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.

@Rightsraptor

Instead of thinking about protesting outside the venue please think about attending the hearing. You can apply to observe by clicking on a link within the MPTS statement. Much more interesting to be at the hearing, not to mention warmer.

I agree. I think protest is not a good look anyway.

I think protest is not a good look anyway.

What would you actually be protesting? That he's being investigated?

It wouldn't make any sense...

Does anyone if the fact he's done so much tv and media will be relevant, i.e. that's he's a relatively well-known doctor and puts himself out there as a bit of a public figure and expert / role model?

I always think much less of a doctor or other professional who is unpleasant on Twitter. Jokes and satire are fine - I follow a few scientists and historians who can be quite pointed but keep it civil and witty - but when you get an 'expert' who claims to be representing their area of speciality and is just horrible to people, I think it makes them look unprofessional.

Does anyone know if

It's very (very) rare to have observers at a hearing. I've had a journalist once. Occassional members of the profession who are interested, or the odd supportive spouse. But it's unusual.

A group of women, dressed professionally, sitting quietly and just ... watching. I can't quite imagine it. It would be unnerving for everyone involved.

It would also be fascinating. And indoors, out of the weather, with proper toilets. Which is much better than outside with a placard.

@Terfasaurus

One defence would be to smear and undermine the credibility of the witnesses or complainants.

I don’t know how effective this would be and it would depend on how many there are. It’s a bit difficult to say that all of them are unhinged hysterical women with a grudge. I don’t envy those involved who will probably have to face a shit show of counter allegations courtesy of Harrop’s mates standing witness for him.

Bottom line is that he is still a doctor and it’s his behaviour on the line.

That's what I am thinking: he will go for character assassinations of Louise Moody, Posie Parker, Caroline Farrow etc.

@Motorina is right - a group of silent, respectful but acutely attentive women at a tribunal would be unprecedented...

My owrry is it would play in to Haddocks narcissm and persecution complex? Is ignorning the little squirt the best policy?

Okay, assuming anyone wants to go, top tips for attending a hearing:

1. Assume there will be a lot of hanging around. A lot. How much? More than that. The lawyers do a lot of stuff behind the scenes, which you won't be party to. Decisions are made in private. Some evidence - health, particularly - will be heard in private. You will have to wait outside for this. This could be anything from 5 minutes to a couple of days hanging around. Assume things will run late (but sometimes they will unexpectedly run early.) The hearings assistants should be able to give you a rough guide (and the chair should give the room an indication, too.)
2. The hearings assistants are your friends! They will get you to the right place. Don't be afraid to ask them where you should sit. And be nice to them - they work very hard for not much money.
3. Dress comfortably but smartly. The participants will be in suit and tie. I'm not saying you have to wear that, but you will probably feel out of place in ripped jeans and a boob tube.
4. Expect it to be too hot, too cold, or both intermittently. The Chair is nominally in charge of the thermostat which means, when I'm sitting, it's set for 'grumpy menopausal woman'. But the Hearings Assistants are actually in control so sometimes it can bounce around.
5. Bring a bottle of water. Also, snacks. Do not eat the snacks in the hearing room. They will rustle and upset the logger, who will either be taking notes or recording. Also it's distracting.
6. Expect to have to turn your mobile phone off. You may need to leave it outside. You will not be allowed to record the hearing or take photos - if you try you will be ejected.
7. Bring a notepad and pen. You won't get a desk to lean on so something a bit rigid.
8. Wear comfy shoes.
9. You may be asked to wear a face mask, so bring one in case.

The Chair is responsible for ensuring that the hearing is fair to both sides. That's a responsibility Chairs take very seriously. No matter what their private views on the case (and, believe me, if it's a child pornography case I have views) every effort will be made to ensure it's a fair process.

This means:

10. Don't - no matter how tempting - wear an 'adult human female' tshirt. You risk being percieved as attempting to intimidate the defendant or sway the decision making, and may be asked to leave.
11. Don't try and participate. If you ask questions, comment, mutter under your breath, or are otherwise disruptive, you will be asked to leave.
12. Likewise banners.
13. Likewise attempting to engage with any participants outside the hearing room. Don't grab the Chair in the corridor and tell them your views. It will have to be aired formally in the hearing room (awkward) and you will be asked to leave.
14. The poor bugger getting you to leave will be the Hearings Assistant. Underpaid. Not very experienced at that. Be nice to the hearings assistants!

Happy to answer any questions on practicalities and process, if that's helpful. Can't comment other than in generalities on this case because I know nothing more than has been on here.

It will be hard to portray Harry Miller as a hysterical woman with a grudge.

Phrasing this carefully to avoid deletion.

The reason Dr Harrop has been so frequently discussed on here is because he is a doctor. We don’t have threads and threads on other vicious trolls like Sprout & co because they are not licensed and enabled by the state to have personal access vulnerable women (and children and men).

The important thing is not the schadenfreude, fun as it is, but protecting the public. It’s not about punishing or cancelling a man for his views but making sure he’s not in a position to hurt anyone.

I know there a nice political points to be made about how Harrop represents the respectable side of the transgender movement, but what everyone has been consistently worried about for years is that he might cause harm to someone because he struggles with impulse control and appears to have a pronounced sadistic streak.

