@Terfasaurus I think that would be a high-risk strategy. As @Northernlurker said, it's a professional panel, not a jury. They're trained to be aware of and try to set aside hteir prejudices, and attempts to smear are likely to do him no favours.
The allegations are actually pretty simple:
- Harrop posted the tweets
- That they were offensive and/or insulting and/or inappropriate in nature
- Some of them were intended to intimidate.
In terms of 1., it's a straight factual decision. He will either admit posting them, in which case that's likely to be found proved. Or he'll deny it. In which case there may be an IT expert to give evidence to track them back to his IP address or something.
For 2., the tweets stand for themselves. The panel will be able to assess if they are offensive etc from their content. He will be entitled, of course, to give evidence on whether he thinks they're offensive or not. But, if he does, he'll be cross-examined, and I think he's at high risk of putting foot in mouth.
- is a bit more nuanced because some of the alleged attempts to intimidate (pictures of a church, reference to golf clubs) are quite subtle. I can see that witness evidence from the complainants might be relevant to that particular decision.
We will see. I'm honestly scratching my head to see why they've scheduled this for as long as they have because, on the face of it, it's a pretty straightforward case.
(I should repeat that I am not and never have been connected to the GMC or MPTS, and have no insider information at all. But I do tribunal work elsewhere and the principles are broadly similar.)