Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Harrop MPTS Hearing

986 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 19/10/2021 16:18

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
46
Motorina · 21/10/2021 17:27

@snoopyfloops, @BoreOfWhabylon my pleasure! I find this stuff fascinating and am happy to bore about it Smile

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/10/2021 17:34

@Motorina in a case that was covering behaviour between specified dates, what would happen if more complaints had come in outside of those dates? Would they be added in or would a further hearing be ordered?

Motorina · 21/10/2021 17:47

I don't know, sorry - I've not been involved in the case management/case preparation side of things. I know new complaints can be added in - it's called a joinder application.

I would guess it's more likely if the allegations are basically more of the same rather than totally different concerns.

I'd guess it's less likely if the new allegations come in really close to the hearing. The defence is entitled to a reasonable time to consider the allegations and prepare their defence.

I suspect that once the charges have been drafted and notice of hearing (a formal letter saying that it's going ahead on these dates in this place) has been sent, new charges can only be added with the consent of the tribunal panel. For anything like that, both sides would be able to give their opinion on whether they think it would happen or not. If the defence were to say, "Yeah, it totally makes sense to deal with all this at the same time" then I suspect it would happen; if they said, "It's really unfair because we haven't had time to get our witnesses in order" then it wouldn't. But it would be a decision for the panel depending on the circumstances of the case.

Sorry, I know that's only half an answer!

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 21/10/2021 17:47

Agree, thanks, Motorina, that is really helpful.

My legal knowledge comes entirely from Cagney and Lacey.

AlfonsoTheDinosaur · 21/10/2021 17:54

[quote Motorina]**@snoopyfloops, @BoreOfWhabylon my pleasure! I find this stuff fascinating and am happy to bore about it Smile[/quote]
Not boring at all! You've explained it in a clear and engaging way. Thank you.

BoreOfWhabylon · 21/10/2021 18:05

Thanks again Motorina

GenderAtheist · 21/10/2021 21:10

Another vote of thanks to @Motorina.

TatoAndBeans · 21/10/2021 23:01

Does anyone remember the tweet with a bogus prescription for Glinner? I can’t remember all the ins-and-outs but I’m sure there was a clear breach of data protection and abuse of work computer, as it was a screenshot of his surgery’s actual desktop???

Maskless · 22/10/2021 00:10

@nauticant

I doubt that Hayden is responsible for the defence and isn't actually stating this.
As Hayden is neither a solicitor nor a barrister this would not be allowed, in any case.
SpindelWhorl · 22/10/2021 05:20

As the Law Gazette notes, "... the title 'lawyer' is not legally protected. Anyone can call themselves a lawyer or offer legal services as a lawyer, irrespective of whether they have any legal training or qualifications."

Anyone can, and somebody does ...

Motorina · 22/10/2021 07:42

No restrictions on rights of audience in tribunals. He can be represented by Kermit the Frog if he wants to be.

He’s be mad to be represented by anyone who isn’t experienced in regulatory law, though. Tribunals are different in purpose than criminal courts and he’ll be at a disadvantage if his brief doesn’t understand that.

Scraggythang · 22/10/2021 08:43

@Maskless how dare you! they say they are, so they must be!

AlfonsoTheDinosaur · 22/10/2021 14:55

I suspect that the litigious lawyer will be advising but not leading. And that the defence will consist of going on the offence about all the big ol' meanies who bullied and harasssed Harrop and forced him in to a corner and made him write those tweets.

Motorina · 22/10/2021 17:48

This is all pure speculation, but...

The way medical indemnity works is you pick a company when you're a student. On reputation, or cost, or who has the best freebies (because students...) You pay them yearly and, like house insurance, tend to stick to them unless something goes wrong.

They will have their own in house solicitors. Who will chose the barrister who is to represent their client on the basis of their experience and relevance to the case (and probably - don't know - old boys network.)

Those barristers are invariably specialists in regulatory work.

The doctor normally doesn't get to pick which barrister is used.

So if he is represented by an, uhhhh, alternative barrister that means:

  1. He's likely paying for it himself.
  2. He's probably had a fall out with the legal team his indemnity has appointed, probably over a disagreement on broad strategy.

The natural consequences of that are:

  1. He's an idiot
  2. He's planning on arguing that he's a martyr for the trans cause.

Personally, I think it's unlikely. I reckon he'll be represented perfectly conventionally by a regulatory barrister.

AlfonsoTheDinosaur · 22/10/2021 17:56

@Motorina, I am in awe of your knowledge. Really. It is great.

nauticant · 22/10/2021 17:57

His barrister might even be a c**-person!

Motorina · 22/10/2021 18:21

@nauticant, that really did make me giggle. There's one spectacularly robust woman barrister of a certain age, who I probably shouldn't name, who has something of a suffer no fools reputation. The thought of her defending him has just made me snort tea out of my nose in delight.

I mean, it probably won't be her, but the thought it might just makes me happy.

I wish I could go and watch!

(@AlfonsoTheDinosaur - my pleasure.)

FannyCann · 22/10/2021 18:29

I wonder if Mumsnet will be referenced in the evidence. Grin
I can't think of anyone else who has been the subject of so many threads here.

Rose1957 · 31/10/2021 06:31

Well all health professionals have a code of conduct and are required to be moderate in public with their political opinions. All health professionals know this.

Awkwardy · 12/11/2021 13:24

Bumping as the hearing starts on Monday.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 12/11/2021 15:10

Thanks, Awkwardy.

Interesting timing, what with the drama with Stonewall champions being in the media.

BoreOfWhabylon · 13/11/2021 03:33

There will be live tweeting from the tribunal

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1459318368792678407?s=20

Motorina · 13/11/2021 08:59

@BoreOfWhabylon ohhh good stuff. I’ll make sure and follow that.

Who is the person live tweeting, do we know? Do they understand regulatory law?

Signalbox · 13/11/2021 09:56

[quote Motorina]@BoreOfWhabylon ohhh good stuff. I’ll make sure and follow that.

Who is the person live tweeting, do we know? Do they understand regulatory law?[/quote]
It's the same account that was set up to follow the Webberley hearing.

The tweeting was carried out by multiple volunteers because it was so long. I don't think any of them had any particular expertise, just doing the best they could to follow what was going on.

I think Harrop's case should be quite straightforward in comparison.