Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

So it seems the witnesses aren't being allowed to talk or to give their point of view in the hearing, but Harrop's lawyer is allowed to repeat all sorts of things about them - talk of people not being allowed to "exist", about them harassing him, about them being transphobic, about him just standing up for minorities etc etc. Anyone reading the tweets who knew nothing about this would probably, at this stage, think each was as bad as the other.

They are also referring to a court case where it seems one of the people involved sued another - wasn't that all chucked out of court? I know a person got an injunction against another - is that being used as proof that the person being harassed was actually harassing.

(I'm aware that the entire previous paragraph is so cryptic as to be pretty much incomprehensible, but needs must [sigh]).

Harrop's lawyer is allowed to repeat all sorts of things about them

I'm surprised this is being allowed to be honest, using evidence in submissions which hasn't been tested, is in my area of experience (albeit not MPTS), not allowed.

MN appeared to have crashed for half an hour (linked? dunno) so I did a bit of fruit farming. They admitted MN got the latest scoop, which was entertaining.

Does everyone know the identity of E? Please could someone DM me if able? I’ve just returned to twitter after a long break so don’t know who this is. AH’s arrogance and attempts to garner sympathy have enraged me.

I don't think you'll get an answer to this, a private message isn't private enough. Plus litigious people who dislike E have already required MN to release personal details, if I'm not mistaken.

@TherapistInATabard

Does everyone know the identity of E? Please could someone DM me if able? I’ve just returned to twitter after a long break so don’t know who this is. AH’s arrogance and attempts to garner sympathy have enraged me.

I wouldn't have thought anyone will do this, for obvious reasons.

Harrop’s barrister has said that the tribunal needs to examine why he called E a vile bigot and likened her to a Nazi denying the holocaust was happening.

And so armed with their belief that she called Dr H a fggt, off they’ve gone to form a committee and ponder that very important point.

And that GCs are a hate group and it's ok to slur them if they're being exclusionary...effing hell!

For reasons mentioned above, it's best not to share the identity of E. However, here's a copy of the (anonymised) tweet in question:

twitter.com/StoatlyL/status/1461662828054650884

If you look a couple of tweets upthread from that one you can see how the tribunal have been misled.

All I can do is make my solid assurances that I've learnt some unforgettable lessons from these events and these events will never rear their ugly head again or happen again. I'm not saying it's implausible the situ would never arise again...

Surely he doesn't actually mean implausible? Was that a typo? Or did he say that. Because that means it's entirely plausible. Which is completely different to it's possible.

So the defence in effect, is that context is everything?

Yes, he broke rules but the cause justifies it?
or
If you believe someone is discriminating, they deserve to be discriminated against?

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Re people changing their minds because of this board.

Without this place, this tiny chunk of the internet, our rights would be sunk in the UK.

We are not safe yet, but we have come within a baw hair of being second class citizens in an industrialised, wealthy democracy.

Fucking terrifying.

I sincerely hope AH's legal team finds this thread. It's an impossible task, mate. He's impossible. Your job is impossible.

Agree about this place, although the only reason I came here was to discuss stuff. It being the only place aside from the farms, which can be a bit much for me. They really pull no punches over there.

I love this place anyway but there were a few hairy moments along the way when my anger got the better of me. Now I try to be more sarcastic in tone.
I do believe we have pulled ourselves out of a terrifying dystopian future although the war is not yet over. But I see signs of hope coming through.
The thread about MN is lovely to see, plenty of names I've not seen before saying fwr is amazeballs. I do love all the women here for seeing what I saw but much better able to put it in words.

I imagine that the Vice article, and the complaints that will arise from it regarding AH's participation, the timing, and the distribution of personal data, would give the GMC another bite of the cherry.

(I believe that while the Panel were made aware of it, they have not read it; so fresh complaints can be made in respect of it.)

A crucial material factor is always going to be that, as a doctor, AH's behaviour is concerning. If he has even one condition placed on him as a result of this hearing, then future complaints about that Vice article and his behavior will be a problem for him.

My DH has just said if he was a betting man he would put a few quid on The dear doctor to start transitioning within 6 months…….

@YNK

So the defence in effect, is that context is everything?

Yes, he broke rules but the cause justifies it?
or
If you believe someone is discriminating, they deserve to be discriminated against?

And a doctor no less who I need to trust will treat me the same regardless of whether he liked me or not.

His behaviour has demonstrated he's unable to keep a clear head if he doesnt like you. Ignoring social media policy, even logic tells me to get off my computer if I get too deep into a digital argument.

I admit I've never heard of a faggot meaning "bundle" before this trial.

