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.

@beastlyslumber

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?

But my point is that AH doesn't have the data through his job - he has it as a defendant in a legal tribunal relating to his profession. The GMC would still likely be bringing this case if he were unemployed and had no job at all.

We need to distinguish between his profession (doctor), and his job for the Poor Bastard Practice that employs him. The tribunal is unrelated to his job - none of the allegations are about anything he did at the Poor Bastard Practice, and none of the data relates to the PBP, or has ever been held by them, so the PBP cannot be the data processor or controller.

The GMC and MPTB will be data processors and subject to GDPR, but it isn't them who have leaked it.

Is this thoroughly enjoyable idiotfest back on tomorrow, or will it take longer for Harrop to work out a new defence?

I'm sure the Vice article was fully intended to activate the TRA lobby and persuade the tribunal. But I don't know how successful he will be on either front.

If our details have been passed to Vice as the article states they have (eg they have the confidential and identifying witness statements) what is to stop all that info being published on the internet? (eg leaked by some pissed off employee or even data hacking).

I’ve been busy all day so just caught up now. My jaw is on the floor. WTAF is he thinking.

The GMC and MPTB will be data processors and subject to GDPR, but it isn't them who have leaked it.

Thank you for explaining. So does that mean there's nowhere the buck stops for GDPR in these cases? What are the protections for individuals affected? If a witness is identified and harassed through this, what recourse do they have? (I think this already counts as harrassing witnesses, tbh, but presumably that's not the case legally?)

Can someone explain the significance of the updated charge sheets please?

Harrop has been a qualified doctor since 2012 he has no excuses for not being aware of the GMC standards. There's a few that stick out...

1. Patients need good doctors. Good doctors make the care of their patients their first concern: they are competent, keep their knowledge and skills up to date, establish and maintain good relationships with patients and colleagues, are honest and trustworthy, and act with integrity and within the law.

12. You must keep up to date with, and follow, the law, our guidance and other regulations relevant to your work. (i.e. should know about social media policy)

37 You must be aware of how your behaviour may influence others within and outside the team.

65 You must make sure that your conduct justifies your patients’ trust in you and the public’s trust in the profession.

Bets on him throwing a sickie tomorrow?

@spondoolikay

I'm sure the Vice article was fully intended to activate the TRA lobby and persuade the tribunal. But I don't know how successful he will be on either front.

I agree. I think that was the intention, to try to create a roar of outrage from twitter that would push the tribunal to AH's side. I can't see that working, but who the hell knows anything any more.

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1461030215245832206?s=20

@flyinglawyer73
Replying to
@NotThatBigIan
Unlike you Ian, I do (and quite properly btw) have access to the papers. I am aware of what VICE had and their reporting is accurate and lawful. One can debate the utility of the interview but to assume it is harmful without knowing the view taken at the MPTS is premature.
5:55 PM · Nov 17, 2021

We're all worrying about nothing. SH, who identifies as a laywer, says it's all fine. Can't say I'm reassured to find that SH has a full set of these papers too.

@Sundaydance

Can someone explain the significance of the updated charge sheets please?

There was an amendment to charge 14g. I don't know if there were any other changes though.

I can't understand why it wouldn't wait till after the hearing

I think the short answer is: because he's a fucking idiot.

He needs to tread carefully. I assume that his legal costs are being covered by his Medical Defence Organisation (MDO). It's likely that there is a stipulation in his policy that cover is contingent on following his lawyers' advice - which would almost certainly include not going to the media, mid-hearing. He could find himself with some very large legal bills if his MDO declines to cover further costs. He is in real danger of losing his livelihood (at least temporarily) at the very moment he incurs a large 5 figure debt.

@beastlyslumber

The GMC and MPTB will be data processors and subject to GDPR, but it isn't them who have leaked it.

Thank you for explaining. So does that mean there's nowhere the buck stops for GDPR in these cases? What are the protections for individuals affected? If a witness is identified and harassed through this, what recourse do they have? (I think this already counts as harrassing witnesses, tbh, but presumably that's not the case legally?)

That's too technical for me to answer, I'm afraid. I do deal with GDPR quite a lot, but from a healthcare angle, not a lawyer's perspective. We need someone with knowledge of a defendant's rights to disseminate documents relating to their defence.

