Harrop MPTS Hearing

It will be hard to portray Harry Miller as a hysterical woman with a grudge.

Phrasing this carefully to avoid deletion.

The reason Dr Harrop has been so frequently discussed on here is because he is a doctor. We don’t have threads and threads on other vicious trolls like Sprout & co because they are not licensed and enabled by the state to have personal access vulnerable women (and children and men).

The important thing is not the schadenfreude, fun as it is, but protecting the public. It’s not about punishing or cancelling a man for his views but making sure he’s not in a position to hurt anyone.

I know there a nice political points to be made about how Harrop represents the respectable side of the transgender movement, but what everyone has been consistently worried about for years is that he might cause harm to someone because he struggles with impulse control and appears to have a pronounced sadistic streak.

Because it looks like there are some high profile people involved like Harry Miller, Posie Parker, J K Rowling etc then Harrop could use this as a defence to say it’s an orchestrated political campaign and so it was all hyperbole. He wouldn’t do this to ordinary people, but it was all just an act. Nobody was seriously worried by him etc

I kinda hope they don’t ask any of the known names to say anything but the ordinary people he’s scared. Hope that makes sense?

Okay, assuming anyone wants to go, top tips for attending a hearing:

1. Assume there will be a lot of hanging around. A lot. How much? More than that. The lawyers do a lot of stuff behind the scenes, which you won't be party to. Decisions are made in private. Some evidence - health, particularly - will be heard in private. You will have to wait outside for this. This could be anything from 5 minutes to a couple of days hanging around. Assume things will run late (but sometimes they will unexpectedly run early.) The hearings assistants should be able to give you a rough guide (and the chair should give the room an indication, too.)
2. The hearings assistants are your friends! They will get you to the right place. Don't be afraid to ask them where you should sit. And be nice to them - they work very hard for not much money.
3. Dress comfortably but smartly. The participants will be in suit and tie. I'm not saying you have to wear that, but you will probably feel out of place in ripped jeans and a boob tube.
4. Expect it to be too hot, too cold, or both intermittently. The Chair is nominally in charge of the thermostat which means, when I'm sitting, it's set for 'grumpy menopausal woman'. But the Hearings Assistants are actually in control so sometimes it can bounce around.
5. Bring a bottle of water. Also, snacks. Do not eat the snacks in the hearing room. They will rustle and upset the logger, who will either be taking notes or recording. Also it's distracting.
6. Expect to have to turn your mobile phone off. You may need to leave it outside. You will not be allowed to record the hearing or take photos - if you try you will be ejected.
7. Bring a notepad and pen. You won't get a desk to lean on so something a bit rigid.
8. Wear comfy shoes.
9. You may be asked to wear a face mask, so bring one in case.

The Chair is responsible for ensuring that the hearing is fair to both sides. That's a responsibility Chairs take very seriously. No matter what their private views on the case (and, believe me, if it's a child pornography case I have views) every effort will be made to ensure it's a fair process.

This means:

10. Don't - no matter how tempting - wear an 'adult human female' tshirt. You risk being percieved as attempting to intimidate the defendant or sway the decision making, and may be asked to leave.
11. Don't try and participate. If you ask questions, comment, mutter under your breath, or are otherwise disruptive, you will be asked to leave.
12. Likewise banners.
13. Likewise attempting to engage with any participants outside the hearing room. Don't grab the Chair in the corridor and tell them your views. It will have to be aired formally in the hearing room (awkward) and you will be asked to leave.
14. The poor bugger getting you to leave will be the Hearings Assistant. Underpaid. Not very experienced at that. Be nice to the hearings assistants!

Happy to answer any questions on practicalities and process, if that's helpful. Can't comment other than in generalities on this case because I know nothing more than has been on here.

My owrry is it would play in to Haddocks narcissm and persecution complex? Is ignorning the little squirt the best policy?

@Motorina is right - a group of silent, respectful but acutely attentive women at a tribunal would be unprecedented...

It's very (very) rare to have observers at a hearing. I've had a journalist once. Occassional members of the profession who are interested, or the odd supportive spouse. But it's unusual.

A group of women, dressed professionally, sitting quietly and just ... watching. I can't quite imagine it. It would be unnerving for everyone involved.

It would also be fascinating. And indoors, out of the weather, with proper toilets. Which is much better than outside with a placard.

Does anyone know if

Does anyone if the fact he's done so much tv and media will be relevant, i.e. that's he's a relatively well-known doctor and puts himself out there as a bit of a public figure and expert / role model?

