Harrop MPTS Hearing

Vanishingly unlikely to become amended to significantly change the date range. It's an important principle of law that the defendent knows what htey're accused of well in advance of the hearing.

This doesn't seem to apply in the case of Marion Millar.

But that is of course a criminal trial, not a tribunal.

Previous cases that I am aware of where professionals have posted inappropriate things have lead to suspensions in the 4-8 month range. Critically, it is normal for that suspension to be reviewed, and to only be lifted if the practitioner shows understanding of and remorse for what they did wrong, such as it is unlikely to be repeated.

I should note that I have no inside knowledge of this case at all, and am not really commenting on this case so much as broad principles. Just that that's been the rough ball park where racist, sectarian, or otherwise abusive material has been posted online.

When the original referral was made to the GMC or the decision to proceed to a hearing was taken it it will have taken into account the period of time up to the point that decision was made.

Anything that happened after that is in the ether. For now.

Any amendments can only be made if they're fair and in the interests of justice. Amendments are typically things like minor changes in dates (someone is accused of doing someting on the 14th of July; it becomes apparent it happened on the 15th) or withdrawing charges where it becomes clear there's no good evidence for them.

Adding what are effectively new criticisms at the last minute is likely to be seen as unfair. The only exception I can see in this case is what's called a 'joinder application'. So there's the date range in the initial charges, there are further charges in the pipeline and everyone agrees that, since they're similar in nature, it would make sense to join them together and hear them in one case.

Doesn't stop a new case being brought regarding those posts, down the line, mind.

I guess we need to be a bit careful not to get the thread pulled. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, though everyone has seen the receipts.

True, it will be interesting to see which Tweets are included when the Hearing commences and why those in particular.

The time period May 2018 to November 2019 would suggest a number of individuals. I wonder why it stops there because as others have said, the behaviour continued right up until he flounced off didn’t it?

I guess we need to be a bit careful not to get the thread pulled. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, though everyone has seen the receipts.

Also the pictures of the Church at which the GC woman's husband was a priest, very chilling.

Wonder if the tweets will include the one where Harrop was holding a bottle of some cleaning product with T*F Exterminator on the label saying he was going to use it on T*F's and urging his followers to follow his example, just like angry men who throw acid over women who say 'no'.

I wonder how the date parameters were determined?

As posted above there were certainly some very dubious tweets outside of the timeframe under review in the hearing.

Whilst I'm glad to see action being taken I'm skeptical of any meaningful consequences (should he of course be found guilty).

Okay. Well here’s hoping for an outcome that suitably reflects the severity of his offences 🤞🏻

That last tweet with the allegation and apparent threat against a named individual, is outside of the scope of the current allegation before this tribunal, which sets very specific dates it is interested in. It does say the allegation “may be amended as the hearing proceeds” so I guess it could become included though.

PronounssheRa
Motorina
Hearings are normally open to the public if anyone wishes to go observe and report back.
Posie should go, in person grin

starts offerings to the goddess

That's the one that I remember altforvarmt it was quite sinister.

I'd genuinely begun to think that white male doctors were able to post whatever threats they like with impunity.

The gruesome twosome of Jessen and Harrop hoist by their own petards, there is a God.

I remember also the tweets suggesting that AH and a well-known friend might go play golf in a particular town (in which neither of them lived, but where they knew a particular gender critical woman lived). Given the friend's known prior conviction, involving a golf club, it was very clearly intended to intimidate that woman. It was horrible to witness.

@Cwenthryth possible sanctions would be:

1. The case concludes with no action.
2. The committee issues a reprimand.
3. The doctor has conditions attached to their registration*.
4. The doctor's registration is suspended for a period of up to 12 months.
5. The doctor is erased from the register.

(* Conditions might be "Does further training in blah. Doesn't work unsupervised. Doesn't do a particular procedure or group of procedures. It's usually aimed at addressing clinical incompetence and not at behavioural issues such as is alledged.)

That is awful. Accusing Louise Moody of a "sustained and targeted campaign of abuse and harassment" and calling for her alleged campaign to be "brought to an end, by whatever means necessary" is pretty threatening. I wonder how Harrop is going to explain that.

Aaaaahahahaha that's made my day. I'd genuinely begun to think that white male doctors were able to post whatever threats they like with impunity.
Last time i checked i think even the fruit farmers had lost interest.

Good. Watching with interest.

[quote PronounssheRa]Well isn't that interesting. One of his last tweets before he abandoned twitter seriously crossed a line. I believe that particular tweet was reported to the police.

twitter.com/SamBarber1910/status/1311141611196289026[/quote]
Wow I hadn't seen that one. That is dreadful.

@PronounssheRa omg! She probably would as well!

Ooooh! There were musings on where he’d buggered off to yesterday! Well well well…

I do hope someone local can attend and report back here. I found his tweets seriously disturbing from pretty much when he started on twitter and well before I found my way here.

[quote JurassickJay]From the BMA Code of Conduct, Section 2.3:

Personal conduct: Members are expected to maintain a high standard of personal conduct and to treat staff and other members with respect. In particular, members are required to promote and role model the behaviour principles outlined in this code of conduct. Doctors should display the same duty of care towards one another as they would towards patients and in the workplace. Bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, will not be tolerated and cases will be taken extremely seriously. Bullying includes behaviour that is intimidating, malicious, offensive or insulting. It may be an abuse or misuse of power and it may be unwarranted and unwelcome. Harassment is against the law. In the Equality Act 2010, it is defined as conduct that is related to one of the protected characteristics (age, race, religion or belief, gender reassignment, disability, sex, or sexual orientation). It is unwanted by the recipient and it has the purpose or the effect of violating their dignity or creating a hostile, intimidating, offensive, degrading or humiliating environment for them.

www.bma.org.uk/media/1524/bma-code-of-conduct-may-2018.pdf[/quote]
Harrop certainly has some explaining to do, especially with respect to bullying and the protected characteristic of sex. Should be interesting. I wonder if the court will watch Harrop's television interacttion with Posie Parker.

That's a date for the diary, I can't wait to hear his explanations and justifications perhaps he will tell the tribunal that he was just upset because women were appropriating the word woman.

Yes, thanks OP, that is of interest.