LIVE TWEETS
The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
17m
We are back.
RD: if we could look first at tweet number 9, 415 of GMC bundle. Do have that? Thread starts earlier on 413.
Rd: Starts with E referencing debate on kiwifarms. We see your tweet (he read and too fast it's about doxxing). Tweet 9 appears which is about personal notoriety and psychological trauma. Mother of child is autistic, is autistic
AH: that person is talking about that child of E being autistic.
RD: and your tweet referred to same child?
AH: 'the' children refers generally
RD: do you agree tweeting about others children is personal and private and it was inappropriate to comment on public
AH: E brings up repeatedly the fact they have children so I wouldn't regard it as a private matter. I would concede that me and a medical profession writing in those sorts of terms writing about anyone's children could be characterised as inappropriate. I'm regretful
AH I've reflected on in depth now after reading the guidelines. It's a profound source of regret for me. Same themes as other tweets you've drawn my attention to
RD: looking at 10/11. Another reply from the other individual. Draw attention to all the accusations about doxxing E had a public Instagram with all children's details. You're telling her there she had a public profile
AH: I wouldn't characterise it like that. E had an account with all her information on it. When this tweet was written the account has gone or locked down. I was drawing attention to their hypocrisy.
AH: E so fixated in details of children remain private but then had it all publically available. E comments incencasntly she has 5 children. Commenting on the hypocrisy of the statement
RD: (reads out the tweets) you've viewed the account and the photos of children
AH: I'm sure E would characterise anyone who looked at her profile is a stalker.whixh I say it's not the case if someone puts the info out into public consumption. Whether I've looked at it or it doesn't tell you one thing or another
RD: You wanted her to know you'd seen it
AH: I would hope E was already aware of that fact as was public. If it caused E a sense of alarm and distress that public are looking at her Instagram profile that's her problem
RD: look at tweet 13, (reads tweets too fast about homophobia)
Chair: is it being put that this tweet was inappropriate?
Can I make it clear we've read through all these bundles.
So going through that isn't helpful.
Chair wants GMC to explain why it's inappropriate.
GP: we just thought it was a generic appeal to stop
Chair: had this person asked AH to stop tweeting at this point?
RD: I hope to explore. Ah makes the point its a doctored screenshot. Did you check at all before you referred that in your tweet?
AH: it's very difficult to tell and it's some years old so wouldn't be able to verify if it was true or not.
AH: my impression at the time...which is horrific in its context...horrifying..it fitted quite comfortably in the course of conduct by the specific individual. No reason to doubt E had written something so heinous