Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

I accept that he might have been pissed by the use of the word, but to extrapolite that to telling the tribunal that she was "announc(ing)e to the world she's been persecuted by 'faggots'" is surely a stretch, even for him.

pissed off not pissed

But where is the evidence to suggest that E was tweeting about Harrop?

He’s saying that word made him see red. They were on a mutual block. She could have been tweeting about a different situation.

What’s frustrating is the way that the tweet has been presented and generally accepted as being all about him when nobody knows what led up to it or the wider context.

Had she responded to Harrop throwing vitriol at her on that day? Or someone else?

Is “claiming to be persecuted by gay men” his interpretation of E’s F-word tweet? I didn’t even consider that as an interpretation and I tried really hard to see it from another POV!!!

So you can lie if you believe your own lie? That’s advantageous to sociopaths isn’t it. What if what you say is demonstrably untrue?

I couldn’t be a lawyer, all this pernickety wheedling around interpretations and opinions.

Actually, having gone to the land of fruits to refresh my memory, I'll have to concede it is at least as likely that the use of the word faggot was deliberately provocative as that it was used without malicious aforethought. So my apologies to the posters who pointed out this possibility, especially Nasturs whose comment I replied to.

I do however agree with PP that even in the face of such provocation, someone in AH's position ought to have been able to step away. And that it wasn't E being asked to account for alleged violations of professional conduct but AH.

I think what’s troubling me is that the tribunal are judging Harrop’s response under the misapprehension that a targeted slur had been thrown at him.

In which case the truth of the situation does matter very much. He’s reliant on a lie for mitigation and the panel would appear to be accepting that.

She called me an f-word so I called her a vile bigot which is acceptable free speech.

OK have a lollipop and don’t do it again.

I think what’s troubling me is that the tribunal are judging Harrop’s response under the misapprehension that a targeted slur had been thrown at him.

But the entire tribunal doesn't rest on whether someone provoked him. He wouldn't be in this situation if he has reacted to a single provocation. He might not be in this situation if it was only one complainant.

But instead he has spent hours every day, for years, behaving badly online in public and in full view of his employers, whilst mentioning his employment as often as possible. He's doxxed an individual, and regardless of who the individual is, Harrop is not the Batman of Twitter. It's not up to him to bring who he sees as miscreants to justice.

He doesn't seem to have a firm grip on reality, tbh. Even his BBC Look North interview, he looks like he's teetering on the edge.

I can see him driving at 70mph in the third lane of the motorway, gritting his teeth in determination to stop anyone speeding, acting as his own rolling roadblock, oblivious to the chaos he is causing.

@Motorina although the witnesses were not called to give evidence in person, am I right in assuming that the panel will have seen their statements? They presumably detail how Harrop's behaviour affected them and their lives and their interpretation of specific tweets (e.g. golfing references).

@BoreOfWhabylon I (unlike half the world!) haven't seen the bundles, but I would be absolutely astonished if that didn't include the statements from each of the witnesses in the charges.

We've only 'heard' - via tribunal tweets - the live evidence. It sounds like the entirety of the GDC's case was paper based. Reading between the lines of what was said, that's witness statements, the tweets in neat tables saying what the GMC considers inappropriate or threatening or whatever, and a glossary of helpful terms like 'terf'. But we really have been given next to no information beyond those basic facts.

In contrast, all or most of the defence case was live, because it was basically Harrop giving verbal evidence. I'm guessing there will also be a written statement from him. There may also have been some medical reports, but that's pure speculation. It sounds like they've probably also received a stage two bundle with testimonials etc.

There's been much more twitter activity about the defence case because that was in the open hearing. That doesn't mean that the evidence in the round is imbalanced. Just that one side was largely documents, which we haven't been party to, and one side was largely verbal, which we have.

Thanks so much Motorina. Your input and insight on all this has been invaluable

My pleasure!

@BoreOfWhabylon

Thanks so much Motorina. Your input and insight on all this has been invaluable

Absolutely this

If you google "Joan of Arc faggot", you'll see several articles that use the word in that context, including a Washington Post article and a Gay and Lesbian Review article entitled "Was Joan of Arc Genetically Male?"

Those publications had no problem using the word to mean bundles of firewood and it seems their readers had no difficulty in understanding them.

@Motorina gives wise advice.

I've sat on quasi-judicial panels myself, and chaired a couple, and my personal observation is that the panel may often look like it's leaning toward to party who eventually loses, because the panel members want to appear scrupulously fair.

