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.

[quote WitchButNotTheFunKind]Wonder if the ICO have been informed

There is potential journalism exemption, but it isn’t a blanket exception and must be in public interest. I can’t see that doxxing witnesses and concerned members of the public applies as public interest.

More info here ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1547/data-protection-and-journalism-quick-guide.pdf[/quote]
Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR.

Oh I see so NOW the trans rights activists care about freedom of expression? Harrop is certainly free to go to the press but it’s a really bad idea to give the press confidential information about ongoing proceedings, and to get this article published while the tribunal was still in session.

I saw someone on Twitter commenting that this (the article) could have been a tactical move on Harrop’s part - in the hopes of getting the hearing discontinued. I’m not sure what this would achieve, but does anyone who knows how these things work have any idea about that?

It may not have been AH but it had to be either from GMC/MPTS, AH or one of the legal people involved

The chances of a deliberate leak from either legal side or MPTS are vanishingly small. It's a career-ending move - and potentially a criminal offence too. Someone might be tempted into it for a huge bribe, if they were dealing with a Russian oligarch or similar, but they are hardly going to risk being banged up and losing everything for AH.

If it has come from the legal teams, it will be an accidental leak, but I think that is still very, very, very unlikely.

Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR. That 's true - unless any of the data was about any of his patients. But VICE is an organisation an is...

Asked what he would like to say to the gender critics and transphobes who may read this, Harrop paused for a moment, before calmly and confidently responding, "you will not win".

I can't get over it. It's so embarrassing. It's like a 13-year-old casting himself as the lead in his own film.

I mean, who talks like that?

Wowzers, when you read that Vice article it becomes very clear how Ben Hunte lasted such a short time at the BBC! 😂

"You will not 'win' " at what exactly?

Keeping rights and equal access for women alongside inclusive arrangements for trans people? Women's rights will not win?

From a man who's just doxxed witnesses to the press and goodness only knows who else. Judgement not looking the shiniest really.

*MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Acting as a private individual, AH isn’t subject to GDPR*

This is an interesting one and I don't know the official line. I would argue he is not a private individual in an MPTS tribunal

• In this Tribunal he is a GP
• GP’s are data controllers for the medical information they receive.
• the GMC would be a data controller for personal info received as part of the complaints

If he was argued to be a private individual we could all go and leak any info we’re party to at our jobs and get off by saying we leaked it as a private individual

Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR.

Vice Magazine is though, I imagine. And it's sitting on the sensitive personal data of protected individuals that it has no business having.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

It may not have been AH but it had to be either from GMC/MPTS, AH or one of the legal people involved

The chances of a deliberate leak from either legal side or MPTS are vanishingly small. It's a career-ending move - and potentially a criminal offence too. Someone might be tempted into it for a huge bribe, if they were dealing with a Russian oligarch or similar, but they are hardly going to risk being banged up and losing everything for AH.

If it has come from the legal teams, it will be an accidental leak, but I think that is still very, very, very unlikely.

Yep on balance of probabilities it would have been AH particularly when he clearly took part on a photo shoot and interview

[quote Cbtb]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow trainees have to know the GMC guidance, they also have to evidence how they are complying with it in their portfolio. Medical schools frequently and in depth teach these issues and the social media guidance. The BMA has also posted advice on the guidance. The GMC have many many flaws including being iNsitutionaly racist imo but they also have online training and case studies on their guidance for trainees and other HCPs to do. Let alone the yearly mandatory training your employer makes you suffer through

No young-ish UK trained doctor has any business saying they don’t know it. Not off by heart of course but know it exists and know when to go and look at it.[/quote]
Ah, that's good - I'm glad trainees are being exposed to it. As @Motorina noted above, doctors are still successfully claiming ignorance in GMC/MPTS hearings, so this was one of my worries about AH - that he could claim that he has been singled out and that many of his colleagues are equally ignorant.

However, from what you have said, it's advantageous for the GMC's case that he was still in training till 2019, as he will have been receiving training about GMP at the very time that he started his aggressive tweeting. With a bit of luck, the exact dates of the training might even be captured in an online portfolio.

"Harrop paused for a moment, before calmly and confidently responding, "you will not win".

East, West, just points of the compass, each as stupid as the other.

@WitchButNotTheFunKind

*MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Acting as a private individual, AH isn’t subject to GDPR*

This is an interesting one and I don't know the official line. I would argue he is not a private individual in an MPTS tribunal

• In this Tribunal he is a GP
• GP’s are data controllers for the medical information they receive.
• the GMC would be a data controller for personal info received as part of the complaints

If he was argued to be a private individual we could all go and leak any info we’re party to at our jobs and get off by saying we leaked it as a private individual

@WitchButNotTheFunKind that too is true, a possible interpretation of his status.

