Harrop MPTS Hearing

GMC allegations sheet

Live Tweeting has started at @tribunaltweets

I hope Posie has a front row seat, with a t shirt with Woman Adult Human Female on one side and Mr Harrop on the other

Excellent point @FannyCann

Good point @FannyCann. I wonder if his tweets about cocaine and chemsex were reported?

I think there may be some witnesses, I remember HarryTheOwl tweeting that he'd been asked to provide a statement about the effect on him and his family. I imagine others were directly affected too.

It's quite a long hearing just for tweets.
It's not the sort of case where you have lengthy expert witness reports. But presumably there will be witnesses who were targeted by Harrop's tweeting behaviour. I suppose many of the tweets might have a context that would need explaining. Some probably just speak for themselves.

I also wonder if they will confine themselves just to his tweets or consider his wider use of twitter. In one of my complaints I sent to his training supervisor I pointed out that the sheer volume of his tweets meant he must surely have been checking his phone or perhaps having the twitter window open on his computer between every patient or even having a sneaky look during a consultation.
And some of his tweets were so angry - would he just switch off the rage and turn on the charm and sympathy when the next patient came in?
I suppose that would be out of the remit of the enquiry but an examination of the times and frequency of his tweets compared with his work schedule would certainly be interesting.

Yes, as @Signalbox says, it's the same volunteer account that brought us the reporting on Webberley. I'm not involved in any way.

Agree that this should be much more straightforward. I wonder if it will involve much reading out of tweets? I do hope it gets some press coverage.

It's about time that man faced the consequences of his actions

I. Cannot. Wait.

🍿🍿🍿

[quote Motorina]@BoreOfWhabylon ohhh good stuff. I’ll make sure and follow that.

Who is the person live tweeting, do we know? Do they understand regulatory law?[/quote]
It's the same account that was set up to follow the Webberley hearing.

The tweeting was carried out by multiple volunteers because it was so long. I don't think any of them had any particular expertise, just doing the best they could to follow what was going on.

I think Harrop's case should be quite straightforward in comparison.

@BoreOfWhabylon ohhh good stuff. I’ll make sure and follow that.

Who is the person live tweeting, do we know? Do they understand regulatory law?

There will be live tweeting from the tribunal

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1459318368792678407?s=20

Thanks, Awkwardy.

Interesting timing, what with the drama with Stonewall champions being in the media.

Bumping as the hearing starts on Monday.

Well all health professionals have a code of conduct and are required to be moderate in public with their political opinions. All health professionals know this.

I wonder if Mumsnet will be referenced in the evidence.
I can't think of anyone else who has been the subject of so many threads here.

@nauticant, that really did make me giggle. There's one spectacularly robust woman barrister of a certain age, who I probably shouldn't name, who has something of a suffer no fools reputation. The thought of her defending him has just made me snort tea out of my nose in delight.

I mean, it probably won't be her, but the thought it might just makes me happy.

I wish I could go and watch!

(@AlfonsoTheDinosaur - my pleasure.)

His barrister might even be a c**-person!

@Motorina, I am in awe of your knowledge. Really. It is great.

This is all pure speculation, but...

The way medical indemnity works is you pick a company when you're a student. On reputation, or cost, or who has the best freebies (because students...) You pay them yearly and, like house insurance, tend to stick to them unless something goes wrong.

They will have their own in house solicitors. Who will chose the barrister who is to represent their client on the basis of their experience and relevance to the case (and probably - don't know - old boys network.)

Those barristers are invariably specialists in regulatory work.

The doctor normally doesn't get to pick which barrister is used.

So if he is represented by an, uhhhh, alternative barrister that means:

1. He's likely paying for it himself.
2. He's probably had a fall out with the legal team his indemnity has appointed, probably over a disagreement on broad strategy.

The natural consequences of that are:

1. He's an idiot
2. He's planning on arguing that he's a martyr for the trans cause.

Personally, I think it's unlikely. I reckon he'll be represented perfectly conventionally by a regulatory barrister.

I suspect that the litigious lawyer will be advising but not leading. And that the defence will consist of going on the offence about all the big ol' meanies who bullied and harasssed Harrop and forced him in to a corner and made him write those tweets.

@Maskless how dare you! they say they are, so they must be!

No restrictions on rights of audience in tribunals. He can be represented by Kermit the Frog if he wants to be.

He’s be mad to be represented by anyone who isn’t experienced in regulatory law, though. Tribunals are different in purpose than criminal courts and he’ll be at a disadvantage if his brief doesn’t understand that.