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.

could we have a tweet thread or a debrief at the end of each day or is it completely confidential?

The assumption is that hearings are in public (which can include the press and reporting) unless there's a good reason for them not to be.

Good reasons might include:

*protecting health information or the right to a private life of anyone involved. So if, for example, Harrop were to say that he tweeted as he did because he has a mental health condition, then that information would normally be in private. If anyone on the receiving end of the tweets gives evidence then, if they give evidence about how it impacted on their mental health then, again, that would normally be in private.
*where material might undermine another case. For example, if a criminal prosecution is planned about the same incidents and the regulatory case might bias jurors in that.

I would expect that this one would be mostly in public with some elements - mental health, anxiety, whatever - in private. When it's in private any observers will be asked to leave.

So, if you're allowed in to watch, you're allowed to speak about what you saw. The exception is to that is don't tell tomorrow's witnesses what was said today, because that might undermine the credibility of their evidence.

I’m wondering if the threats and implied blackmail against our Make More Noise poster is included in those dates. The fellow health-care professional. I believe she lives within shouting distance of Manc. I would expect her to be intensely interested in the outcome, as am I

@McDuffy

Oooh three whole weeks. I'm local but work full time isn't Posie Liverpool? Or was that just where that now infamous billboard was posted?

Posie lives in Wilts. And you’re right that perfect poster was put up and rapidly taken down in Liverpool, during the Labour Party conference in that fair city.

I wouldn't expect to see much in terms of updates As the hearing is ongoing but the judgement will be published. It's common for stuff to get dropped or mutually agreed not to be relevant. You can read any case online. It's fascinating.
Once you start reading them you will quickly see what a high standard doctors are held to and how important their honesty and insight is in terms of the outcome,
Harrow will need to account for his tweets and explain how the public's need for good doctors was served by them. If he gets defensive and doesn't show empathy and insight he will be toast. The tribunal can form a judgement on the honesty and openness of the Doctor and they do.....

Also it's very likely that lots of the published hearing will be redacted.

@BitterAndOnlySlightlyTwisted

I’m wondering if the threats and implied blackmail against our Make More Noise poster is included in those dates. The fellow health-care professional. I believe she lives within shouting distance of Manc. I would expect her to be intensely interested in the outcome, as am I

July 2018, so yes they could be covered

I agree with @Northernlurker. There won't be updates during unless either the press picks up on it or someone sits in and updates here.

To outline how it works, it's a two* stage process. The first stage is basically 'What happened?'. The GMC will need to prove that it is more likely than not that:

1. Harrop posted the tweets
2. That they were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature
3. Some of them were intended to intimidate.

Assuming that some or all of that is proved, then the process will move to the second stage, which is basically the 'what do we do about it?' stage. At this stage, the GMC will need to convince the panel that:

1. When the tweets were posted, this was misconduct. That is, conduct which would be considered deplorable by his colleagues. Misconduct is all about the situation then.

1. That his fitness to practice is currently impaired by that misconduct. That's about the situation now. There's lots of case law on impairment but I would expect it to be argued along the lines of either 'he doesn't realise he did anything wrong, so he's likely to do it again' or 'what he did was so shocking that public trust in doctors would be undermined if the panel doesn't do something'. Or both.

1. If he's impaired, what is to be done about it. The law is that you do the least neccessary to protect the public, declare and uphold proper standards, and maintain public confidence in the profession. The options are do nothing, give a warning, impose conditions, suspend for up to 12 months, or erase.

Insight is really important to both impairment (you're much less likely to repeat something if you realise how badly you've screwed up) and also to what sanction the panel needs to impose. The case law on insight is:

a doctor or other professional who has done wrong has to look at his or her conduct with a selfcritical eye, acknowledge fault, say sorry and convince a panel that there is real reason to believe he or she has learned a lesson from the experience. That's from the case of Kimmance v. GMC.

I may be wrong but, from everything I've read, this guy doesn't strike me as the self-critical type. Which, as @Northernlurker has said, is unlikely to go in his favour.

It's goign to be really interesting to read the determination.

(*Some of the regulators divide it into three. It's the same process, just sanction is dealt with seperately.)

(Sorry if I'm rambling on - I find this stuff fascinating.)

I agree @Motorina it is fascinating. I've read a lot of hearings and the variety is so interesting. Convictions for child porn are pretty much the only thing I've noticed is a barn door erase, do not pass go outcome.

I've picked this one pretty much at random www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-maher-mohammad-20-sep-21.pdf

It's quite a good example of the type of behaviour and evidence that's required of a doctor facing fitness to practice questions.

If it's open to the public, I hope he finds himself look at serried rows of women in "adult human female" T-shirts. 🤞

@AlfonsoTheDinosaur

I wonder if Harrop will learn a valuable lesson from the tribunal. A challenging yet important and unforgettable lesson.

It's brilliant. He has to apologise for his terrible threatening behaviour the humblest of terms if he is to avoid punishment. Either way win win for the watchers. He never thought womens rights would be defended did he? He was so unbelievably arrogant.

twitter.com/JammersMinde/status/1450541073063890948?t=BntSesXslvey_sSRWS89Tw&s=19

This is an interesting twitter thread all about Haddock and the company he keeps.

I really wouldn't like to see any public protest anywhere near the hearing. I don't want anyone to get the impression he's the victim of any kind of campaign. Leave them to get on with it according to their process and without any distractions.

@NewlyGranny

If it's open to the public, I hope he finds himself look at serried rows of women in "adult human female" T-shirts. 🤞

If only... but unlikely

Many hearings are taking place remotely atm.

I should think it'll be like the Webberley hearing where there is a room where the public can watch via live video link.

Do they have a legal defence in cases like this? I bet he wont have his friend the lawyer ..

Well this is welcome news. I have a horrid "hidden" folder of screenshots in my photo library which I would dearly like to delete but every so often it's useful to refer back to. I am sure there are numerous reported tweets and the dates specified simply give a sample. But for those who aren't familiar I am posting a couple from around the time posters on Mumsnet were alerted to his activities. He cross referenced one poster from their twitter account and their Mumsnet account to threaten them. Tweets relating to that are within the specified time frame.

He's entitled to be legally represented. He will (almost certainly) have this covered as part of his professional insurance, something every doctor pays literally thousands a year for.

Agree with @nauticant on not giving him anything which he could use to make out he's the victim.

Does professional insurance cover wilful bad behaviour Motorina ?

I might be wrong but my understanding is that household insurance won't cover you if you leave the door open for instance.

@FannyCann most of the indemnity insurances are discretionary, but it's rare for them to refuse cover.

Remember at the moment it's only allegations of bad behaviour. He is - rightly - innocent til proven guilty. And he's entitled to have a lawyer present his case for him, should he wish it.

Oh god, yes, leave him to his ignominy.

Thanks Motorina
As you say he's entitled to advice or whatever protection the insurance covers.

Also posting a couple more screenshots from that particular episode, which prompted advice from a consultant anaesthetist who has a popular twitter account.

This thread and everything happening at the moment brings me so much joy. Do you remember when, a few years ago pp were saying that all this debate needed was sunlight, as Stonewall's mantra was #no debate? Well those days are well and truly over and, as Jane Clare Jones said, all we needed to do was PUUUULLLL!

Women have pulled, and tweeted and complained and demonstrated and written letters and Crowdfunded and FINALLY we are seeing results

Bloody well done to all of us.

Proud to be part of TERF Island, long may she reign!

I wish I lived near Manchester, I’d use a days annual leave to see this.