Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

I recognise @TherapistInATabard as a long-term poster who I have no reason to believe is not posting in good faith. Still, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to PM anyone about any of the parties involved in this case.

Google can be helpful though.

Yes. Mr Brain's faggots.

@BoreOfWhabylon

I recognise *@TherapistInATabard* as a long-term poster who I have no reason to believe is not posting in good faith. Still, I'm afraid I'm not prepared to PM anyone about any of the parties involved in this case.

Google can be helpful though.

Yes I hereby rescind my request. I naively wasn’t thinking about the consequences! Thanks everyone, and apologies. Back to lurking and cheering from the sidelines...

I think Harrop is a twat, and am as gender critical as the next person - but I think that 'a faggot is a bunch of sticks, or a meat pattie' comes across as a little disingenuous. Yes, it is those things, and it is also a slur used against gay people, and in the context it was used I think the person on the Clapham omnibus would raise an eyebrow at the faux innocence expressed here.

It was in the context of being a witch burnt at the stake?

"If witch burning were still a thing the faggots would be piling up around me"

Fairly clear the context the term was being used in IMHO

Really it would make sense in both contexts.

@ExceptionalAssurance

Really it would make sense in both contexts.

So pick one and be offended!

@Nasturs

I think Harrop is a twat, and am as gender critical as the next person - but I think that 'a faggot is a bunch of sticks, or a meat pattie' comes across as a little disingenuous. Yes, it is those things, and it is also a slur used against gay people, and in the context it was used I think the person on the Clapham omnibus would raise an eyebrow at the faux innocence expressed here.

I'd suspect the poster had that thought and chose her words carefully. That he chose to take offence remains his issue...

That single post from E is as nothing compared to myriad posts by AH.

'If witch burning was a thing, gay men would be piling up around me'.... ?

No, not sure that makes sense really.

And again: huge amounts of generosity of interpretation being requested for AH, which means really it has to go to the witnesses too. This whole 'they're evil and made me do it' bit is all a bit 'a big boy did it and ran away'.

Even I know faggot is an old word for a bundle of firewood, as well as midlands meetballs.

We are British people who live in Britain. Faggot has never been an inslult here, at any time for anyone.

I do think there is currently an obsession with American culture, note the use of the word 'Feds', which is just cringy really.

@ExceptionalAssurance

Really it would make sense in both contexts.

I don't think it does.

a) "If witch burning were still a thing the [kindle for burning] would be piling up around me"

b) "If witch burning were still a thing the [gay men] would be piling up around me"

I think that (a) makes sense and (b) doesn't.

I'm trying to look at this objectively, which is what the Panel will do.

@Personwithrage

It was in the context of being a witch burnt at the stake?

Exactly. No examples exist of E using it as an insult. This one statement is being deliberately twisted. And I speak as someone who would disagree with E on other matters totally unrelated to Harropgate.

Anyway, in danger here of the Menz on the Clapham Omnibus derailing the thread. It's up to the Tribunal to decide.

Are we allowed to say the wording of the F-word tweet here? Because it’s difficult to talk about without the precise phrasing being referenced.

But fully I can see it was meant to mean “bundles of wood would be piling up around me to burn me as a witch”, but, perhaps someone sensitive to the F word being used as a slur, unaware of its other meanings, could somehow interpreted it as “gay people would be piling up around me as I burned them” or similar. I do not believe that is what was intended or indeed what anyone with any decent degree of reading comprehension would understand though. I can understand someone getting upset at the mere mention of the word, if they lacked the understanding of the broader context of its use.

Anyway, doesn’t fucking matter does it, because E is not the one facing charges of professional misconduct here. Even if AH was genuinely deeply personally upset and offended just at someone using that word - in a tweet not directed at him - doesn’t excuse him harassing them, bullying them, threatening them, intimidating them. He is the registered professional with his behaviour on display to the public here, not E.

So if she was using it as a slur (not saying she was), her tweet would be saying that gay men would be stacked on to a bonfire (piling up around me) with her in a witch burning.

That make any sense? It doesn't, because it's not what she was saying at all.

It doesn't really matter if E directly called him a slur, whether it's a UK slur or a US slur or an Australian slur.
E isn't facing a panel. Harrop is.