I always think much less of a doctor or other professional who is unpleasant on Twitter. Jokes and satire are fine - I follow a few scientists and historians who can be quite pointed but keep it civil and witty - but when you get an 'expert' who claims to be representing their area of speciality and is just horrible to people, I think it makes them look unprofessional.

I think protest is not a good look anyway.

What would you actually be protesting? That he's being investigated?

It wouldn't make any sense...

Dunno. Perhaps @HazzaTheOwl will tell us.

I hope Harry The Owl gets to give evidence. He's got plenty, and would also be able to express very well the effects on him and his family.

@Terfasaurus I think that would be a high-risk strategy. As @Northernlurker said, it's a professional panel, not a jury. They're trained to be aware of and try to set aside hteir prejudices, and attempts to smear are likely to do him no favours.

The allegations are actually pretty simple:

1. Harrop posted the tweets
2. That they were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature
3. Some of them were intended to intimidate.

In terms of 1., it's a straight factual decision. He will either admit posting them, in which case that's likely to be found proved. Or he'll deny it. In which case there may be an IT expert to give evidence to track them back to his IP address or something.

For 2., the tweets stand for themselves. The panel will be able to assess if they are offensive etc from their content. He will be entitled, of course, to give evidence on whether he thinks they're offensive or not. But, if he does, he'll be cross-examined, and I think he's at high risk of putting foot in mouth.

1. is a bit more nuanced because some of the alleged attempts to intimidate (pictures of a church, reference to golf clubs) are quite subtle. I can see that witness evidence from the complainants might be relevant to that particular decision.

We will see. I'm honestly scratching my head to see why they've scheduled this for as long as they have because, on the face of it, it's a pretty straightforward case.

(I should repeat that I am not and never have been connected to the GMC or MPTS, and have no insider information at all. But I do tribunal work elsewhere and the principles are broadly similar.)

That's what I mean - I think he might forget this is a tribunal about his behaviour as a doctor, and not a courtroom scene from a movie where his internal monologue gets to act out on the stand.

One defence would be to smear and undermine the credibility of the witnesses or complainants.

I don’t know how effective this would be and it would depend on how many there are. It’s a bit difficult to say that all of them are unhinged hysterical women with a grudge. I don’t envy those involved who will probably have to face a shit show of counter allegations courtesy of Harrop’s mates standing witness for him.

Bottom line is that he is still a doctor and it’s his behaviour on the line.

He gives the impression, on the evidence of his published tweets, that he has issues with impulse control. I have a feeling that at some point in the hearing, no matter how well rehearsed he is by his defence team, he may well veer into the territory of 'fair comment' and 'freedom of expression' as a part defence, parallel with his need to help 'suicidal trans kids' and how 'doctors know best', running parallel with 'anyway, I was provoked', if his defence team do allow him to give evidence.

I hope his defence team allows him to give evidence.

Christ they know fuck all about FTP processes do they? The GMC don't 'pass the buck' to the MPTS. They don't have a choice anymore for hearings.

And it's not The Old Boys club either. Forget TV drama bollocks. The Panel is made of both lay & medical members, many of whom are women (real ones).

I wouldn't give him the satisfaction/infamy of protesting. He'd love it. Much better to watch from the back.

And then he needs to do exactly what they tell him.

I suspect he may struggle with this.

Especially as, unless they try and contest that he wrote the tweets, his best defence is basically grovel. Show remorse, realise that they were inappropriate and would undermine public confidence in the profession, convince the panel he is a reformed character.

If I were his defence I'd be having a real strategy dither about whether to get him to give evidence at all. On the one had, if he doesn't, it's really hard to demonstrate insight, remorse and remediation. On the other, I think he'd have to be considered a high risk witness!

I wish it were being held remotely so I could watch.

Some of his rage tweets were positively deranged, which made me question his fitness to practice on grounds of mental health at the time. But perhaps that will be his defence. A spell off twitter is good for everyone's mental health. He may be able to argue that he has out all that behind him, stayed off twitter and restored his sanity.

It's going to be an interesting one to watch.

A 'robust' defence is the last thing he needs. What he needs will be the craftiest, most deeply experienced defence he can find. Somebody who has done hundreds of the tribunals preferably. And then he needs to do exactly what they tell him.

This isn't a jury trial with a range of people potentially vulnerable to emotive arguments. This is a tribunal made up of very serious people who take this ummmm......very seriously.

Surely this guy could never be a GP, he could never be trusted to treat women. I would never attend an appointment if he was presented as my GP under any circumstances, I just could not trust someone so open about how misognyistic they were.
No one would exspect a black person to have an openly racist GP?