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.

Is sharing the confidential witness statements with sympathetic journalists actually allowed, given the process isn’t over?

What is he actually saying here? Is he admitting he's in the wrong? I can't parse it.

It is his long-held belief in equality, and his deep understanding of trans lives, that has led to Harrop being at the tribunal today.

"If it can happen to me on this issue, it could happen to any other doctor, commenting on any other important societal issue,” he warns. “Racism, climate change, whatever. People say things online because they believe they’re right - but if the debate shifts, they may come to regret it."

@Terfasaurus

Is sharing the confidential witness statements with sympathetic journalists actually allowed, given the process isn’t over?

I wondered that too, given the tribunal debate yesterday about whether to hold the hearing in private to protect witnesses’ identities?

According tot he fail he tagged the GMC in some of his tweets.

I think that's a mistake by the reporters - I think it was the people he was arguing with who tagged the GMC.

I think Harrop tagged the GMC by replying to others Tweets that had tagged them?

@Awkwardy

What is he actually saying here? Is he admitting he's in the wrong? I can't parse it.

It is his long-held belief in equality, and his deep understanding of trans lives, that has led to Harrop being at the tribunal today.

"If it can happen to me on this issue, it could happen to any other doctor, commenting on any other important societal issue,” he warns. “Racism, climate change, whatever. People say things online because they believe they’re right - but if the debate shifts, they may come to regret it."

This is where we see another mistaken idea by this political lobby:

Normal codes of conduct go out of the window when you are fighting on the side of righteousness against the heretics.

And apparently 'defending trans rights' justifies actions that land in you in a tribunal where harassment, offense and intimidation of women are possible interpretations of what you have done.

Does defending 'trans rights' justify intimidating and harassing people you disagree with? Or can it be done without actually breaking your work codes of conduct?

Is sharing the confidential witness statements with sympathetic journalists actually allowed, given the process isn’t over?

I’m not sure but I would imagine his lawyers would have advised against giving action. Maybe Harrop knows he’s toast so is getting his story out there anyway.

[quote Awkwardy]twitter.com/BenInLDN/status/1460939806071001098?s=20[/quote]
A doctor who used social media to defend trans rights could lose his job because of complaints about his posts

Interesting framing of events there by our Ben

The witnesses and tweets involved in the case are currently being kept anonymous, but VICE World News was sent all of the material being discussed in the tribunal, including the full dossier of allegations, witness statements, and documents defending the doctor.

Interestingly, they don't spell out the 'comment's by the defendant. Maybe he/she/furry wouldn't appear quite so righteous if they did. Are they too damning and would spoil him/her/furry identifying as more sinned against than sinning?

And should your work place and working role involve your personal politics?

What harm might this do to your appearance (and the appearance of your work place and colleagues) to be seen as politically partisan and favouring people of one particular politics while not just rejecting the views of but actively speaking out against people personally who hold different political views? Particularly as a doctor

Hypocratic oath I think mentions this?

Just musing aloud.

@Awkwardy The article is strategically written, to try to demonstrate insight and contrition, but I’m not sure that it convincingly achieves either. I doubt the Panel (if they become aware of it) will like this transparent attempt to position the GMC as the credulous enablers of an anti-trans conspiracy against noble AH. But I’m not sure whether the Panel are allowed to take the article into consideration, when assessing AH’s insight, given that it can’t have formed part of the GMC’s submission to MPTS.

Is he really saying that he thought his warnings were part of an anti-trans conspiracy??? Wow!!!

He thinks the reporting of him to the GMC is the anti trans conspiracy. He lacks any insight into his own behaviour.

@Awkwardy

What is he actually saying here? Is he admitting he's in the wrong? I can't parse it.

It is his long-held belief in equality, and his deep understanding of trans lives, that has led to Harrop being at the tribunal today.

"If it can happen to me on this issue, it could happen to any other doctor, commenting on any other important societal issue,” he warns. “Racism, climate change, whatever. People say things online because they believe they’re right - but if the debate shifts, they may come to regret it."

What he's doing here is characterising his tweets as "commenting on", which isn't the charge, which he knows. That would constitute a lie, in my view.

His tweets were worded to offend and intimidate specific people, not "comment".

A witness statement could well contain sensitive information that the witness doesn’t want public.

Like, for example, that they had been a victim of sexual violence which is why they were so severely affected by his behaviour.

Harrop has now leaked that to the press.

@Cailleach1

The witnesses and tweets involved in the case are currently being kept anonymous, but VICE World News was sent all of the material being discussed in the tribunal, including the full dossier of allegations, witness statements, and documents defending the doctor.

