Harrop MPTS thread 2

Let's not forget that the term in question has been in use since the 19th Century to describe a food product, apparently tens of millions of these food products were consumed in 2018 and even Waitrose stock them.

I'd always assume "faggot" to mean either a wood bundle or those meatball things.

I first heard it used as a slur in Money for Nothing by Dire Straits and was bemused by the row. I think then it was used this way in America far more than it was in the UK and some news reports pointed out that, in America, it would be considered offensive.

Feel moved to point out that in the Midlands the f word in question is a local delicacy normally comprised of all the parts of a pig the local economy sausage factory didn't fancy.

In any event Dr Harrop was not even tagged into the tweet, so claiming it was aimed at him is disingenuous to say the least.

Watching with fascination to see if this leads to a new, progressive GMC social media code of conduct in which you can let it all hang out and do whatever you want if you're feeling provoked by a group you went and started a ruck with, and whom you feel morally compelled to argue with.

Because if so, they're essentially agreeing that if AH runs across another group he is personally morally indignant about, he'll do this all over again because obvs that makes it all ok. Impact on public trust and all.

I think that, as long as the Panel see E's actual tweet, they will understand the context. I assume the tweet was in the bundle.

How anyone could read that text and interpret it as an anti-gay slur is a bit mindbending really, the meaning is perfectly obvious.

Whilst I wouldn’t use the word (I don’t tend to use long or unfamiliar words). I read E’s tweet to mean wood for witch burning

I admit I've never heard of a faggot meaning "bundle" before this trial.

And even if she used it in a homophobic context which is doubtful - it wasnt aimed at him.

And even if it was aimed at him... he should know better than to even react, let alone retaliate.

His behaviour has demonstrated he's unable to keep a clear head if he doesnt like you. Ignoring social media policy, even logic tells me to get off my computer if I get too deep into a digital argument.

My DH has just said if he was a betting man he would put a few quid on The dear doctor to start transitioning within 6 months…….

I imagine that the Vice article, and the complaints that will arise from it regarding AH's participation, the timing, and the distribution of personal data, would give the GMC another bite of the cherry.

(I believe that while the Panel were made aware of it, they have not read it; so fresh complaints can be made in respect of it.)

A crucial material factor is always going to be that, as a doctor, AH's behaviour is concerning. If he has even one condition placed on him as a result of this hearing, then future complaints about that Vice article and his behavior will be a problem for him.

I love this place anyway but there were a few hairy moments along the way when my anger got the better of me. Now I try to be more sarcastic in tone.
I do believe we have pulled ourselves out of a terrifying dystopian future although the war is not yet over. But I see signs of hope coming through.
The thread about MN is lovely to see, plenty of names I've not seen before saying fwr is amazeballs. I do love all the women here for seeing what I saw but much better able to put it in words.

So the defence in effect, is that context is everything?

Yes, he broke rules but the cause justifies it?
or
If you believe someone is discriminating, they deserve to be discriminated against?

All I can do is make my solid assurances that I've learnt some unforgettable lessons from these events and these events will never rear their ugly head again or happen again. I'm not saying it's implausible the situ would never arise again...

Surely he doesn't actually mean implausible? Was that a typo? Or did he say that. Because that means it's entirely plausible. Which is completely different to it's possible.

For reasons mentioned above, it's best not to share the identity of E. However, here's a copy of the (anonymised) tweet in question:

twitter.com/StoatlyL/status/1461662828054650884

If you look a couple of tweets upthread from that one you can see how the tribunal have been misled.

And that GCs are a hate group and it's ok to slur them if they're being exclusionary...effing hell!

Harrop’s barrister has said that the tribunal needs to examine why he called E a vile bigot and likened her to a Nazi denying the holocaust was happening.

And so armed with their belief that she called Dr H a fggt, off they’ve gone to form a committee and ponder that very important point.

MN appeared to have crashed for half an hour (linked? dunno) so I did a bit of fruit farming. They admitted MN got the latest scoop, which was entertaining.

Does everyone know the identity of E? Please could someone DM me if able? I’ve just returned to twitter after a long break so don’t know who this is. AH’s arrogance and attempts to garner sympathy have enraged me.

I don't think you'll get an answer to this, a private message isn't private enough. Plus litigious people who dislike E have already required MN to release personal details, if I'm not mistaken.

Harrop's lawyer is allowed to repeat all sorts of things about them

I'm surprised this is being allowed to be honest, using evidence in submissions which hasn't been tested, is in my area of experience (albeit not MPTS), not allowed.

So it seems the witnesses aren't being allowed to talk or to give their point of view in the hearing, but Harrop's lawyer is allowed to repeat all sorts of things about them - talk of people not being allowed to "exist", about them harassing him, about them being transphobic, about him just standing up for minorities etc etc. Anyone reading the tweets who knew nothing about this would probably, at this stage, think each was as bad as the other.

They are also referring to a court case where it seems one of the people involved sued another - wasn't that all chucked out of court? I know a person got an injunction against another - is that being used as proof that the person being harassed was actually harassing.

(I'm aware that the entire previous paragraph is so cryptic as to be pretty much incomprehensible, but needs must [sigh]).

By accepting and repeating the incorrect assertion about E (who has already been effectively doxed to the public at large by Harrop running to Vice), the tribunal has potentially compromised her safety.

The GMC don’t seem to be looking after witnesses very well - they allow them to be silenced and have now put them in danger.

Nice work.