Harrop MPTS Hearing

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

Vice Magazine is though, I imagine. And it's sitting on the sensitive personal data of protected individuals that it has no business having.

*MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Acting as a private individual, AH isn’t subject to GDPR*

This is an interesting one and I don't know the official line. I would argue he is not a private individual in an MPTS tribunal

• In this Tribunal he is a GP
• GP’s are data controllers for the medical information they receive.
• the GMC would be a data controller for personal info received as part of the complaints

If he was argued to be a private individual we could all go and leak any info we’re party to at our jobs and get off by saying we leaked it as a private individual

"You will not 'win' " at what exactly?

Keeping rights and equal access for women alongside inclusive arrangements for trans people? Women's rights will not win?

From a man who's just doxxed witnesses to the press and goodness only knows who else. Judgement not looking the shiniest really.

Wowzers, when you read that Vice article it becomes very clear how Ben Hunte lasted such a short time at the BBC! 😂

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".

I can't get over it. It's so embarrassing. It's like a 13-year-old casting himself as the lead in his own film.

I mean, who talks like that?

Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR. That 's true - unless any of the data was about any of his patients. But VICE is an organisation an is...

It may not have been AH but it had to be either from GMC/MPTS, AH or one of the legal people involved

The chances of a deliberate leak from either legal side or MPTS are vanishingly small. It's a career-ending move - and potentially a criminal offence too. Someone might be tempted into it for a huge bribe, if they were dealing with a Russian oligarch or similar, but they are hardly going to risk being banged up and losing everything for AH.

If it has come from the legal teams, it will be an accidental leak, but I think that is still very, very, very unlikely.

I saw someone on Twitter commenting that this (the article) could have been a tactical move on Harrop’s part - in the hopes of getting the hearing discontinued. I’m not sure what this would achieve, but does anyone who knows how these things work have any idea about that?

Oh I see so NOW the trans rights activists care about freedom of expression? Harrop is certainly free to go to the press but it’s a really bad idea to give the press confidential information about ongoing proceedings, and to get this article published while the tribunal was still in session.

[quote WitchButNotTheFunKind]Wonder if the ICO have been informed

There is potential journalism exemption, but it isn’t a blanket exception and must be in public interest. I can’t see that doxxing witnesses and concerned members of the public applies as public interest.

More info here ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1547/data-protection-and-journalism-quick-guide.pdf[/quote]
Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR.

Poor man just wanted to express himself.

The tribunal is about standards of professional conduct. Harrop's right to free expression remains intact so I'm really not sure why some TRA's think this is a gotcha. He could have said anything he liked within the law and not been in front of this tribunal if he hadn't advertised his profession when posting on Twitter.

Hunte and Harrop, something delicious about them fucking up so spectacularly. The arrogance of the two of them. His poor barrister.
I've just messaged MPTS via their website, I complained about Harrop's behaviour via email to the GMC ages ago, I would really like to know those details haven't been leaked to Mr Hunte.
I just cant get over their stupidity.

What. The. Almighty F?!!!

I hope those who's details were sent to Vice press charges against him!

Surely now they have to strike him off???

The issue is that confidential information has been given to Vice news, information that is not being shared with the public or press in attendance at the actual Hearing.

Furthermore, people appearing in Court or before a Tribunal usually wait until after the Hearing has taken place before doing interviews in the Press.

As Signalbox stated and as we are always being told:

freedom of expression doesn’t mean freedom from consequences

Useful for the esteemed monitor to remember one would have thought.

He'll now go for the mental health defence. Which should at least see him suspended until (if ever) he is deemed fit to practise again.

What planet is he on?

I don't know, but it look like it's about to self-destruct. It's l,ike Harrop has written is very own Reynolds8 Pamphlet.

*niche, I know. Can't help it.

From the vice article

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".

This from the man who is in a professional tribunal, facing 15 charges, after being given two written warnings, and has now had to take a break because he has given an interview to the media, who now claim they have all the details of the witnesses??

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

What planet is he on?

He’s using the photos from this shoot for his Insta & FB avatar. It’s shameless.

The witnesses were probably obvious, but Vice has now enabled Jigsaw identification of at least one, which has now set his golfing buddy and chums on them again and will probably see a repeat/escalation of the harassment she was presumably hoping to avoid.

I think it would be helpful if the GMC made a statement tomorrow indicating whether the leak did or did not orginate from the GMC side.

Might narrow it down.

Lawyer isn't a protected term, doncha know?

It's right to state that it wasn't necessarily AH who leaked the documents.

But it can't be right to say they can't/won't ever know who did do the leaking. Because if that's true, what confidence can any of us have, ever about confidentiality?