Harrop MPTS Hearing

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1461030215245832206?s=20

@flyinglawyer73
Replying to
@NotThatBigIan
Unlike you Ian, I do (and quite properly btw) have access to the papers. I am aware of what VICE had and their reporting is accurate and lawful. One can debate the utility of the interview but to assume it is harmful without knowing the view taken at the MPTS is premature.
5:55 PM · Nov 17, 2021

We're all worrying about nothing. SH, who identifies as a laywer, says it's all fine. Can't say I'm reassured to find that SH has a full set of these papers too.

Bets on him throwing a sickie tomorrow?

Harrop has been a qualified doctor since 2012 he has no excuses for not being aware of the GMC standards. There's a few that stick out...

1. Patients need good doctors. Good doctors make the care of their patients their first concern: they are competent, keep their knowledge and skills up to date, establish and maintain good relationships with patients and colleagues, are honest and trustworthy, and act with integrity and within the law.

12. You must keep up to date with, and follow, the law, our guidance and other regulations relevant to your work. (i.e. should know about social media policy)

37 You must be aware of how your behaviour may influence others within and outside the team.

65 You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession.

Can someone explain the significance of the updated charge sheets please?

The GMC and MPTB will be data processors and subject to GDPR, but it isn't them who have leaked it.

Thank you for explaining. So does that mean there's nowhere the buck stops for GDPR in these cases? What are the protections for individuals affected? If a witness is identified and harassed through this, what recourse do they have? (I think this already counts as harrassing witnesses, tbh, but presumably that's not the case legally?)

I’ve been busy all day so just caught up now. My jaw is on the floor. WTAF is he thinking.

If our details have been passed to Vice as the article states they have (eg they have the confidential and identifying witness statements) what is to stop all that info being published on the internet? (eg leaked by some pissed off employee or even data hacking).

I'm sure the Vice article was fully intended to activate the TRA lobby and persuade the tribunal. But I don't know how successful he will be on either front.

Is this thoroughly enjoyable idiotfest back on tomorrow, or will it take longer for Harrop to work out a new defence?

We need to distinguish between his profession (doctor), and his job for the Poor Bastard Practice that employs him. The tribunal is unrelated to his job - none of the allegations are about anything he did at the Poor Bastard Practice, and none of the data relates to the PBP, or has ever been held by them, so the PBP cannot be the data processor or controller.

The GMC and MPTB will be data processors and subject to GDPR, but it isn't them who have leaked it.

Here:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1461024588943536132?s=21

I can't understand why it wouldn't wait till after the hearing - unless he preferred to appear persecuted rather than vindicated.

Either he wanted to release multiple press interviews on this topic - hence planning one during so you could have one after.

Or wants people to picket or make comment on his behalf to the tribunal.

Or being victimised suits a longer term agenda, either vanity or as spokesperson etc.

Poor form any which way it's considered. It's not helped him appear contrite regardless.

Tribunal tweets have just posted an amendment to the list of charges, sorry I don't know how to link

From the Vice article it looks as though part of Harrop’s strategy has been to discredit witnesses.

So if, for example, he’s got a witness in defence saying, “witness x is a terrible person with a known penchant for stealing office cake”, then VICE are sitting on that ready to publish and they will have no right of reply.

Given how violent and unhinged some of these TRAs are, I’m concerned for certain witnesses’ safety. We know the kind of tactics they have stooped to before.

Sorry someone already asked the same question.

Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR.

But presumably the GMC/MPTS has GDPR responsibilities too?

If I'm privy to data through my job or role, and I leak it "as a private individual" surely I'm still breaching GDPR?

I don't think that's quite the same, though, is it? In that scenario- we would definitely have received the data as part of our job, with our employer being the data processor. Who is processing the data here? Surely it isn't his current employers, because they aren't privy to it, aren't processing it, and the data doesn't relate to any of their activities?

I also thought that, in general, a defendant's rights to use data were fairly unrestricted.

However, this is way outside my area of legal knowledge (and IANAL), so hopefully someone will be along shortly who knows definitively.

I very much doubt that re: influencing the outcome of the proceedings (if it was, then it was always doomed to failure).

If it was a "tactical move" (albeit a spectacularly stupid one) then it was in the sense that AH has always been someone who has enjoyed/courted the spotlight and assuming (which he clearly does in the article) that we won't be erased from the medical register then it's simply an opportunity to promote his credentials as a social justice warrior for Trans rights.

Que a smug follow up article post-tribunal about him overcoming adversity and a campaign of harassment and how whatever sanctions were handed out, it was worth it to fight the good fight in the cause of righteousness.

It obviously never crossed his mind, that irrespective of the content and data leak, talking to the "press" (ahem Vice) was in and of itself poor judgement whilst proceedings were talking place.

Asked what he would like to say to the gender critics and transphobes who may read this, Harrop paused for a moment, before calmly and confidently responding, "you will not win".

It's all a little bit David Brent isn't it?

He's left the Tribunal?

'Too bad you have to go. Just as things were getting interesting.'

[quote Cbtb]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow trainees have to know the GMC guidance, they also have to evidence how they are complying with it in their portfolio. Medical schools frequently and in depth teach these issues and the social media guidance. The BMA has also posted advice on the guidance. The GMC have many many flaws including being iNsitutionaly racist imo but they also have online training and case studies on their guidance for trainees and other HCPs to do. Let alone the yearly mandatory training your employer makes you suffer through

No young-ish UK trained doctor has any business saying they don’t know it. Not off by heart of course but know it exists and know when to go and look at it.[/quote]
Ah, that's good - I'm glad trainees are being exposed to it. As @Motorina noted above, doctors are still successfully claiming ignorance in GMC/MPTS hearings, so this was one of my worries about AH - that he could claim that he was initially unaware of the SM guidance, and that he has subsequently been singled out when many of his colleagues are equally ignorant.

However, from what you have said, it's advantageous for the GMC's case that he was still in training till 2019, as he will have been receiving training about GMP at the very time that he started his aggressive tweeting. With a bit of luck, the exact dates of the training might even be captured in an online portfolio.

Is there Contempt of Tribunal Service?

"Harrop paused for a moment, before calmly and confidently responding, "you will not win".

East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other.

[quote Cbtb]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow trainees have to know the GMC guidance, they also have to evidence how they are complying with it in their portfolio. Medical schools frequently and in depth teach these issues and the social media guidance. The BMA has also posted advice on the guidance. The GMC have many many flaws including being iNsitutionaly racist imo but they also have online training and case studies on their guidance for trainees and other HCPs to do. Let alone the yearly mandatory training your employer makes you suffer through

No young-ish UK trained doctor has any business saying they don’t know it. Not off by heart of course but know it exists and know when to go and look at it.[/quote]
Ah, that's good - I'm glad trainees are being exposed to it. As @Motorina noted above, doctors are still successfully claiming ignorance in GMC/MPTS hearings, so this was one of my worries about AH - that he could claim that he has been singled out and that many of his colleagues are equally ignorant.

However, from what you have said, it's advantageous for the GMC's case that he was still in training till 2019, as he will have been receiving training about GMP at the very time that he started his aggressive tweeting. With a bit of luck, the exact dates of the training might even be captured in an online portfolio.