Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

As one who buys faggots for burning and eating on a regular basis I am only peripherally aware of its homophobic use.

I know it is but round here, southwest, anyone shouting for faggots would be fed or supplied with firewood.

I'm British. I would say faggot meaning something to burn or a regional culinary item is by far and away the peripheral meaning; to the extent I'd feel uncomfortable asking for faggots in the senses you've used.

It's out of favour now but where did "fag hag" come from other than "faggot" ? Lily Allen has a song called Fag Hag.

@BaronessWrongCrowdRex

I wish I was ‘very young’, alas I am not. I know full well what way that faggot is used in America. However, I am English and in England it is not a slur. If someone uses it I would think of sticks and a animal product before I would the word being used as an insult.

Well I'm not young and by MN standards have led a fairly sheltered life. I hate swearing and scatalogic language but sorry, the idea that in England it is not a slur. If someone uses it I would think of sticks and a animal product is laughable.

A pictorial guide to the harrop tribunal
twitter.com/GCWench/status/1461604503053123584

I’d say faggot as in burning witches. But then I’ve just been reading some history books on the witch trials...

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

I agree.

the idea that in England it is not a slur. If someone uses it I would think of sticks and a animal product is laughable.

Agree! Maybe it’s a class or regional thing? I’m in my 50s, northern, though have lived all over the UK, and from a working class background. I heard that word as a homophobic slur in primary school, it was also used by football fans, who used to shout it regularly at anyone who played badly, again as a homophobic slur.

Anyone saying it is not a slur has had a very sheltered life or is being disingenuous.

Agree! Maybe it’s a class or regional thing?

I think that’s exactly what it is.

A search of E’s timeline reveals not only this discussion but also some examples of her using it jokily in the burning of heretics context. It looks like a religious/cultural long-running joke.

This whole discussion is centring round whether or not E was in fact asking for it.

As said up thread and as this shows
twitter.com/jammersminde/status/1461417789768572928?s=21

There’s far from compelling evidence E was using this word to refer to Haddock and every reason to give the benefit of the doubt.

Even if in the worst case scenario, it was a pun and bearing in mind E’s usual type of language, it’s far from obvious she was describing or referring to Adrian Harrop. Without other tweets on that day there isn’t the wider context.

The discussion shouldn’t be about whether GC’s condone the use of that word for the benefit of the TRAs who stalk the thread.

I confess I flinched on reading that tweet. It's an unfortunate choice of words in the circumstances. Intentional or not? Who knows.

I don't think it matters, though.

What matters is that - as far as I can tell through tribunaltweets - Harrop's evidence is he heard it as a homophobic slur. More, one that he reacted to particularly strongly because it had previously been used to target him and his community. That he founded hurtful and distressing, and that that provided the context in which he said things he now regrets.

It will be for the tribunal to decide:

1. If he was telling the truth when he said that
2. If that excuses the tweets he made in the immediate aftermath
3. If that excuses the broader pattern (18 months??) of tweets he has admitted were inappropriate

Some of that decision making will be for stage two, which looks more at seriousness.

What the tribunal is unlikely to want to decide is what E. meant. As people have said, E. is not on trial and I suspect there has been little evidence as to E.'s intent.

I repeat that my experience is that panellists are not fools. And they generally take a dim view of anything they see as trying to duck taking responsibility.

^I just had to read through my notes to read what the GMC said. He spoke a little slower today and paused so I managed to get quite a bit. I thought I had missed this bit. The chair was asking had AH reported the comments to twitter but no evidence of this was said so I don’t know.

Chair: I am grateful for your submission………….

I hope the GMC’s position in set out in detail there. The GMC position is, it has to be placed in the context that the authorities such as ?? That those authorities give, then that authority makes it clear that article 10 is a qualified right. There are circumstances in where it is necessary for example to promote professional standards in a profession that is of such coveted performance - members of the medical profession.

Chair: clarification on GMC submission which included a person’s private family life.

GMC – we looked at the context of the tweets and the comments which has brought Dr Harrop before the tribunal – when they are of a personal nature, I wont go into all the various different details, whether that could be similar to the type of situation in ?? these are in my submission not comments that could be considered genuine furverance of the transgender rights debate. I accept that is where they have risen. But the issue with the comments is the way in which they are phrased. The underlying meaning, the contents of them. Were these attempts a genuine promotion of rights? I think the situation may be very different. It is the facts that the comments in the tweets in question give rise to allegations before this tribunal by way they appropriate this. One has to question whether there is a legitimate purpose to them rather than being engaged in within ?? or ?? are they intimidation. ^

Someone who was at the tribunal has provided these helpful notes of the GMC submission. The GMC’s lawyer had a quiet voice and there was a lot of coughing.

It presents a more balanced picture than the tweets. Not a criticism of them they’ve all done a great public service.

And thank you @Motorina

My pleasure. I appreciate the whole thing is confusing - even more when filtered through tweets - and emotional.

I just wanted to add a clarification, in case people hadn't twigged. When the parties talk about articles they're talking about the Human Rights Act. So Article 10 is the right to freedom of expression, and Article 6, which came up a lot earlier, is the right to a fair trial. I'm not sure if that's clear if you aren't already familiar with it?

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

Interesting character. His list of cases is interesting (including successfully defending a man charged with rape).

The article 6 stuff (right to fair trial) revolves around allegedly missing tweets and identification of specific tweets. It’s technical stuff about knowing exactly what he is accused of and putting comments in context, if I understand correctly.

