Harrop MPTS Hearing

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I thought this may be of interest:

www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals/dr-adrian-harrop-nov-21

The tribunal will inquire into the allegation that from 10 May 2018 to 23 November 2019, Dr Harrop inappropriately used his Twitter account to post tweets that were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature and some of which were intended to intimidate.

RD concludes his opening with, “This is just an outline of the evidence the GMC wishes to submit.”

Harrop’s representative Mr Giles Powell (GP) is referring to Article 6. GP wants to know exactly which tweet is for example offensive, which is considered insulting, which is considered inappropriate. They accept some are inappropriate but defence want GMC to specify which…

Tweet is categorised as what. GP wants the categorisation to be clear with reasons why…[e.g. tweet 20 is insulting because].

@littlbrowndog

Harrop saying ciswomen should have separate toilets due to violence they might do and kept apart from other women. 🤦‍♀️🤣

That was glorious - Harrop demonstrating that not only is he a nasty abusive shit, he is too thick to understand that what he is proposing as a gotcha against feminists is exactly what feminists have been campaigning for all this time.

Does he have any redeeming features at all? Because I wouldn't employ him as a roadsweeper, frankly.

There seems to be a hope that the definition of 'offensive' may not be specific enough or definite enough that the court cannot be certain whether or not a tweet met the criteria.

They're on a hiding to nothing with that one. Panellists aren't daft and are perfectly capable of working out what 'offensive' means.

I do think it's reasonable that the GMC clarifies which tweets exactly they are alledging are offensive, so Harrop knows exactly what the allegations are.

The chair is now referring to the witnesses. GP states the defence won’t be cross examining any of them. GP won’t challenge the way the witnesses view the tweets.

Well, why would that be? Because it would make your client look far worse than he already does perhaps?

The chair is now referring to the witnesses. GP states the defence won’t be cross examining any of them. GP won’t challenge the way the witnesses view the tweets.

The chair is now asking, “are we going to take an objective view as to how the tweets would be viewed?” Both GP and RD seem to be in agreement with this.

Such a strange little creature, and a very dangerous one.

I hope the GMC realise what a liability he is and cut him loose.

By not challenging the witnesses, GP wants to make it clear that that doesn’t mean, they are accepted. Adjourned until 11am@ tomorrow.

All women should be allowed to use the women's toilets...except actual biological women 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫
This guy is actually insane, surely to God? Allowing him to keep his medical licence to deal with the public at large would be a complete travesty.

@FindTheTruth

By not challenging the witnesses, GP wants to make it clear that that doesn’t mean, they are accepted. Adjourned until 11am@ tomorrow.

But that's exactly what it means. It means their evidence is unchallenged. Unless something comes to light in subsequent evidence which contradicts them, it really can't mean much else other than they're accepted.

It is a very odd decision.

We are not challenging the witnesses. But we don't agree with them.

That one's up there with 'despite two written warnings I persisted because I was using my platform for good'.

All that nasty tweeting got him an award for being a great ally too. Wrong side of history good (hoping he's soon an EX) doctor, wrong side.

@Artichokeleaves

We are not challenging the witnesses. But we don't agree with them.

That one's up there with 'despite two written warnings I persisted because I was using my platform for good'.

Words on paper might have rather less impact than women describing exactly what they were put through, in distressing detail and in person.

But that's exactly what it means. It means their evidence is unchallenged. Unless something comes to light in subsequent evidence which contradicts them, it really can't mean much else other than they're accepted.

Could it mean that he can't deny what he's done, but he wants to use a whole load of ad hominems to persuade the panel that it's six of one?

Unusual stance - we don't accept what the witnesses say, but we do accept huge chunks of the allegations and we won't challenge the witnesses because, um, well, dunno, something, something transphobic, something, something, bigot, something, something, they made me do it.

Omg Joss Prior's tweets! 😂😂😂

@Datun I haven't yet gone through the charges and the admissions in detail but I think it boils down to he accepts he posted those tweets, he accepts some of them were inappropriate, but he denies they were insulting or threatening.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there?

I'm guessing these witnesses will basically be saying "I felt threatened by this because that address there is my home, and that post there is my workplace" or whatever.

If so, he's missing an opportunity for his lawyer to put the case, "Clearly you didn't feel threatened at the time, or you wouldn't have carried on posting." The fact that they felt threatened will stand unchallenged.

Of course, feeling threatened isn't the same as objectively threatening. But it does seem a really odd decision.

We will see how things unfold...

Never even heard of Joss Prior until now. Sounds like mumsnet keeps her busy! ☺️

I don't know why but I find his glasses almost as odious as his misogyny. They really bug me.

[quote Motorina]@Datun I haven't yet gone through the charges and the admissions in detail but I think it boils down to he accepts he posted those tweets, he accepts some of them were inappropriate, but he denies they were insulting or threatening.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong there?

I'm guessing these witnesses will basically be saying "I felt threatened by this because that address there is my home, and that post there is my workplace" or whatever.

If so, he's missing an opportunity for his lawyer to put the case, "Clearly you didn't feel threatened at the time, or you wouldn't have carried on posting." The fact that they felt threatened will stand unchallenged.

Of course, feeling threatened isn't the same as objectively threatening. But it does seem a really odd decision.

We will see how things unfold...[/quote]
Ok thanks for the clarity.

God knows how doxxing women with their names and their employer details, and the golf club stuff, and the threat of what looks like a compromising photo, etc, isn't threatening.

But presumably, when you truly believe that women are second-class citizens and deserve to be intimidated, anything is possible.

[quote BoreOfWhabylon]Some of Adrain's greatest hits collated in this twitter thread
mobile.twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1450541086955479047[/quote]
Harrops tweet with his suicide stats video "a “significant number of trans adolescents dying through suicide every year”." is awful. How could a doctor do this?

When you see what women got kicked off twitter for and then see these Harrops tweets in one place - I have no words

If I recall, Posie Parker got a visit from the police for using the word castration.

At some point, the rank misogyny underpinning all this has to be addressed.

The MPTS is independent of the GMC, and the GMC quite often disagrees with MPTS decisions. In process terms, the GMC acts like the CPS and brings the ‘prosecution’; the MPTS is like the judge/jury.

So, it’s positive that the GMC has brought the case but the GMC doesn’t get to decide the outcome.

Has anyone mentioned this?

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Thanks MissLucy

Oh I do hope they through the book at the snivelling little misogynist. Surely they must strike him off? You could not have any faith in him as a medical practitioner.