Harrop MPTS Hearing

If it's open to the public, I hope he finds himself look at serried rows of women in "adult human female" T-shirts. 🤞

I've picked this one pretty much at random www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-maher-mohammad-20-sep-21.pdf

It's quite a good example of the type of behaviour and evidence that's required of a doctor facing fitness to practice questions.

I agree @Motorina it is fascinating. I've read a lot of hearings and the variety is so interesting. Convictions for child porn are pretty much the only thing I've noticed is a barn door erase, do not pass go outcome.

I agree with @Northernlurker. There won't be updates during unless either the press picks up on it or someone sits in and updates here.

To outline how it works, it's a two* stage process. The first stage is basically 'What happened?'. The GMC will need to prove that it is more likely than not that:

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.

Assuming that some or all of that is proved, then the process will move to the second stage, which is basically the 'what do we do about it?' stage. At this stage, the GMC will need to convince the panel that:

1. When the tweets were posted, this was misconduct. That is, conduct which would be considered deplorable by his colleagues. Misconduct is all about the situation then.

1. That his fitness to practice is currently impaired by that misconduct. That's about the situation now. There's lots of case law on impairment but I would expect it to be argued along the lines of either 'he doesn't realise he did anything wrong, so he's likely to do it again' or 'what he did was so shocking that public trust in doctors would be undermined if the panel doesn't do something'. Or both.

1. If he's impaired, what is to be done about it. The law is that you do the least neccessary to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards, and maintain public confidence in the profession. The options are do nothing, give a warning, impose conditions, suspend for up to 12 months, or erase.

Insight is really important to both impairment (you're much less likely to repeat something if you realise how badly you've screwed up) and also to what sanction the panel needs to impose. The case law on insight is:

a doctor or other professional who has done wrong has to look at his or her conduct with a selfcritical eye, acknowledge fault, say sorry and convince a panel that there is real reason to believe he or she has learned a lesson from the experience. That's from the case of Kimmance v. GMC.

I may be wrong but, from everything I've read, this guy doesn't strike me as the self-critical type. Which, as @Northernlurker has said, is unlikely to go in his favour.

It's goign to be really interesting to read the determination.

(*Some of the regulators divide it into three. It's the same process, just sanction is dealt with seperately.)

(Sorry if I'm rambling on - I find this stuff fascinating.)

Also it's very likely that lots of the published hearing will be redacted.

I wouldn't expect to see much in terms of updates As the hearing is ongoing but the judgement will be published. It's common for stuff to get dropped or mutually agreed not to be relevant. You can read any case online. It's fascinating.
Once you start reading them you will quickly see what a high standard doctors are held to and how important their honesty and insight is in terms of the outcome,
Harrow will need to account for his tweets and explain how the public's need for good doctors was served by them. If he gets defensive and doesn't show empathy and insight he will be toast. The tribunal can form a judgement on the honesty and openness of the Doctor and they do.....

I’m wondering if the threats and implied blackmail against our Make More Noise poster is included in those dates. The fellow health-care professional. I believe she lives within shouting distance of Manc. I would expect her to be intensely interested in the outcome, as am I

could we have a tweet thread or a debrief at the end of each day or is it completely confidential?

The assumption is that hearings are in public (which can include the press and reporting) unless there's a good reason for them not to be.

Good reasons might include:

*protecting health information or the right to a private life of anyone involved. So if, for example, Harrop were to say that he tweeted as he did because he has a mental health condition, then that information would normally be in private. If anyone on the receiving end of the tweets gives evidence then, if they give evidence about how it impacted on their mental health then, again, that would normally be in private.
*where material might undermine another case. For example, if a criminal prosecution is planned about the same incidents and the regulatory case might bias jurors in that.

I would expect that this one would be mostly in public with some elements - mental health, anxiety, whatever - in private. When it's in private any observers will be asked to leave.

So, if you're allowed in to watch, you're allowed to speak about what you saw. The exception is to that is don't tell tomorrow's witnesses what was said today, because that might undermine the credibility of their evidence.

Oooh three whole weeks. I'm local but work full time isn't Posie Liverpool? Or was that just where that now infamous billboard was posted?

@TurquoiseBaubles

It's interesting how supportive he was of Stephanie Hayden, despite the new information that has come out about Hayden's criminal record . I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't know.

Like, a-bit-sick-in-my-mouth weird.

@TurquoiseBaubles
I really don't want to sound like the thread police but probably best not to discuss that person. MNHQ have been given a lot of trouble by them in the past and will probably take the thread down.

It's not even the GMC anymore. It's the MPTS - they're separate. GMC will present its evidence, his side theirs. MPTS makes the decision.

It's interesting how supportive he was of Stephanie Hayden, despite the new information that has come out about Hayden's criminal record . I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't know.

I wonder if Harrop will learn a valuable lesson from the tribunal. A challenging yet important and unforgettable lesson.

I hope posie can make it to this, but if anyone could get there could we have a tweet thread or a debrief at the end of each day or is it completely confidential?

I really hope Posie can be there and he sees her . The Webberley hearing was being tweeted from a couple of accounts, so I hope somene willmbe tweeting along to this. It's a public hearing, after all.

And I don't think anyone needs to be worried about being on a Terfblocker list. Just block someone right back if you find they've blocked you.

If I went into a medical setting & he was there I would leave

Some long time ago I did this. And then complained mightily.
I was terrified making the complaint but I figured get my side in first.

I hope posie can make it to this, but if anyone could get there could we have a tweet thread or a debrief at the end of each day or is it completely confidential?

TLDR from Glinner:

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/doctor-do-much-harm

The ‘online’ refers to where he works. If you look at all the other doctors on the MPTS hearing list it has where they are based in that field

I think the 'online' refers to the location where the alleged offence took place?

@Thefartingsofaofdenmarkstreet oh wow, so because I liked a few (and I mean very few) tweets which respectfully expressed concerns about adolescent healthcare or women's safety, my account has been flagged as a t*rf account? Good to know. I'm a medic too. Maybe I'll steer clear of Twitter altogether