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.

The thought of him being a doctor makes me feel queasy.

There's such a sneering tone, such arrogance and menace to his tweets. He so clearly enjoys wielding power - none of these are things I would want in my doctor at all

If he'd only done it once it would be different but he looks to have dedicated serious hours to the pursuit of bullying and threats. How did he ever do any work?!

But the photo the DM chose to use

I'm not to keen on the way the case is being presented as being about the trans debate

Same. With a rare exception Harrop targeted women with his cyber bulling. Some of it was relentless and awful. Also I don't think the mail got the constant references to golf, which would have helped highlight how these tweets were alluding to violence.

Reading the DM article.

I cannot imagine my doctor doxxing somebody and saying "I don't want you to feel safe"

It goes beyond all sense of the rough discourse you even expect to see on social media.

Datun

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.

This?

I too worry about the framing of this as a “trans “ issue”. The issue is his arrogance and threatening behaviour and the context doesn’t actually matter.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

Datun

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.

This?

That's the one.

I don't think the mail got the constant references to golf

The DM is extremely canny and the golf-player is extremely litigious. I suspect that they prefer not to speculate as to the meaning, until it has been spelled out in the MPTS, at which point they can report it as part of the factual record of the hearing.

I cannot imagine my doctor doxxing somebody and saying "I don't want you to feel safe"

God know. Its unthinkable for someone whose entire career and value relies on trust.

*no

From the MailOnline article - am I misunderstanding this para?

In the case of C, Dr Harrop left a series of clues relating to where the man lived and the university where he worked as a lecturer. A website reference added to the post was for a bed and breakfast near his home.

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

I thought C was the golf playing ally with an alleged criminal conviction, according to the charge sheet? And it was B that was doxxed and intimidated?

Obviously I would be horrified to encounter AH as a colleague or doctor. But I have to say that there isn't always a strong correlation between how doctors behave in their personal lives and how they behave with patients - with the exception of when there are addiction problems, which bleed into both.

I have had colleagues who are massive twats as colleagues and/or in their personal lives, but who are nice to patients and good clinicians. And, to a lesser extent, vice versa - some people who are nice as colleagues/friends, but who do not have a good bedside manner. Most doctors have a 'stage personality' when with patients that - for good or bad - can be quite different from their real persona.

I'm not saying this in defence of AH. I hope he fucks off to Spain, or wherever Gender GP are lurking, at the earliest opportunity. But, if he does stay, he won't necessarily be awful to patients, even women, despite his grotesque misogyny. He is clearly extremely vain and, IME, doctors like that are often nice to patients because they like to be liked/admired.

Trust, that's the word. It feels completely eroded by his actions and how emboldened he clearly felt.

He didn't have any care for anything other than being right. Wanting women to delete themselves off social media because they disagreed with him. Threatening to go to their location and bring clubs. Repeatedly harrassing someone even after you ask them to stop. Making slurs about taking mental health medication.

Because they have "wrong think". Total erosion of trust by a man who swore to Do No Harm.

I find it fascinating how convinced he clearly was that he was on the side of the angels, to the point of ignoring disciplinary advice.
This seems to me to be part of the wider problem where young people do not know the difference between activism and being nasty to people on the internet.
If you are convinced you have been put on this earth to make pro trans posts on Twitter it is possible to do it without nastiness, threats, retweeting a post calling someone a c word…

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow I entirely agree.

To illustrate that from the other side, as it were, I used to treat people who were in a secure unit. The nature of the ward I was on was that most of the patients had an extensive history of sexual offences, often involving children.

Believe me when I say I felt about those patients rather the way I suspect Harrop feels about Ciswomen.

Did my feelings about what they had done stop me from giving them high quality care? No. Did it stop me treating them with respect and dignity? No, it did not.

I think most clinicians keep how they feel about their patients seperate from how they treat them. Ultimately, providing high quality, respectful healthcare is our job. Liking our patients isn't.

Not condoning Harrop in any way. Just saying that how he was on twitter and how he was in the sugery may have been two very different things.

@Ekofisk

From the MailOnline article - am I misunderstanding this para?

In the case of C, Dr Harrop left a series of clues relating to where the man lived and the university where he worked as a lecturer. A website reference added to the post was for a bed and breakfast near his home.

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

I thought C was the golf playing ally with an alleged criminal conviction, according to the charge sheet? And it was B that was doxxed and intimidated?

Yes, I think they're a little confused about that. Because they also refer to C correctly elsewhere iirc.

What's with the DM " rivals" descriptor? Bizarre.

I wonder if his mother is still proud of him?

It's a shame that article didn't mention JK Rowling (unless I missed it, it was tiny on my phone with a load of bloody adverts!) This was a highlight - reading this, even those women who are as yet uninformed about the wider issues or who this man is, would think oh fuck off you sexist prick (even without the doxxing and threats)

"Then he urged her: 'Try to stay calm, dear. Don't get your knickers in a twist"'

I wonder if that post will get deleted as a personal attack

Those examples remind me of Dictionary definitions of extremist

• a person who goes to extremes, esp. in political matters

• a supporter or advocate of extreme doctrines or practices

• a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical

• someone who has beliefs that most people think are unreasonable and unacceptable

[quote Motorina]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow I entirely agree.

To illustrate that from the other side, as it were, I used to treat people who were in a secure unit. The nature of the ward I was on was that most of the patients had an extensive history of sexual offences, often involving children.

Believe me when I say I felt about those patients rather the way I suspect Harrop feels about Ciswomen.

Did my feelings about what they had done stop me from giving them high quality care? No. Did it stop me treating them with respect and dignity? No, it did not.

I think most clinicians keep how they feel about their patients seperate from how they treat them. Ultimately, providing high quality, respectful healthcare is our job. Liking our patients isn't.

Not condoning Harrop in any way. Just saying that how he was on twitter and how he was in the sugery may have been two very different things.[/quote]
I understand the point being made, but the difference is that by putting his feelings on twitter that they are no longer personal.

If you had spelt out your contempt for patients you were caring for all over social media and made it so specific patients could be identified, I don't think that that would go down well with your employer.

Thats not even getting into the differences between having negative feelings towards actual sex offenders and having negative feelings towards all women in general.

@Bordois agreed.

You have to be a bit careful with that argument though, @Bordois, as it could equally easily be made about doctors expressing GC views. There are many TRAs out there, panting to get us struck off, and the GMC and RCGP are fully-Stonewalled. If disagreeing with some members of a particular group (women in AH's case, TRAs in our case) is considered hate speech against that group as a whole, it's a very slippery slope for freedom of expression, and I fear it will be weaponised against us, given the degree of institutional capture by TRAs.

AH has not actually said anything abusive about women as a sex (!), AFAIK. We might well extrapolate his choice of targets and worldview as expressing misogyny, but he would no doubt claim that he just happens to have argued with more women because there are more women expressing GC views.

I am relieved that the GMC is focusing on his alleged offences against individuals, rather than getting into more general issues of misogyny, both because the former are easier to prove and because I think any general ruling about misogyny would have been a Pyrrhic victory for the GC cause, and instantly weaponised against us.

AH has not actually said anything abusive about women as a sex (!), AFAIK

He did tweet that bizarre stream of consciousness about wanting all 'ciswomen' to have to use segregated toilets because they're so dangerous.

I didn't realise that he was so young or newly qualified.

That's leading me to think any penalty will be minor.

I am incandescent with rage that her can do what he did and it is not a police matter when women only have to go 'meep' and they get dragged away for questioning and put on trial.