Because it looks like there are some high profile people involved like Harry Miller, Posie Parker, J K Rowling etc then Harrop could use this as a defence to say it’s an orchestrated political campaign and so it was all hyperbole. He wouldn’t do this to ordinary people, but it was all just an act. Nobody was seriously worried by him etc

I kinda hope they don’t ask any of the known names to say anything but the ordinary people he’s scared. Hope that makes sense?

Thanks for all the invaluable information and advice @Motorina

The reason Dr Harrop has been so frequently discussed on here is because he is a doctor. We don’t have threads and threads on other vicious trolls like Sprout & co because they are not licensed and enabled by the state to have personal access vulnerable women (and children and men)

The important thing is not the schadenfreude, fun as it is, but protecting the public. It’s not about punishing or cancelling a man for his views but making sure he’s not in a position to hurt anyone.

A male doctor who told a woman that he didn't want her to feel safe anywhere, threatened to publish her name, address, place of work and details culled from MN on Twitter for all to see.

There is an epidemic of male violence against women, there was at the time he posted this threat and a male doctor does this. Equally he had never considered whether the women in question needed to remain anonymous for other reasons such as hiding from an abusive ex partner.

Yes, women who don't share his views absolutely need protecting from him.

Does anyone know why it's such a long hearing? 2 weeks?

A male doctor who told a woman that he didn't want her to feel safe anywhere, threatened to publish her name, address, place of work and details culled from MN on Twitter for all to see.

There is an epidemic of male violence against women, there was at the time he posted this threat and a male doctor does this.

This. It's no good the police and authorities handwringing in the media over the deaths of women, if behaviour like this goes unaddressed.

The rank misogyny of a doctor, no less, thinking that he can hound, dox and threaten a woman because she disagrees with him, needs a public and significant challenge.

@Datun

A male doctor who told a woman that he didn't want her to feel safe anywhere, threatened to publish her name, address, place of work and details culled from MN on Twitter for all to see.

There is an epidemic of male violence against women, there was at the time he posted this threat and a male doctor does this.

This. It's no good the police and authorities handwringing in the media over the deaths of women, if behaviour like this goes unaddressed.

The rank misogyny of a doctor, no less, thinking that he can hound, dox and threaten a woman because she disagrees with him, needs a public and significant challenge.

This is what the Police should have and should take action on, not tweets about fucking limericks or ribbons.

Well, he did actually publish her name on twitter. I think thatnwas the tweet where the Welsh Consultant Anaesthetist rebuked him.

I wonder how many medics shared concerns about him with the GMC? I suspect it might have been quite a few.

[quote Terfasaurus]It’s getting better and better. Look who is conducting the defence.

twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1450781125756997641?s=21[/quote]
Two ch::ks of t:e s::e a::e ! 😂

@snoopyfloops

Does anyone know why it's such a long hearing? 2 weeks?

In essence, because that's what the parties will have agreed is necessary. There will have been various planning meetings in the past few months, where each side will have said what witnesses they're planning on calling and how long they think it will be, which will be used to decide how much time to book.

It's actually 3 weeks, which I agree sounds a long time for what seems quite a simple case. I would have guestimated 2 weeks, but clearly I have no idea what evidence there is or how many witnesses.

My hope is that Marion Millar's case gets kicked out ASAP, but if it does have to go to court I will be glad of the chance to see Joanna Cherry at work, because I think that will be a real spectacle.

I would choose the same words to express my interest in this defence team despite my expectations being rather different.

Motorina supposing there was a separate case still ongoing which had been found to be complex and raised some startling issues. And that medic who held similar beliefs to this medic. And that this medic appears to have had a close relationship with that medic and there had been musings online that this medic was going to work with that medic.

Meanwhile there is a fast changing and charged background with a specialist clinic which had been found by the High Court to be lacking in it's basic safeguarding and standards of recording and consent; a political hot potato; in a field which had been described as "experimental"; with the Cass review working separately but in the same area - is it possible the court might think that is all relevant and require provision of more time just incase?

The court won't make the decision about timings. It'll be decided effectively as an administrative exercise.

As an example (made up! I know nothing!) the GMC - who are basically the prosecution - will say, "We have four witnesses. Here are their statements. The first witness will take this long, the second that long..."

The defence will say, "We've read their statments. We need half a day to question the first witness, and an hour for the second..." and so on. And then they'll say, "We need this long for our witnesses."

Plus they will estimate how long they need for their opening speeches, and their closing speeches.

Then an administrator will say, "Usually in cases of this complexity it takes two days for the panel to make their decision and write it up."

Then all that will be added up, with a fudge factor, and that'll be how long it'll be listed for. The tribunal panel will have no say in it.

In terms of the broader political context, I wouldn't expect the GMC to raise any of that, because it's not relevant to the charges that the panel are being asked to consider.

The defence might raise some of it, if it thinks the context will make the panel consider the tweets more likely.

But, no, I wouldn't expect anything about experimental treatments, or other cases to feature. The charges are actually quite limited ('You posted these things, it was nasty, some of it was threatening') and I'd expect both sides to focus quite closely on that. If anyone is expecting this to impact on the wider issue of care pathways for people who identify as trans then they're going to be disappointed.

Thanks @Motorina so interesting. So good of you to share your expertise.

The defence might raise some of it, if it thinks the context will make the panel consider the tweets more likely.

should read 'tweets more reasonable'.