Harrop MPTS Hearing

Does anyone know if there's any precedent for a doctor etc having been in a tribunal for similar reasons- posting on social media?
I can't imagine he'll get much more than a slapped wrist tbh, even though the things he said were vile.

I really really hope he gets struck off. I do wonder though, if he doesn't get struck off but one of the conditions mentioned upthread (eg reflect and apologise) is imposed, what are the odds that he will just resign? Does anyone know what would happen then - would it just be a "closed case - no further action" type of thing?

One of the worst things for me about this is the extremely infuriating frustration that women have faced police action for behaviour completely different to this. Women stating facts in a non threatening way - criminal. Male doctor threatening, doxxing and intimidating women online with a previous history involving warnings from employer - no police, just an internal employment investigation, and only when the victims finally can't be ignored.

(Every one of us who reported concerns to the GMC should feel proud that we have pushed for accountability on this)

It needs picking up by the Manchester Evening News

I agree Mollyollydolly that once this becomes an important issue for the MEN, we'll start to see progress.

That's interesting @MissLucyEyelesbarrow, hopefully they will make the right decisions.

Is there any way we can ask the GMC to recognise that the term cis is contentious?

He does have a v good barrister (from the same stable as one of our friendly neighbourhood legal eagle visitors). GMC have a v junior one, obviously not taking this hearing anywhere near as seriously as they did HW's.

@Aderyn21 - it's not up to the GMC now. It's the MPTS. GMC has presented its case to the Tribunal but it's the MPTS panel that makes the decision.

Will this / could this, be considered during the Tribunal?
As an overall theme of his attitude to (natal) women patients.

Fitness to practise?

I wouldn’t want to be a female patient of his.

I think the defence will try to discredit the witnesses by saying they have posted on mean Internet forums (fruit farm as a guess from Priors tweet). Like that excuses Harrops behaviour. But if they are going down that route surely they have to question the witnesses on that point.

I hope the headlines will be along the lines of "why have the police not charged this 'doctor'?"

I really hope Mail Online run with this. It needs picking up by the Manchester Evening News, Liverpool Echo and reporting on local TV news. It was outrageous what he got away with for so long. And I'd love to see an article pointing out the inaction of the police compared to the way they've gone after women.
And yes if I went in my GP's surgery and was informed Harrop was the doctor not only would I walk out I'd create one hell of a stink. Whatever the result I would hope he's made himself unemployable as a GP.

No doubt he'll be renting rooms in Harley Street next if he's got the money after it's all over and dealing with private 'gender' patients. God help them.

Oh I do hope they through the book at the snivelling little misogynist. Surely they must strike him off? You could not have any faith in him as a medical practitioner.

Thanks MissLucy

Has anyone mentioned this?

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

The MPTS is independent of the GMC, and the GMC quite often disagrees with MPTS decisions. In process terms, the GMC acts like the CPS and brings the ‘prosecution’; the MPTS is like the judge/jury.

So, it’s positive that the GMC has brought the case but the GMC doesn’t get to decide the outcome.

If I recall, Posie Parker got a visit from the police for using the word castration.

At some point, the rank misogyny underpinning all this has to be addressed.

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]Some of Adrain's greatest hits collated in this twitter thread
mobile.twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1450541086955479047[/quote]
Harrops tweet with his suicide stats video "a “significant number of trans adolescents dying through suicide every year”." is awful. How could a doctor do this?

When you see what women got kicked off twitter for and then see these Harrops tweets in one place - I have no words

[quote Motorina]@Datun I haven't yet gone through the charges and the admissions in detail but I think it boils down to he accepts he posted those tweets, he accepts some of them were inappropriate, but he denies they were insulting or threatening.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there?

I'm guessing these witnesses will basically be saying "I felt threatened by this because that address there is my home, and that post there is my workplace" or whatever.

If so, he's missing an opportunity for his lawyer to put the case, "Clearly you didn't feel threatened at the time, or you wouldn't have carried on posting." The fact that they felt threatened will stand unchallenged.

Of course, feeling threatened isn't the same as objectively threatening. But it does seem a really odd decision.

We will see how things unfold...[/quote]
Ok thanks for the clarity.

God knows how doxxing women with their names and their employer details, and the golf club stuff, and the threat of what looks like a compromising photo, etc, isn't threatening.

But presumably, when you truly believe that women are second-class citizens and deserve to be intimidated, anything is possible.

I don't know why but I find his glasses almost as odious as his misogyny. They really bug me.

Never even heard of Joss Prior until now. Sounds like mumsnet keeps her busy! ☺️

@Datun I haven't yet gone through the charges and the admissions in detail but I think it boils down to he accepts he posted those tweets, he accepts some of them were inappropriate, but he denies they were insulting or threatening.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there?

I'm guessing these witnesses will basically be saying "I felt threatened by this because that address there is my home, and that post there is my workplace" or whatever.

If so, he's missing an opportunity for his lawyer to put the case, "Clearly you didn't feel threatened at the time, or you wouldn't have carried on posting." The fact that they felt threatened will stand unchallenged.

Of course, feeling threatened isn't the same as objectively threatening. But it does seem a really odd decision.

We will see how things unfold...

Omg Joss Prior's tweets! 😂😂😂

Unusual stance - we don't accept what the witnesses say, but we do accept huge chunks of the allegations and we won't challenge the witnesses because, um, well, dunno, something, something transphobic, something, something, bigot, something, something, they made me do it.

But that's exactly what it means. It means their evidence is unchallenged. Unless something comes to light in subsequent evidence which contradicts them, it really can't mean much else other than they're accepted.

Could it mean that he can't deny what he's done, but he wants to use a whole load of ad hominems to persuade the panel that it's six of one?