Giving an interview to Vice undermines this right and is also potentially witness intimidation. I don’t know why this wasn’t brought up but it might be in the submissions.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

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

Interesting character. His list of cases is interesting (including successfully defending a man charged with rape).

What is the relevance of the rape comment? Barristers do not choose their cases, and all criminal barristers will have defended people accused of horrible crimes.

I don't know that I'd be advertising it.

Whilst his sexuality is obviously of great relevance and importance to Adrian Harrop (as everything about himself seems to be of great importance in his own mind) what I saw in his twitter behaviour was a misogynistic man abusing women. His sexuality was irrelevant in how I viewed him. Can’t speak for E, hope she got a chance to speak for herself in the process.

As B female in a long standing relationship with a male I rarely even think about my sexuality. I’d rather hoped progress on gay rights would mean that whilst our sexuality is important to us and sexual partners it’s largely irrelevant to everyone else.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that that word is not first and foremost known an a homophobic slur for the vast majority of people in the UK. I knew it also meant a meat product but had no idea it meant a bundle of sticks as well. I can't see how anyone could tweet that tweet and not have some thought that it could be construed in a different way.

However, it also clearly was not targeted at Harrop. And further more, even if it had been, he is a fucking doctor. Doctors are expected to conduct themselves in a certain way, they have to keep their cool and be professional, surely that is a big part of the job when you are dealing with all sorts of members of the public from a huge range of demographics. You don't just start lashing out at people, would he do that in his GP surgery if a patient was rude to him or even called him a homophobic slur (which E did not do), starting 'taking matters into his own hands'?

Imagine if doctors routinely treated people who were rude to them in this way? It's not ok, and not what I would expect of someone who potentially has peoples lives in his hands.

As B female in a long standing relationship with a male I rarely even think about my sexuality.
That's nice for you. Next up, white people don't think about their race and able bodied people don't think about wheelchairs.

I’d rather hoped progress on gay rights would mean that whilst our sexuality is important to us and sexual partners it’s largely irrelevant to everyone else.
That would definitely be nice, but we are a long way off. Maybe consider that not everyone has the same experiences you do?

even if it had been, he is a fucking doctor
This, this, this.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

PS When I was first married in the UK in the early 1980s my tax was my husband's responsibility, not mine. If we'd needed to complete a tax return I would have had to provide details of all my income and deductibles to him to add onto his own return. Appalling.

In the year 2021, child benefit....

Ok I'm early 40s & if told to "look at that faggot" I would expect to see a bundle of sticks, be unsurprised to see food & confused to see a person. (fwiw I would recognise "fag" as a slur🤷‍♀️)

Whilst I absolutely agree that E may have chosen the word for its dual meaning it doesn't mean that people who assume it was innocent are being disingenuous; our experience of language clearly varies greatly.

Adding my thanks to the brilliant posters on this thread (& the Twitter account) as I have been following along albeit a couple of pages behind

Interesting character. His list of cases is interesting (including successfully defending a man charged with rape).

Everyone in the UK is entitled to a fair trial (thank fuck). It doesn't mean a barrister thinks their client is innocent. And, ultimately, the jury decides on if the person guilty or not.

The fasces are a symbol of ancient Rome and the swastika is a Hindu symbol and collecting badges from a jam manufacturer is harmless and I don't see colour and blah blah fucking blah.

There are lots of insults we don't tend to use in the UK. We don't call a man a jerk, or a jerk-off. We don't tend to say "son of a bitch". In fact, the most egregious and most obvious one is much more an American insult than British, doesn't mean we don't have racists, they just tend to use different words. But you still wouldn't use it here.

We can't talk about how the polarisation of debate has made debate impossible if posters are determined to defend a complete stranger's tweet because a: Harrop and b: meatballs.

As I've said before, American debate, on an American website, it's not unfeasible that Twitter accounts would take a particular meaning from a weirdly specific tweet.

The best I can say it that it's 50:50 whether E was being deliberately inflammatory, and pp are right, there's nothing directly linking Harrop to the tweet. And regardless, nothing gives him the right to dox or intimidate someone.

But please, another ten pages of "yes definitely meatballs, I've never even heard of any other meaning" is not helpful.

@LizzieSiddal

BaronessWrongCrowdRex

In the UK, faggot Isn’t an insult nor slur. It is never been used in that way.

Are you very young? I can’t think that anyone under the age of 35 who would not have heard the word used against gay men. I hope AH is struck off, but if a tweet was directed at him containing that word, it is not unreasonable he found it highly offensive.

Given it was a response to a few of his posts, she was simply saying "Oh yeah, that's just another 'burn the witch' trope"

That he and his brief said, to the tribunal, that he/they ignored her meaning and focussed on that one word tells you all you need to know about it.

His words- so sad, didn't mean to be nasty, have learned better

Her words- burn the witch!!!

Use if words such 'faggot' are likely vary considerably across the UK. This will also be exacerbated for this word by differences in heating. If you live in an area where a word was frequently used and burning wood on fires (especially your own wood) is still common then it's use to describe bundles of wood would come quickly to mind. If you live in a city where burning smokeless fuels has been law for decades and fewer people have fires then this use of the word may seem strange.

But if we are talking about needing to avoid words used as insults....

'Queer'

Harrop's rage seems, to me, to be less about it being an actual slur that he finds offensive, and more about who's saying it. Incredulity that someone who he has been criticising all this time actually has the nerve to slur him at all.

That the intimidation isn't working.

Which, if I recall correctly, was occasionally a bit of a feature.

That's what I hope the panel sees.