Harrop MPTS Hearing

[quote JustcameoutGC]@littlbrowndog, you might want to ask for that to be taken down. The witnesses in the case are not named. They will be anonymous for a reason. This is a live case. Better safe than sorry.[/quote]
Have done

I'm starting to think that the malicious communications act has a clause somewhere in the fine print about only applying to biologically female people.

No, not as malicious as retweeting a limerick!

Why hasn't any of it been subject to criminal proceedings? Are these tweets not malicious communication?

I would also guess that he’ll get a short suspension. Conditions on his clinical practice wouldn’t make sense in the context, and I suspect they’ll want to steer clear of a blanket condition not to use SM, as that could have human rights implications (freedom of expression). If the allegations are upheld, I don’t think they can do nothing. I would be gobsmacked if he were permanently erased from the register as he hasn’t been convicted of a crime or directly harmed his patients.

@littlbrowndog, you might want to ask for that to be taken down. The witnesses in the case are not named. They will be anonymous for a reason. This is a live case. Better safe than sorry.

Also not very clever to continue a pattern of behaviour you've received written warnings about.

It seems the euphoria of thinking himself to be totally on the right side of history took over any rational thought.

OMG I'd forgotten most of those littlebrowndog

I cannot find it on here but there was also something about Harrop following a Twitter account tweeting rape threats.

twitter.com/katarinahill2/status/1460260732247887878?s=21

That Twitter thread. Omg the things he has said in public view.

Then the trans adolescents committing suicide vid

Joss prior was given the go well message from Mumsnet I think

[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]
This would be exactly my guess too.

If the hearing finds against him, what sanctions could be put in place to prevent him taking this behaviour up again?

Exactly, it's not clinical so there are no conditions that can be placed on his registration. It's attitudinal so difficult to remediate. He could be given a reprimand but considering his previous history of ignoring warnings from his regulator it seems unlikely that this would work. If the committee find that there was misconduct and that he is currently impaired then I imagine the most likely section would be a period of suspension.

I can imagine that AH's reps will be arguing that there was no misconduct (because the tweets weren't that bad) or that there is no current impairment (because AH has reflected so very deeply and now understands why his behaviour was wrong.)

Particularly since he's arguing with the GMC right now that it might have been a bit inappropriate but he stands by what he said and did as not being offensive or harassing, and that despite being told to stop he was using his platform for good.

This is not a man who intends to stop or see things differently.

I think he'll be at least suspended. He's intimidated and threatened multiple people and didn't stop despite written warnings. He'd then have to prove he'd changed...

@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.

If he’s trying to imply that GC women present a physical threat to transwomen (nonsense from the get-go, but whatever), why doesn’t he get that he’s looking for women who don’t identify as cis? Ciswomen are allies! 🤪

Anyway, watching with interest. When you see it all put together like that, it’s very sobering. And imagine getting two written warnings for something and then carrying merrily on. The arrogance!

I'm reassured that the GMC are actually taking a case against him. Trans activists are so rarely held to account for anything they say or do no matter how dreadful / socially unacceptable it is that it's a relief to see that there are certain standards that some are expected to conform to.

Makes a change.

It's difficult to know what the outcome could be really.
I know a Dr who went through similar and has to inform the gmc of job moves, have someone oversee their work etc?
If the hearing finds against him, what sanctions could be put in place to prevent him taking this behaviour up again?

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tv-doctor-ordered-to-pay-125-000-to-arlene-foster-over-defamatory-tweet-1.4576812

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.

I really don't think the panel are going to be that interested in what provoked him to tweet the things he did. Doctors come across arseholes / racists / bigots all the time. They are still expected to maintain their professionalism. If he can't maintain his professionalism when he is faced with a person who he disagrees with then doctoring really isn't for him.

They can't just make statements discrediting witnesses outside of cross-examination.

Quite. I'll be interested to see how identifying as having discredited the witnesses works out in actual legal process.