Perhaps he thinks he doesn't want to wait knowing that he will be censured/struck off. He wants to get in there beforehand.

He wants to go out in a blaze of glory doesn't he, the egoistical prick.

St Adrian of Harrop, the well known martyr.

That's going to get deleted isn't it. I shall say he just wants to go out in a blaze of glory and be a martyr to the wonderful cause of righteousness and glory.

He needs to read the fucking room.

Thank you MissLucyEyelesbarrow

@beastlyslumber

The GMC and MPTB will be data processors and subject to GDPR, but it isn't them who have leaked it.

Thank you for explaining. So does that mean there's nowhere the buck stops for GDPR in these cases? What are the protections for individuals affected? If a witness is identified and harassed through this, what recourse do they have? (I think this already counts as harrassing witnesses, tbh, but presumably that's not the case legally?)

The Vice is a organisation. They now have the data. They do have responsibilities. They can wriggle a bit on the grey areas, but if they have recognisable data on any individuals then they have to be compliant.

Anyone fearing their data has been transferred to Vice can ask them under GDPR regs. Of course that then means you identify yourself, willingly give them your name etc. So I'd go straight to the ICO and explain why you don't want to do that and ask for their best advice. They are pretty good at thinking round and through such things.

I'd also ask the MPTS for their reassurance on the matter. They have said that individual data hasn't been used, all the witness statements etc have been anonymised. But ask them, make them aware that many women involved are watching this and fear the possibilities based on his previous behaviour.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I can't understand why it wouldn't wait till after the hearing

I think the short answer is: because he's a fucking idiot.

He needs to tread carefully. I assume that his legal costs are being covered by his Medical Defence Organisation (MDO). It's likely that there is a stipulation in his policy that cover is contingent on following his lawyers' advice - which would almost certainly include not going to the media, mid-hearing. He could find himself with some very large legal bills if his MDO declines to cover further costs. He is in real danger of losing his livelihood (at least temporarily) at the very moment he incurs a large 5 figure debt.

😂

The good news is that lawyer on Twitter is writing left and right that she has access to all documentation and argues that none of it is confidential.

So if you have made a complaint, good luck with that

@WeBuiltCisCityOnSexistRoles

If our details have been passed to Vice as the article states they have (eg they have the confidential and identifying witness statements) what is to stop all that info being published on the internet? (eg leaked by some pissed off employee or even data hacking).

It doesn’t state that witness details per de.

“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.”

They might, but it says witness statements. I don’t know if those are A B C etc or if there are names attached, also don’t know if they’re redacted as I thought some statements were.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1461030215245832206?s=20

@flyinglawyer73
Replying to
@NotThatBigIan
Unlike you Ian, I do (and quite properly btw) have access to the papers. I am aware of what VICE had and their reporting is accurate and lawful. One can debate the utility of the interview but to assume it is harmful without knowing the view taken at the MPTS is premature.
5:55 PM · Nov 17, 2021

We're all worrying about nothing. SH, who identifies as a laywer, says it's all fine. Can't say I'm reassured to find that SH has a full set of these papers too.

Yeah - publicly admitted into evidence and FULLY ANONYMISED for the hearing.

But what went to VICE? Some people will need firm reassurace from the MPTS on that. Not the mealy mouthed words of a self professed lawyer who is all wrapped up in the events anyway!

I agree. I think that was the intention, to try to create a roar of outrage from twitter that would push the tribunal to AH's side. I can't see that working, but who the hell knows anything any more.

There's no chance that this would work. The panel won't even be allowed to read the article unless there was an application made for it to be included. When you sit on these cases you are not allowed to google, or read anything outside what you are presented with. The only information you have is what is contained in the bundles (having been agreed by the parties), submissions by counsel and witness evidence. The panel will have no idea about any online discussions and if they did have previous knowledge of Harrop and his online antics they would have to declare a conflict of interest (and they'd probably find an alternative panel member)

So is SH talking about what appears to have been circulated to the public at the tribunal, and has subsequently appeared on Twitter, or the full information given to the legal teams? Given SH's keenness to be known as a legal expert, I read it as implying the latter, but surely the real legal team wouldn't have approved the involvement of a law graduate who happens to be chummy with Dr H.

Given previous equally opaque teets about being 'part of his legal team/support' it oculd be read anyway at all! Self aggrandising or factual! Who the hell knows?