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.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

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.

I don't know that I agree.

As someone (can't recall who; sorry) the issue is not one of skills that can be remediated but of behaviour, that can't. Although he's has had a number of complaints lodged against him and two written warnings, he has not changed his behaviour and this means that he is not likely to do so.

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

He is not. He has been a fully qualified doctor since 2012, so he must be early 30s. He only completed GP training in 2019, but that's not unusual. Many GPs opt to do extra hospital/primary care training before completing their GP qualifications.

It’s a shame that in that DM article, they didn’t say that he had previous warnings/disciplinaries but carried on as he saw it as using his platform for the greater good, I think that really shows arrogance.

I don't know that I agree

I'm not saying that I think any penalty should be minor, just that I suspect it might be.

The DM article said he was 31 - that's young to me (showing my age :)).

The DM article said he was 31 - that's young to me (showing my age)

LOL- yeah, now I'm in my 50s, anyone under 45 is a whipper-snapper 😁

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.

But what he did went beyond disagreement. I would expect any GC doctor to face similar investigations if they showed such open and public contempt for trans people including doxxing and tweeting implied threats.

@Bordois

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.

But what he did went beyond disagreement. I would expect any GC doctor to face similar investigations if they showed such open and public contempt for trans people including doxxing and tweeting implied threats.

But the crux is whether he is showing contempt for women as a sex, or just for particular individuals who happen to be women.

My point is that, though we might infer it's the former (I certainly do), we want the threshold for proving this in Law to be very high, as it is more likely to be used against us than to benefit us, especially given that misogyny is not a hate crime.

But the crux is whether he is showing contempt for women as a sex, or just for particular individuals who happen to be women.

Interesting distinction. Imagine if it were any other demographic. "It's pure coincidence that all the people I was so vicious to were black." (Or gay, or Irish, or Jewish.)

@AlfonsoTheUnrepentant the relevant case law is Cohen v. the GMC, where the panel has to ask themselves:

1. Is the conduct remediable?
2. Has it been remedied?
3. Is it highly unlikely to recur?

It is generally accepted that (if the doctor is willing to make hte effort!) it's relatively easy to remediate a lack of clinical skills. It's a training issue, basically. It's relatively hard to remediate behavioural issues.

There's also case law (Grant v. NMC) that, even if the conduct has been fully remediated, it may be necessary to make a finding of impairment to maintain public confidence in the profession.

If it's established that the practitioner has 'deep seated attitudinal issues' then that would tend to push the panel to erasure. If the charges of threatening behaviour are made out (currently they are allegations which are denied) then it might end up going down that route, particularly given what appears to be a history of warnings which have been ignored.

Interesting times.

To add, the difference is remediating skills and behaviour is something we all know from our own lives. I have, with practice, got much better at making cake. That's skills. I have not - sadly - got any better at not eating all the cake. That's behaviour.

@RoyalCorgi

But the crux is whether he is showing contempt for women as a sex, or just for particular individuals who happen to be women.

Interesting distinction. Imagine if it were any other demographic. "It's pure coincidence that all the people I was so vicious to were black." (Or gay, or Irish, or Jewish.)

Unfortunately, all those other groups have more protection of the Law than women because misogyny is not a hate crime. So creating precedents whereby SM attacks on individuals are considered attacks on a protected class as a whole, even if their protected class isn't mentioned, are particularly dangerous for women. Can you not see how easy it would be for TRAs to turn the table on us? They are protected by hate crime legislation, we are not.

I'm not AH's defence barrister. I'd be happy to see the little scrote erased from the GMC register for life. But we need to be careful about the precedents that can be used against us.

Thank you, @Motorina, for your input. I know you have knowledge of the way tribunals work and it's been very helpful to read your comments.

I certainly don't, generally speaking, want anyone to lose their job. If I did it would make me no better than The Cancellers. However, doctors and people in similar roles do need to tread carefully and Harrop, despite warnings, has not trodden carefully at all. He's amply shown he hasn't learnt a thing, funny really since he was always telling women to learn lessons when we 'transgressed' in his view.