We had a hearing once, for example, where the 'defendant' declined to appear, so it was important for due process that a panel member played 'devil's advocate' and tested the evidence to the full. The legal support and investigating officer apparently thought we were going to let the person off. Not at all. But when you are potentially depriving someone of their livelihood, you need to be sure.

There's also a legal definition of 'good character' that's specific to the process. I think the Chair was pretty sharp on this tbh.

@BoreOfWhabylon

Thanks so much Motorina. Your input and insight on all this has been invaluable

Repeating this, always amazing to find the experienced voices who share their expertise like this, thank you

@EgoSumFeminaNaturalis agreed.

It can also be that one side has a coherent, watertight argument, so you don't have any questions to ask. The other side seems, uhhh, less cogent. Sometimes you just want to clarify that they mean that silly thing that they said. Which sounds like you're agreeing with it, when actually you're just trying to establish exactly what their position is.

Agree with your perspective on the Chair's approach to 'good character'.

He appears, from tribunal tweets, to be this chap:

www.cobden.co.uk/barristers/nicholas_flanagan/

If so, he's got best part of two decades experience in crime. That's two decades of villains swearing blind they're reformed characters who only did the crime to stop their poor old mum from starving. The odds of him being easily fooled are, I would have thought, minimal to non-existant.

the panel may often look like it's leaning toward to party who eventually loses, because the panel members want to appear scrupulously fair

Absolutely this. You often see judges criticised on MN for taking into account all possible mitigating circumstances in their sentencing when, in fact, this is the best way of ensuring that the sentence holds and the victim (if it's criminal) isn't put through the trauma of an appeal.

Exactly so. And it's not just about appearing fair. It has to absolutely be fair.

Even to people you don't like.

Even to people who's views you find abhorrent.

Because the end result is you're potentially taking away someone's livelyhood, for months or years. As @EgoSumFeminaNaturalis, you have to be sure, based on the evidence, that that's a necessary and proportionate thing to do.

The end result of an unfair judicial system is people like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe locked up for years for political reasons and not because of anythign she's done.

Harrop being allowed to make his defence, and his barrister giving full submissions, doesn't say anything about the panel's views other than they're taking the process seriously and fairly. As one would expect.

Re the faggot thing - I just know that I came out as gender critical at work this week - in a very woke industry. If those people were to to follow this case I know they would absolutely be ‘Yikes! Nasturs is on the side that thinks is OK to use the term faggots!!!’. No amount of claiming that only the professionally offended would think she meant anything other than firewood is going to make it look less bad. It is bad.

If you were in the witch-burning business, the word "faggots" would mean something very different. Context matters.

Now in the case of E I think both interpretations are possible. But it is very annoying that people will confidently declare that one particular interpretation must be true.

@Nasturs

Re the faggot thing - I just know that I came out as gender critical at work this week - in a very woke industry. If those people were to to follow this case I know they would absolutely be ‘Yikes! Nasturs is on the side that thinks is OK to use the term faggots!!!’. No amount of claiming that only the professionally offended would think she meant anything other than firewood is going to make it look less bad. It is bad.

I agree.

I also think that if you are able to type that word in the 21st century without a moment's pause to reflect on whether it's the most appropriate word, or might be misconstrued, maybe you shouldn't be typing?

And I am absolutely clear that AH is an egregious fool of a man.

Both things can be true, it's not either/or. There's no heresy in finding that word absolutely appalling in this context.

@nauticant

If you were in the witch-burning business, the word "faggots" would mean something very different. Context matters.

Now in the case of E I think both interpretations are possible. But it is very annoying that people will confidently declare that one particular interpretation must be true.

You don't think she was using it as a pun?

Really? Of course we will never know. But it's weird how well it works as a homophobic pun then

I don't know. So I'm not going to decide what was in E's head. Give me some evidence and I'll be happy to reconsider.

Whether she meant that word innocently or as a double-entendre is open to interpretation.

The chair appears to have accepted the defence’s submission that she used it as a specific insult directed at Dr Harrop.

@nauticant

I don't know. So I'm not going to decide what was in E's head. Give me some evidence and I'll be happy to reconsider.

No obviously we don't know what was in her head. But I won't be defending this tweet. I think it's awful. I don't think it's justification for his behaviour. But I don't want to have to defend things I think are awful because I am on this side. That's magical TA thinking and it's not necessary.