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.

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 can - I wasn't taking issue with you. It was more a cry of despair, really.

@RoyalCorgi

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 can - I wasn't taking issue with you. It was more a cry of despair, really.

Ah, sorry I misunderstood.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

Ch Gone through evidence of B D and E in depth and don't want them to attend. But we want to know
B: want to know date B blocked AH
E: date of blocks both ways
GP Its unneces for us to x exam but I want you to review my submission, as you may want to reconsider as we don't accept

C Doesn't mean all evidence is agreed by not x exam by law, but cannot know for sure. Make a reasonable assessment of their evidence only
GP Look at my document please.
Ch No obligation to x exam all evidence in modern time.

GP I maintain my position
RP GMC accepts position has moved on now but says if central to case then x exam may be needed. Hasn't had time to look at RPs submission yet. But some evidence has been admitted
Ch Discussion re witness B moving residence as feeling threatened

GP It's what tweet said and perception, but we need to look at intention of AH
GP Tweeter B said I'm not intimidated, and also said had greater impact on wife. Ref to email. Have to x exam on intentions and tweet contents in B
Ch Depen on evid of AH we may need to see witnesses

GP It's about what AH said. Hope I've highlighted current status of law that's relevant to this, eg Nicholas Moss
Ch Need time to look at submissions. Cannot make you x examine witnesses
Ch You need time to go thru tweets and docs

RP I need 45 mins for this
GP Same amount of time but will also need to see what RP submits
Ch Need to know exactly what's accepted and denied by AH before we can make any progress. So early lunch and final view. Adjourn and return at 1.15pm

The tweets reporting the hearing aren't that clear (twitter is a very limited medium and reporting live speech on it must be very difficult), but I get the impression that the panel view tweets directed at an individual simply to be messaging between two people. This is absolutely not the point of twitter, it is to broadcast the exchange to onlookers, possibly in very large numbers, which means that if someone under attack holds up, it doesn't mean that the attack is without consequences because part of the intention is to get the mesasge out to the onlookers: you might be attacked next.

If this was about an exchange exclusively between individuals you'd be looking at something like email, DMs, or whatever.

Most of the free speech/online abuse cases I've seen reported show judges simply failing to understand how social media, and especially twitter, works. They often seem to see twitter as a point-to-point messaging system.

if someone under attack holds up, it doesn't mean that the attack is without consequences

• it has an air of 'she asked for it' or 'it wasn't violence because she hit me back about it ...

Can't find the tweets, can anyone give me an idea?

@ElvisPresleyHadABaby

Can't find the tweets, can anyone give me an idea?

Maybe read the thread? Not only is the Twitter handle quoted repeatedly, the actual quotes are being copied here too, thanks to some great work by @FindTheTruth

The GMC Barrister has already brought up the number of followers of AH and that his tweets were broadcast to many people, specifically in the case of the person whose name and place of work he published. I agree with you that this needs to be repeated and pressed so the panel are under no illusions as to the purpose of the Tweets and the nature of Twitter nauticant. They must be left in no doubt about the reasons AH posted those details and his other bullying and intimidating tweets.

Most of the free speech/online abuse cases I've seen reported show judges simply failing to understand how social media, and especially twitter, works. They often seem to see twitter as a point-to-point messaging system.

Unless it's TRA's and their allies complaining.

The tweets are here ElvisPresleyHadABaby:

twitter.com/search?f=live&q=(from%3Atribunaltweets)&src=typed_query

Or in another presentation:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets

The apparent understanding of social media by those in authority can mask some surprising misunderstandings RedDogsBeg.

I recall one case where the judge, coming across as being perfectly sensible, made a comment suggesting that twitter works by someone's tweets only being visible to a recipient and to the sender's followers.

Do you mean Harrops tweets that led to Harrop facing allegations and being in this hearing in the first place?

the evidence bundles aren't public. (Also we're being careful not to name the people AH was targeting)

to give you a flavour of AH tweets @BoreOfWhabylon posted this up thread

Some of Adrian Harrop's greatest hits collated in this twitter thread
mobile.twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1450541086955479047

@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.

Love the metaphor.

@nauticant

The apparent understanding of social media by those in authority can mask some surprising misunderstandings RedDogsBeg.

I recall one case where the judge, coming across as being perfectly sensible, made a comment suggesting that twitter works by someone's tweets only being visible to a recipient and to the sender's followers.

A bit like email, then.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets

Afternoon session on Day 2 beginning soon. I may have a problem tweeting as my laptop won't upload any Twitter messages in which case I'll make notes and post these later

RP We're not ready to proceed yet (GMC). Will be an amendment of charges by GMC to improve time usage of court by 2pm.
Ch: Then GP will need time to assess the wording
GP Likely to be an issue re offensiveness, I'm happy to indicate which tweets should be referenced but this...

...won't be ready in 20 mins. We dispute the stem of 14
Ch Always the case of 14g were not inappropriate
GP Yes but No wrt the employers and those that refer to her family
Ch Is it likely to save time?
RP Tweets need exploring in x examination so all matters will be explored.

RP But if the stem isn't admitted?
GP 17 tweets don't refer to E, employer or family so these should be removed which would improve times
Ch GMC is taking too long to make decisions. Now 2.15pm is the latest time available to feed back instructions

Ch We expect refinement of wording by then. Also awaiting GMCs response to GP's document this am.

Ch to RP re this morning's document - is AH no longer accepting that his tweets wrt to A were in order to intimidate or were they not?

Adjourned to 2.15pm

I recall one case where the judge, coming across as being perfectly sensible, made a comment suggesting that twitter works by someone's tweets only being visible to a recipient and to the sender's followers.

Judges should know this stuff, ffs.

I don't know what the judge's starting point was, but by the end of Arlene Foster's defamation case against Dr Christian Jessen, the judge seemed to be an expert on social media. The judgement was an absolute joy to read.

Certainly no flies on that Judge Purgatory and agree the judgement was an absolute joy to read.

I am lost with what's going on in the case today.

@RedDogsBeg INAL but from what I can gather this hearing is about these allegations that as a Doctor under the medical act 1983, he used twitter representing himself as a Doctor to make insulting, inappropriate and intimidating tweets. And now the Chair of the hearing wants to see every tweet relating to the allegation and they're discussing which tweets in their evidence bundle should be looked at

Today seems to be about technicalities.

Harrop also appears to be denying that any of his tweets in relation to person E were either about her or in any way inappropriate.

So gaslighting then. She was being over sensitive and imagined it all.

Today's strategy seems to be to nitpick which tweets exactly for hours until everyone is ready to scream, and then to say that no they weren't offensive.

Yeah........

@nauticant

The apparent understanding of social media by those in authority can mask some surprising misunderstandings RedDogsBeg.

I recall one case where the judge, coming across as being perfectly sensible, made a comment suggesting that twitter works by someone's tweets only being visible to a recipient and to the sender's followers.

Yes. I'm trying to remember what that case was - I thought at first it was the Kate Scottow case, but I think it predates that. And I don't think it was the Harry Miller case either. What was it? Was it one of the ones involving Hayden? I do remember being gobsmacked that the judge had completely failed to grasp how Twitter works.

God he really is a littel creep isen't he.

They're just squabbling over the wording of the charges. It's not unusual at this stage. It's better they get it right as it will make it easier for the panel when they come to decision making.

Thanks FindTheTruth.