I've been called some horrendous things by members of the public, I am still not allowed to retaliate, and I'm certainly not allowed to publish their personal details to intimidate them into shutting up.

It really doesn't matter if E's comment was entirely innocent or if the F-word was used intentionally with plausible deniability in mind. Its Harrop who has to adhere to a code of conduct, and Harrop who advertises himself as an NHS doctor.

"Anyway, doesn’t fucking matter does it, because E is not the one facing charges of professional misconduct here" - she may not be, but the fact that it's obvious who she is (from the Vice article), and the fact that AH's lawyer is allowed to repeat all sorts of accusations about her, means that I'm starting to wonder who exactly is on trial here

In the UK, faggot Isn’t an insult nor slur. It is never been used in that way. To me a faggot is a bundle of sticks or a large meatball type thing that either comes in a sauce from Mr Brains or you get in a butcher wrapped in the stomach membrane of a sheep/cow pig.

Harrop’s defence appears to be claiming that E made a series of discriminatory tweets against him on account of his sexuality, the f-word being the most egregious example.

If that were the case, then she would have been up before a magistrate and rightfully so, because I’m pretty sure that directly abusing someone on the basis on their sexuality would constitute harassment or malicious comms.

This would surely have been the most sensible option rather than doxing or threatening revenge porn?

Pity nobody thought to ask him this.

You call a TRA the f word and you’ll be suspended from Twitter and have the police at your front door quicker than you can say “is that a golf club in your pocket or does your special tape need re-affixing”?!

BaronessWrongCrowdRex maybe, but if you shouted it at a gay man he'd know what you meant.

It might be American as a slur, but let's not pretend we aren't influenced by the Americans or that we don't consume tons of American media.

It's not like she used a Nepalese word is it. I don't know if she had any malicious intent, I'm just saying it's irrelevant if she did, because his provocation defence is a load of shit.

I agree it's not relevant as E's conduct is not under scrutiny, but I think it's worth noting in passing that the tweet was directly referencing one of the many ways in which women have been violently oppressed by men over the centuries. And Harrop has twisted it to make himself the victim and claim that it was triggering for his community.

Women were burned alive for speaking, reading, having opinions. But he is triggered to uncontrollable rage by a word in common usage.

@ExceptionalAssurance

Really it would make sense in both contexts.

Well theres 3 contexts. The bundles of woods makes more sense to me, but if you think witches being burned at the stake were having gay men or meatballs in rich gravy piled up to burn them then I dont think we will change your mind.

So tired of having to view everything through an American prism.

TribunalTweets
We're back.
Chair: the tribunal now needs to go and make a decision privately. At that point we need to distill that I to a document and that takes time. We'll then go to a process with a committee and how we arrived at that. The earliest day is midday on Wednesday.
It's likely that day will move and if you'll be so kind to provide contacts if we think it's Thurs or Fri we will inform you.
GP: is there a possibility of it being earlier
Chairman: no
Chair: of you cantget here maybe you can be here by other means. We will make sure sufficient time to arrive. We're not going to tell you to be here immediately.
GP: clarifies again won't be earlier
Chair says no and thanks to everyone.
Thank you for tuning in this week and we thank you for all your messages of support and thanks. It really is much appreciated. From myself and the team have a lovely weekend. VM

@FlyingOink

BaronessWrongCrowdRex maybe, but if you shouted it at a gay man he'd know what you meant.

It might be American as a slur, but let's not pretend we aren't influenced by the Americans or that we don't consume tons of American media.

It's not like she used a Nepalese word is it. I don't know if she had any malicious intent, I'm just saying it's irrelevant if she did, because his provocation defence is a load of shit.

I think most gay men, hearing some twit shout that at them, would roll their eyes, think you were a twit and carry on with their day. As opposed to intimidate, harass etc. You can't really argue that someone's making you argue with them on twitter; you have to turn up and join in for them to successfully have that argument.

And it still boils down to it doesn't matter why he did it, or who, or what they said, the fact stands that in his open name and role as a GP and as pointed out using his public platform and respect as a GP he shouldn't have been doing it all.