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.

@Artichokeleaves

IIRC, Harrop posted some kind of fake prescription for Glinner, with the implication that the latter had an extremely serious mental health problem.

Wonder if that will come up, as that was one of the most serious incidents.

Didn’t the police turn up on Glinner’s doorstep as a result of Harrop as well? Think it was in the wake of the Harrop / Parker interview on Sky, where Glinner tweeted about Harrop being tolerated on social media only due to male privilege.

I cannot find it on here but there was also something about Harrop following a Twitter account tweeting rape threats.

twitter.com/katarinahill2/status/1460260732247887878?s=21

OMG I'd forgotten most of those littlebrowndog

@littlbrowndog

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

😂😂I thought doctors were supposed to be clever?

Also not very clever to continue a pattern of behaviour you've received written warnings about.

It seems the euphoria of thinking himself to be totally on the right side of history took over any rational thought.

@littlbrowndog, you might want to ask for that to be taken down. The witnesses in the case are not named. They will be anonymous for a reason. This is a live case. Better safe than sorry.

I would also guess that he’ll get a short suspension. Conditions on his clinical practice wouldn’t make sense in the context, and I suspect they’ll want to steer clear of a blanket condition not to use SM, as that could have human rights implications (freedom of expression). If the allegations are upheld, I don’t think they can do nothing. I would be gobsmacked if he were permanently erased from the register as he hasn’t been convicted of a crime or directly harmed his patients.

Why hasn't any of it been subject to criminal proceedings? Are these tweets not malicious communication?

No, not as malicious as retweeting a limerick!

I'm starting to think that the malicious communications act has a clause somewhere in the fine print about only applying to biologically female people.

[quote JustcameoutGC]@littlbrowndog, you might want to ask for that to be taken down. The witnesses in the case are not named. They will be anonymous for a reason. This is a live case. Better safe than sorry.[/quote]
Have done

The blind arrogance displayed by Harrop, reminds me of another very notorious Dr.

[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]
Thanks for this.
Yes, the Doctor I knew ended up with conditions.

I tend to agree with your sanction, although I can't imagine having someone with his views as my gp. He isn't going to change his views, perhaps he will disappear into a specialism somewhere?

Imagine if this was racism? Surely he'd never practise again?

Now being reported by the Daily Mail:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10204933/NHS-GP-used-Twitter-account-intimidate-social-media-rivals-opposed-pro-transgender-views.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

Urghh reading the link above has reminded me of his sanctimonious
"I hope you will learn a valuable lesson from this" to people whose tweets he disapproves of.

Comments not (yet?) being allowed.

I'm not sure the reporters have grasped the significance of the golf references.

Me neither. Still, there's always updates.

And Glinner's helpful recap page has reminded me of him having to grovelingly apologise to JK Rowling:
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/doctor-do-much-harm

@ItsLittoralViolins

Comments not (yet?) being allowed.

I'm not sure the reporters have grasped the significance of the golf references.

I'm sure someone will helpfully explain in the comments once they're open :)

I've no idea of the rules about comments on ongoing fitness to practise hearings but maybe they aren't allowed while the case is ongoing?

The Daily Mail article is quite chilling as it is, even for readers who aren't familiar with all the references.

I think he will be limited in private practice. He only qualified in 2019. That and the fact he is a total liability. I think even HW would have 2nd thoights about takins him on.

I reckon a job in specsavers beckons.

A bit bizarre the Daily Mail referring time other twitter users as "rivals" in the debate. Also not sure the reporter fully understands the background and implications of Harrop's behaviour. It does name the GP practice where he works though. He's well and truly doxxed now!

I'm not to keen on the way the case is being presented as being about the trans debate. If Maya hadn't won her case where would that argument stand? And it's about so much more than that really - of course many of his targets related to trans issues but mainly it's also about misogyny and bad behaviour on line. I suppose the GMC have to stick to particular provable issues that can't be argued to be subjective matters of taste, so cyber bullying and harassment as oppose to general offensiveness. But in one case it's also about religion and I believe the origins of him targeting that person goes back to the case of a dying child and the right to life iirc.

I'm not explaining myself very well it's too early but it's not sitting right for me.

@JustcameoutGC

I think he will be limited in private practice. He only qualified in 2019. That and the fact he is a total liability. I think even HW would have 2nd thoights about takins him on.

I reckon a job in specsavers beckons.

He qualified as a doctor in 2012. Lots of GPs do additional hospital training before completing GP training.

There’s a massive shortage of GPs. If he’s on the GMC register, he will find work.

Blimy, reading Graham's substack Harrop comes off as compleatly deranged. Imagine walking in to see a GP and being presented with Harrop. I think I scream and run away.