Interestingly, they don't spell out the 'comment's by the defendant. Maybe he/she/furry wouldn't appear quite so righteous if they did. Are they too damning and would spoil him/her/furry identifying as more sinned against than sinning?

In the mermaid/charity commission/LBGA case I understood these things couldn't be shared. Is it different in tribunals?

The Ben Hunte article is an appallingly biased and misleading piece of reporting. No wonder he and the BBC parted company.

I also imagine agree that the panel members are unlikely to be happy about it.

Harrop has now leaked that to the press.

Sound like he has given vice access to all the evidence. What a dick move. Also Ben's write up makes it very easy to identify one of the witnesses

@PronounssheRa

Harrop has now leaked that to the press.

Sound like he has given vice access to all the evidence. What a dick move. Also Ben's write up makes it very easy to identify one of the witnesses

Appalling.

@ItsLittoralViolins

I don't think that Vice article is quite the hagiography that AH was hoping for, given the charge sheet and his own words are in it.

Absolutely not, ItsLittoralViolins (and I have to say I love that username!). Though I think they were going for trans martyrdom rather than sainthood there. Problem with that though - didn't there used to be an expression for it? You can't make a silk purse out of a horse's arse? Something like that?

(And I know Hunte's articles are a bit content-lite and need a lot of padding, but how many narcissistically preening selfies does one piece of meretricious special pleading need...?)

@RoyalCorgi

The Ben Hunte article is an appallingly biased and misleading piece of reporting. No wonder he and the BBC parted company.

I also imagine agree that the panel members are unlikely to be happy about it.

It certainly isn't likely to do him any good in terms of looking professional, realising the need to keep personal politics and working life two separate things, understanding and regretting drawing attention to himself and a lot of controversial behaviour to multiple thousands of strangers, or convince anyone that his indiscreet and unprofessional behaviour days are behind him.

Not really the wisest of decisions for a man in his situation.

TWEETS

SafeguardWomen&Girls
@selfcommit2othe

22.05.18 meeting with Prof Kumar. SM policy discussed. July 2018. 1st formal meeting. Complaint. GMC did you believe was part of a wider transphobic network? AH - Yes. GMC - did you think any merit? No. GMC Was you aware of how the public would perceive you? No. Thought vexatious

GMC - AH advised to take steps at meeting re SM use. AH I don’t think I took any meaningful steps to change my use of Twitter. Thought complaint was made in bad faith. Except now it has been brought to the GMC - should have allowed himself to be brought to attention. Regretful.

GMC - did you look for relevant guidance? AH - SM policy for the trust. I am unable to recall was they brought. Chair - was you advised not to identify as a Dr (on Twitter) AH - unable to recall.

Letter from Prof Kumar 10.09.18 to AH. (Not seen) References to paragraphs made. Prof Kumar P2. AH views are yours & not her concern. P3. Advised being aggressive & bullied (not clear if this is how the complainant described how they felt) and P4. Clinically may not trust as a Dr

GMC - was you aware at the time it didn’t have the same impact as it does now? AH - I didn’t pause to think that & now feel embarrassed to read it. I was in an emotional state at the time & don’t mind if the public know. Chair stopped the meeting & said legally it must now be..
SafeguardWomen&GirlsGreen heartWhite heartPurple heart

private. All asked to leave and meeting was private until called back in.

@Terfasaurus

A witness statement could well contain sensitive information that the witness doesn’t want public.

Like, for example, that they had been a victim of sexual violence which is why they were so severely affected by his behaviour.

Harrop has now leaked that to the press.

I don’t know about MPTS, but witness statements to courts are usually disclosable. It’s a bizarre thing to put in the story, though, given that the article is clearly intended to be sympathetic to AH.

didn't there used to be an expression for it? You can't make a silk purse out of a horse's arse? Something like that?

Sow’s ear.

The article appears to be trying to demonstrate some contrition and insight but misses the target - saying I wish I'd stopped being dragged into these altercations bit they made me say stuff. And the stuff I said was in response to them. And they are all against me" does not show that you understand that anyone, from any viewpoint and perspective could see how you were responding and form an opinion on you from that behaviour. It's irrelevant of the complainants are all agin you if everyone else who can see your SM is also being exposed to your conduct whilst identifiable as a doctor.

It's very much, they made me do it, and misses the point.

AH sworn in. Confirmed statements. Now being asked GMC about when active on Twitter. Became active 2018/2018. Joined trans debate March/April 2018.

Likely there is a distinction between "having a twitter account" and "becoming active" bit I'm pretty sure AH twitter account was opened in 2013. I think I saw it on one of the screenshots out there if his twitter profile.