Watching with great interest.

@Motorina

To add, the difference is remediating skills and behaviour is something we all know from our own lives. I have, with practice, got much better at making cake. That's skills. I have not - sadly - got any better at not eating all the cake. That's behaviour.

What a great way to explain it Motorina.

But what he did went beyond disagreement. I would expect any GC doctor to face similar investigations if they showed such open and public contempt for trans people including doxxing and tweeting implied threats.

Exactly this.

@Motorina I just wanted to say thank you for your posts as they are very interesting and useful!

Another vote for an excellent analogy @Motorina

Thirding!

I still have an issue about it being painted as being about "sides" what side of the argument the people he harassed are.

I know they can't have a wide ranging investigation of all the other, perhaps more minor, transgressions but his behaviour does go beyond what is presented.

For instance despite disciplinary meetings he continued to court problems at work. He tweeted a thread complaining about the GP practice he was with because he had draped his room in rainbow flags and senior partners (who presumably were supervising his practice) objected.
Most of us would doff our caps and say "ok, sorry, won't happen again" but he co to yes to argue, triggered practice meetings and complained about it all on twitter.
I'm at work and got to go but I'm pretty sure I have the tweets somewhere.

Also being presented as pro trans/GC I may be wrong but do I detect a whiff of troublesome uppity women complaining and deserved censure frankly but he has crossed a line so we have to do something about it ?

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
Good morning on Day 2 of Dr Adrian Harrop's tribunal (abbreviated to AH). We are due to start at 11am today. I will use initials RD for the GMC representative Mr Ryan Donoghue and GP for Harrop’s representative Mr Giles Powell.

👍 @Motorina

Thanks motorina great analogy makes the distinction very clear, your posts on here have consistently been very helpful in understanding what is going on

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

New docs from GMC re where to place tweets but RD hasn't been able to assess this new info yet so will be given time to look at this new categorisation of the info and the info itself. Insulting vs inappropriate determination

Also Chair says he was in error saying that AH does accept the evidence by not cross examinating. Not needing to determine a witnesses feelings as a relevent fact. For 3 indivs is whether was planning to intimidate, but this isn't the only factor

Re 14g: RP to clear up misunderstanding re admittance of this now.

14 g stem re innappropriate is denied
14g2 admits continuing to post, not sure when realsised
14g1 admitted to all tweets but has difficulty w some wording, exactly who it is referring to. Doesn't accept who it's referral to
C Isn't up to mpts to determine who is referred to

RP says yes this is a matter of evidence and not up to tribunal. But AH's x exan will determine nature of tweets ie who to

Thank you to @Motorina and @MissLucyEyelesbarrow for some fascinating and informative posts. I would add that I think the one exception you mention earlier, MissLucy, might be a factor.

And thank you @FindTheTruth

Interesting to see the DM framing it as Harrop's pro-trans views rather than the usual "the other's" transphobic views.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

Chair do we need to go through every tweet then? Re her employer only? 55 posts in total.
RP Yes they're all relevant as refers directly or indirectly to E
Ch Detailing a tweet [we don't have the bundle]
We'll need evidence and burden is on GMC

RP Yes. Data is provided in the tree. If tweets aren't directly relevant they should still be used. Ref to the schedule
Chair Bearing in mind the importance of the allegation, shldn't the GMC state which exactly deal w threats/intimidation? Now saying all so we need

..to cross referencethe evidence
RP Yes
GP Agrees that all are in the category as it's the volume that's important [AH nods in agreement]
C We now know the GMCs case. All 55 tweets. AH must now admit or deny all
GP Denies they're inappropraite
Ch You must confer. We must go ..

Ch...thru the tweets. Leave this to you
RP All these tweets are set out already. Need further instruction
GP Have you got my new submission re Duty to cross examine?
RP Can I add to p11
Ch We need the context to tweets as need the conversation AH's tweets are based within
RP Yes