@Lovelyricepudding
I am suspicious of this 'looking at one tweet at a time to decide if it is offensive'. Fortunately I have never been stalked but I can well imagine a series of actions such as leaving flowers and little gifts on your doorstep, tweeting you look tired and shold take a rest, offering to meet for a coffee etc that individually would look totally innocuous or even pleasant and would need to be taken in context to be seen for the abusive gaslight in they are.
That's partly what they're arguing about. The defence has said that the GMC must explicitely state which tweets are offensive or whatever. They're trying to knock them down one at a time.
Right now, for example, they're arguing about which of the tweets he admits were actually about E.
Then they'll argue about which, if any, were offensive.
They're hoping to knock off so many that the impact of what's left is minimised.
In cake terms, the GMC are saying "You ate the lot" and he's saying, "I had the blueberry muffin and the iced bun, I licked the brownie but didn't eat it, and I didn't touch the jammy donut."
However, the GMC have made it clear in their submissions that part of their criticism is the sheer volume of tweets. (It doesn't matter which specific cakes you ate, what matters is you scoffed more than your fair share.)
That approach is also clear in the charges. Charge 14 breaks down individual tweets. Once charge 14 is found, then charge 15, in particular 15b ("intended to intimidate") and 15c ("part of a campaign of cyber bullying"), invite the panel to consider the impact of all the tweets as a package.
I agree with what you say about stalking and the need to look in context. But, before you can look at the behaviour in the round, you have to actually prove that the flowers, and the gifts, and the concerned tweets, and the invitations had in fact all come from the stalker. So, to lay out your stalking example as charges, it might read.
- You behaved inappropriately to person A, in that:
1a On 1st Jan, you sent her flowers
1b On 4th Jan, you left chocolates on her doorstep
1c On 7th Jan, you left her a card
1d Between 12th and 14th Jan you sent her a series of romantic texts
1e On 17th Jan you went up to her at work and said, "You look really tired"
1f On 18th Jan you asked her for coffee
2 Your actions in paragraph one were
2a Intended to intimidate
2b Were sexually motivated
2c Continued after she asked you to stop
Then at stage two, the question will be, "Does repeatedly approaching someone, after they've asked you to stop, in a way which is intimidating and sexually motivated count as misconduct?"
Hopefully that makes sense? It's a very particular way of making structured decisions, which can seem quite artificial. But it's designed to make it transparent to everyone exactly what the criticisms are.