

I too worry about the framing of this as a “trans “ issue”. The issue is his arrogance and threatening behaviour and the context doesn’t actually matter.

Datun

I believe he and Harrop were in agreement that a man who marries a 12-year-olds isn't a paedophile if he's from Africa.

This?

Reading the DM article.

I cannot imagine my doctor doxxing somebody and saying "I don't want you to feel safe"

It goes beyond all sense of the rough discourse you even expect to see on social media.

I'm not to keen on the way the case is being presented as being about the trans debate

Same. With a rare exception Harrop targeted women with his cyber bulling. Some of it was relentless and awful. Also I don't think the mail got the constant references to golf, which would have helped highlight how these tweets were alluding to violence.

But the photo the DM chose to use

The thought of him being a doctor makes me feel queasy.

There's such a sneering tone, such arrogance and menace to his tweets. He so clearly enjoys wielding power - none of these are things I would want in my doctor at all

If he'd only done it once it would be different but he looks to have dedicated serious hours to the pursuit of bullying and threats. How did he ever do any work?!

Blimy, reading Graham's substack Harrop comes off as compleatly deranged. Imagine walking in to see a GP and being presented with Harrop. I think I scream and run away.

There’s a massive shortage of GPs. If he’s on the GMC register, he will find work.

A bit bizarre the Daily Mail referring time other twitter users as "rivals" in the debate. Also not sure the reporter fully understands the background and implications of Harrop's behaviour. It does name the GP practice where he works though. He's well and truly doxxed now!

I'm not to keen on the way the case is being presented as being about the trans debate. If Maya hadn't won her case where would that argument stand? And it's about so much more than that really - of course many of his targets related to trans issues but mainly it's also about misogyny and bad behaviour on line. I suppose the GMC have to stick to particular provable issues that can't be argued to be subjective matters of taste, so cyber bullying and harassment as oppose to general offensiveness. But in one case it's also about religion and I believe the origins of him targeting that person goes back to the case of a dying child and the right to life iirc.

I'm not explaining myself very well it's too early but it's not sitting right for me.

I think he will be limited in private practice. He only qualified in 2019. That and the fact he is a total liability. I think even HW would have 2nd thoights about takins him on.

I reckon a job in specsavers beckons.

I've no idea of the rules about comments on ongoing fitness to practise hearings but maybe they aren't allowed while the case is ongoing?

The Daily Mail article is quite chilling as it is, even for readers who aren't familiar with all the references.

And Glinner's helpful recap page has reminded me of him having to grovelingly apologise to JK Rowling:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/doctor-do-much-harm

Me neither. Still, there's always updates.

Comments not (yet?) being allowed.

I'm not sure the reporters have grasped the significance of the golf references.

Urghh reading the link above has reminded me of his sanctimonious
"I hope you will learn a valuable lesson from this" to people whose tweets he disapproves of.

Now being reported by the Daily Mail:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10204933/NHS-GP-used-Twitter-account-intimidate-social-media-rivals-opposed-pro-transgender-views.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

[quote Motorina]@GrimDamnFanjo possible sanctions are:

1. Do nothing.
2. Issue a reprimand.
3. Impose conditions. This is what happened to the doctor you know.
4. Suspend for a period of up to 12 months.
5. Erase from the register.

If I had to guess, based only on the information on this thread, plus the historic cases there have been about posting regrettable things on the internet, I'd guess 6-9 months suspension with a review.

That wouldn't mean he could start working again after the 6-9 months. But that there would be another hearing to decide if he could, and the onus would be on him to show he's learned his lesson.

That's very much a blind guess, though, as it really will depend on what's said over the next couple of weeks.[/quote]
Thanks for this.
Yes, the Doctor I knew ended up with conditions.

I tend to agree with your sanction, although I can't imagine having someone with his views as my gp. He isn't going to change his views, perhaps he will disappear into a specialism somewhere?

Imagine if this was racism? Surely he'd never practise again?

The blind arrogance displayed by Harrop, reminds me of another very notorious Dr.