Is there Contempt of Tribunal Service?

[quote Cbtb]@MissLucyEyelesbarrow trainees have to know the GMC guidance, they also have to evidence how they are complying with it in their portfolio. Medical schools frequently and in depth teach these issues and the social media guidance. The BMA has also posted advice on the guidance. The GMC have many many flaws including being iNsitutionaly racist imo but they also have online training and case studies on their guidance for trainees and other HCPs to do. Let alone the yearly mandatory training your employer makes you suffer through

No young-ish UK trained doctor has any business saying they don’t know it. Not off by heart of course but know it exists and know when to go and look at it.[/quote]
Ah, that's good - I'm glad trainees are being exposed to it. As @Motorina noted above, doctors are still successfully claiming ignorance in GMC/MPTS hearings, so this was one of my worries about AH - that he could claim that he was initially unaware of the SM guidance, and that he has subsequently been singled out when many of his colleagues are equally ignorant.

However, from what you have said, it's advantageous for the GMC's case that he was still in training till 2019, as he will have been receiving training about GMP at the very time that he started his aggressive tweeting. With a bit of luck, the exact dates of the training might even be captured in an online portfolio.

He's left the Tribunal?

'Too bad you have to go. Just as things were getting interesting.'

Asked what he would like to say to the gender critics and transphobes who may read this, Harrop paused for a moment, before calmly and confidently responding, "you will not win".

It's all a little bit David Brent isn't it?

@JemimaTab

I saw someone on Twitter commenting that this (the article) could have been a tactical move on Harrop’s part - in the hopes of getting the hearing discontinued. I’m not sure what this would achieve, but does anyone who knows how these things work have any idea about that?

I very much doubt that re: influencing the outcome of the proceedings (if it was, then it was always doomed to failure).

If it was a "tactical move" (albeit a spectacularly stupid one) then it was in the sense that AH has always been someone who has enjoyed/courted the spotlight and assuming (which he clearly does in the article) that we won't be erased from the medical register then it's simply an opportunity to promote his credentials as a social justice warrior for Trans rights.

Que a smug follow up article post-tribunal about him overcoming adversity and a campaign of harassment and how whatever sanctions were handed out, it was worth it to fight the good fight in the cause of righteousness.

It obviously never crossed his mind, that irrespective of the content and data leak, talking to the "press" (ahem Vice) was in and of itself poor judgement whilst proceedings were talking place.

@WitchButNotTheFunKind

*MissLucyEyelesbarrow

Acting as a private individual, AH isn’t subject to GDPR*

This is an interesting one and I don't know the official line. I would argue he is not a private individual in an MPTS tribunal

• In this Tribunal he is a GP
• GP’s are data controllers for the medical information they receive.
• the GMC would be a data controller for personal info received as part of the complaints

If he was argued to be a private individual we could all go and leak any info we’re party to at our jobs and get off by saying we leaked it as a private individual

If he was argued to be a private individual we could all go and leak any info we’re party to at our jobs and get off by saying we leaked it as a private individual

I don't think that's quite the same, though, is it? In that scenario- we would definitely have received the data as part of our job, with our employer being the data processor. Who is processing the data here? Surely it isn't his current employers, because they aren't privy to it, aren't processing it, and the data doesn't relate to any of their activities?

I also thought that, in general, a defendant's rights to use data were fairly unrestricted.

However, this is way outside my area of legal knowledge (and IANAL), so hopefully someone will be along shortly who knows definitively.

Acting as a private individual, AH isn't subject to GDPR.

But presumably the GMC/MPTS has GDPR responsibilities too?

If I'm privy to data through my job or role, and I leak it "as a private individual" surely I'm still breaching GDPR?

Sorry someone already asked the same question.

From the Vice article it looks as though part of Harrop’s strategy has been to discredit witnesses.

So if, for example, he’s got a witness in defence saying, “witness x is a terrible person with a known penchant for stealing office cake”, then VICE are sitting on that ready to publish and they will have no right of reply.

Given how violent and unhinged some of these TRAs are, I’m concerned for certain witnesses’ safety. We know the kind of tactics they have stooped to before.

Tribunal tweets have just posted an amendment to the list of charges, sorry I don't know how to link

I can't understand why it wouldn't wait till after the hearing - unless he preferred to appear persecuted rather than vindicated.

Either he wanted to release multiple press interviews on this topic - hence planning one during so you could have one after.

Or wants people to picket or make comment on his behalf to the tribunal.

Or being victimised suits a longer term agenda, either vanity or as spokesperson etc.

Poor form any which way it's considered. It's not helped him appear contrite regardless.

@Redshoeblueshoe

Tribunal tweets have just posted an amendment to the list of charges, sorry I don't know how to link

Here:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1461024588943536132?s=21