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.

I really hope Mail Online run with this. It needs picking up by the Manchester Evening News, Liverpool Echo and reporting on local TV news. It was outrageous what he got away with for so long. And I'd love to see an article pointing out the inaction of the police compared to the way they've gone after women.
And yes if I went in my GP's surgery and was informed Harrop was the doctor not only would I walk out I'd create one hell of a stink. Whatever the result I would hope he's made himself unemployable as a GP.

No doubt he'll be renting rooms in Harley Street next if he's got the money after it's all over and dealing with private 'gender' patients. God help them.

I hope the headlines will be along the lines of "why have the police not charged this 'doctor'?"

I think the defence will try to discredit the witnesses by saying they have posted on mean Internet forums (fruit farm as a guess from Priors tweet). Like that excuses Harrops behaviour. But if they are going down that route surely they have to question the witnesses on that point.

@Datun

Pronouns from the tribunal aside, how many of the people he harassed are men?

Quite.

Will this / could this, be considered during the Tribunal?
As an overall theme of his attitude to (natal) women patients.

Fitness to practise?

I wouldn’t want to be a female patient of his.

@Aderyn21 - it's not up to the GMC now. It's the MPTS. GMC has presented its case to the Tribunal but it's the MPTS panel that makes the decision.

He does have a v good barrister (from the same stable as one of our friendly neighbourhood legal eagle visitors). GMC have a v junior one, obviously not taking this hearing anywhere near as seriously as they did HW's.

That's interesting @MissLucyEyelesbarrow, hopefully they will make the right decisions.

Is there any way we can ask the GMC to recognise that the term cis is contentious?

It needs picking up by the Manchester Evening News

I agree Mollyollydolly that once this becomes an important issue for the MEN, we'll start to see progress.

@PronounssheRa

I think the defence will try to discredit the witnesses by saying they have posted on mean Internet forums (fruit farm as a guess from Priors tweet). Like that excuses Harrops behaviour. But if they are going down that route surely they have to question the witnesses on that point.

I'm not sure how they could achieve this without cross-examining the witnesses (which is the way to test witness evidence and show them up as not credible). They can't just make statements discrediting witnesses outside of cross-examination.

I really really hope he gets struck off. I do wonder though, if he doesn't get struck off but one of the conditions mentioned upthread (eg reflect and apologise) is imposed, what are the odds that he will just resign? Does anyone know what would happen then - would it just be a "closed case - no further action" type of thing?

One of the worst things for me about this is the extremely infuriating frustration that women have faced police action for behaviour completely different to this. Women stating facts in a non threatening way - criminal. Male doctor threatening, doxxing and intimidating women online with a previous history involving warnings from employer - no police, just an internal employment investigation, and only when the victims finally can't be ignored.

(Every one of us who reported concerns to the GMC should feel proud that we have pushed for accountability on this)

Does anyone know if there's any precedent for a doctor etc having been in a tribunal for similar reasons- posting on social media?
I can't imagine he'll get much more than a slapped wrist tbh, even though the things he said were vile.

They can't just make statements discrediting witnesses outside of cross-examination.

Quite. I'll be interested to see how identifying as having discredited the witnesses works out in actual legal process.

I really don't think the panel are going to be that interested in what provoked him to tweet the things he did. Doctors come across arseholes / racists / bigots all the time. They are still expected to maintain their professionalism. If he can't maintain his professionalism when he is faced with a person who he disagrees with then doctoring really isn't for him.

@MonsignorMirth

Does anyone know if there's any precedent for a doctor etc having been in a tribunal for similar reasons- posting on social media? I can't imagine he'll get much more than a slapped wrist tbh, even though the things he said were vile.

There's this

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/tv-doctor-ordered-to-pay-125-000-to-arlene-foster-over-defamatory-tweet-1.4576812

I believe he and Harrop were in agreement that a man who marries a 12-year-olds isn't a paedophile if he's from Africa.

It's difficult to know what the outcome could be really.
I know a Dr who went through similar and has to inform the gmc of job moves, have someone oversee their work etc?
If the hearing finds against him, what sanctions could be put in place to prevent him taking this behaviour up again?

I'm reassured that the GMC are actually taking a case against him. Trans activists are so rarely held to account for anything they say or do no matter how dreadful / socially unacceptable it is that it's a relief to see that there are certain standards that some are expected to conform to.

Makes a change.

@littlbrowndog

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

This one cracks me up every time, it’s so incoherent.

If he’s trying to imply that GC women present a physical threat to transwomen (nonsense from the get-go, but whatever), why doesn’t he get that he’s looking for women who don’t identify as cis? Ciswomen are allies! 🤪

Anyway, watching with interest. When you see it all put together like that, it’s very sobering. And imagine getting two written warnings for something and then carrying merrily on. The arrogance!

@MonsignorMirth

Does anyone know if there's any precedent for a doctor etc having been in a tribunal for similar reasons- posting on social media? I can't imagine he'll get much more than a slapped wrist tbh, even though the things he said were vile.

I think a slapped wrist is unlikely in view of the fact he has a history for exactly the same behaviour. He's received 2 warnings from the GDC to stop the behaviour and hasn't stopped. He would have to do an amazing job of convincing this panel that he has insight, realises that he was wrong and that the behaviour is unlikely to continue in the future.

@GrimDamnFanjo possible sanctions are:

1. Do nothing.
2. Issue a reprimand.
3. Impose conditions. This is what happened to the doctor you know.
4. Suspend for a period of up to 12 months.
5. Erase from the register.

If I had to guess, based only on the information on this thread, plus the historic cases there have been about posting regrettable things on the internet, I'd guess 6-9 months suspension with a review.

That wouldn't mean he could start working again after the 6-9 months. But that there would be another hearing to decide if he could, and the onus would be on him to show he's learned his lesson.

That's very much a blind guess, though, as it really will depend on what's said over the next couple of weeks.

I think he'll be at least suspended. He's intimidated and threatened multiple people and didn't stop despite written warnings. He'd then have to prove he'd changed...

Particularly since he's arguing with the GMC right now that it might have been a bit inappropriate but he stands by what he said and did as not being offensive or harassing, and that despite being told to stop he was using his platform for good.

This is not a man who intends to stop or see things differently.

If the hearing finds against him, what sanctions could be put in place to prevent him taking this behaviour up again?

Exactly, it's not clinical so there are no conditions that can be placed on his registration. It's attitudinal so difficult to remediate. He could be given a reprimand but considering his previous history of ignoring warnings from his regulator it seems unlikely that this would work. If the committee find that there was misconduct and that he is currently impaired then I imagine the most likely section would be a period of suspension.

I can imagine that AH's reps will be arguing that there was no misconduct (because the tweets weren't that bad) or that there is no current impairment (because AH has reflected so very deeply and now understands why his behaviour was wrong.)

[quote Motorina]@GrimDamnFanjo possible sanctions are:

1. Do nothing.
2. Issue a reprimand.
3. Impose conditions. This is what happened to the doctor you know.
4. Suspend for a period of up to 12 months.
5. Erase from the register.

If I had to guess, based only on the information on this thread, plus the historic cases there have been about posting regrettable things on the internet, I'd guess 6-9 months suspension with a review.

That wouldn't mean he could start working again after the 6-9 months. But that there would be another hearing to decide if he could, and the onus would be on him to show he's learned his lesson.

That's very much a blind guess, though, as it really will depend on what's said over the next couple of weeks.[/quote]
This would be exactly my guess too.

That Twitter thread. Omg the things he has said in public view.

Then the trans adolescents committing suicide vid

Joss prior was given the go well message from Mumsnet I think