And even if she used it in a homophobic context which is doubtful - it wasnt aimed at him.

And even if it was aimed at him... he should know better than to even react, let alone retaliate.

Whilst I wouldn’t use the word (I don’t tend to use long or unfamiliar words). I read E’s tweet to mean wood for witch burning

@TurquoiseBaubles

So it seems the witnesses aren't being allowed to talk or to give their point of view in the hearing, but Harrop's lawyer is allowed to repeat all sorts of things about them - talk of people not being allowed to "exist", about them harassing him, about them being transphobic, about him just standing up for minorities etc etc. Anyone reading the tweets who knew nothing about this would probably, at this stage, think each was as bad as the other.

They are also referring to a court case where it seems one of the people involved sued another - wasn't that all chucked out of court? I know a person got an injunction against another - is that being used as proof that the person being harassed was actually harassing.

(I'm aware that the entire previous paragraph is so cryptic as to be pretty much incomprehensible, but needs must [sigh]).

Yes, it struck me that whilst doing all sorts of excusing and pleading and context and stress and etc etc for AH's tweets, there's been no reciprocal generosity of spirit extended at all to the other tweets involved.

How anyone could read that text and interpret it as an anti-gay slur is a bit mindbending really, the meaning is perfectly obvious.

@PigeonLittle

I admit I've never heard of a faggot meaning "bundle" before this trial.

And even if she used it in a homophobic context which is doubtful - it wasnt aimed at him.

And even if it was aimed at him... he should know better than to even react, let alone retaliate.

There is a discussion about this every Christmas on SM, because of its use in Fairytale of New York (with a different meaning again - a general slur, more like 'bastard'). The upshot seems to be that its use now is quite regional and that, though everyone knows it's a homophobic slur in America, in some areas here it's fine, and would mean firewood and/or bastard, and in others it would be homophobic and very offensive.

I think that, as long as the Panel see E's actual tweet, they will understand the context. I assume the tweet was in the bundle.

Watching with fascination to see if this leads to a new, progressive GMC social media code of conduct in which you can let it all hang out and do whatever you want if you're feeling provoked by a group you went and started a ruck with, and whom you feel morally compelled to argue with.

Because if so, they're essentially agreeing that if AH runs across another group he is personally morally indignant about, he'll do this all over again because obvs that makes it all ok. Impact on public trust and all.

I've worked in public-facing roles - I've been shouted at, sworn at, inappropriately or aggressively touched, had written and verbal complaints about everything from my facial expression to my judgement.

I've never ever retaliated in the heat of the moment. I've walked away, I've sought senior support, I've engaged with complaints procedures and incident reporting. I've never lashed out or behaved badly in response.

Even if that was a homophobic slur against him (all clearly not in context) but even if it was. The point is he need to recognise his position and walk away, use reporting procedures and alert others to it. He also needs to not be using equally offensive language towards other people left, right and centre. He is the doctor, he is the one with a code of conduct. The onus is on him.

In any event Dr Harrop was not even tagged into the tweet, so claiming it was aimed at him is disingenuous to say the least.

Feel moved to point out that in the Midlands the f word in question is a local delicacy normally comprised of all the parts of a pig the local economy sausage factory didn't fancy.

I'd always assume "faggot" to mean either a wood bundle or those meatball things.

I first heard it used as a slur in Money for Nothing by Dire Straits and was bemused by the row. I think then it was used this way in America far more than it was in the UK and some news reports pointed out that, in America, it would be considered offensive.

@WomenTalkingAboutARevolution

Whilst I wouldn’t use the word (I don’t tend to use long or unfamiliar words). I read E’s tweet to mean wood for witch burning

Because that's exactly what the Tweet said, AH decided to read an entirely different meaning into it to suit himself and to 'allow' him to retaliate, his/his Counsel's framing of this is disingenuous at best.

Let's not forget that the term in question has been in use since the 19th Century to describe a food product, apparently tens of millions of these food products were consumed in 2018 and even Waitrose stock them.

A faggot is a bundle of sticks used for fuel. It's an ancient term, but one I've heard of.

See 2 (a ) in link regarding it's use in the burning of heretics. Which is how E used it.

As always, the dictionary is our friend here.

www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/67623

Having followed this saga since the beginning, under various names, I'm quite sure it would be a term used by E in this context.

E certainly does not strike me as a person prone to using it as a term of abuse. If E did, surely we would have seen it's use elsewhere, not just in the one context about burning?

(Also declining to pm a stranger on the internet re E)

The man is a weasel imo. He knows it was not used in a perjorative way. Truth is a stranger to him.