Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

E wrote:

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

The meaning of "faggots" is perfectly clear to me, and refers to the piles of wood for burning. It is a long and well-established usage. Apparently some people are unfamiliar with this usage, in which case perhaps they should blame their own lack of education. I don't see how "I only know one meaning of this word, therefore the person must have used it in this sense, because everyone else is as ignorant as I am" constitutes any kind of argument.

It's possible that E was attempting a homophobic pun, but what happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt? The principle of "presumed innocent until found guilty"? E hasn't been able to defend herself but people on this thread seem determined to assume the worst. Shame on you.

It’s an aside but a lot of people use a potentially very offensive diminutive for Oriental* food. I frequently have to stop relatives from using it to describe a takeaway in front of the DC, whereupon they take great umbrage because they don’t mean anything racist by it, it’s just a “harmless” term for that kind of food they have used all their lives…

*don’t even know if Oriental is ok these days, if not apologies. Language is increasingly fraught.

There are some racist terms like the N word and the P word which are universally understood as taboo thankfully, but we do need to be careful about telling people that words that they have innocently used all their lives can no longer be used.

My grandmother continued to use the word gay in its original context until she died a few years ago, because if you have grown up with a certain word in your brain, you use it habitually.

Whole other discussion however.

Can anyone tell me what the original tweet from E actually said (or have I missed it on this thread?)

Look 2 posts up ^^

@RoyalCorgi

E wrote:

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

The meaning of "faggots" is perfectly clear to me, and refers to the piles of wood for burning. It is a long and well-established usage. Apparently some people are unfamiliar with this usage, in which case perhaps they should blame their own lack of education. I don't see how "I only know one meaning of this word, therefore the person must have used it in this sense, because everyone else is as ignorant as I am" constitutes any kind of argument.

It's possible that E was attempting a homophobic pun, but what happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt? The principle of "presumed innocent until found guilty"? E hasn't been able to defend herself but people on this thread seem determined to assume the worst. Shame on you.

This. The context makes it completely clear what meaning of the word was intended.

Speculating that there was some other secret intention is a bit unfair. It's possible there was but why assume that? The meaning of the tweet is perfectly clear and there's nothing offensive about it as it's written. (If someone has offensive thoughts in their head, that's their business. We're not the thought police.)

Personally, for me, it's less about what E actually meant. Since it looks like E was actually having a conversation about bundles of wood called faggots, then it could be innocent. Or not. E can't be unaware of the dual meaning. But it looks, certainly from this thread, that the emphasis on the two meanings is regional. So who knows.

Either way, I suspect Harrop sought out that comment in order to justify his behaviour. And still is.

Either way, I suspect Harrop sought out that comment in order to justify his behaviour. And still is.
Definitely agree with this.

It's possible that E was attempting a homophobic pun, but what happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt? The principle of "presumed innocent until found guilty"? E hasn't been able to defend herself but people on this thread seem determined to assume the worst. Shame on you.

I'm just saying that we don't know either way, and that it is irrelevant. So a hundred more posts about meatballs and sticks are also irrelevant.

@Lovelyricepudding

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.

I grew up on a farm where we burnt our own firewood. The Scottish Witchcraft laws , trials and punishments were an essay subject my law degree in Scots Legal History. Faggots did not feature.

It's clearly a word which has other regional uses but I'm a bit incredulous that those meanings are the primary usage and that it's not used or widely recognised as an insult in the UK.

@FlyingOink

Either way, I suspect Harrop sought out that comment in order to justify his behaviour. And still is. Definitely agree with this.

I'm sure he did; equally I doubt E was unaware of the dual meaning and if used innocently it's a pity she handed him ammunition.

If not innocently, then AH has every right to be offended, although obviously not to counter attack in the way he did,

Yes, extremely grateful to the posters sharing information, insight and explaining how things work.

Just on that fag thing. Now, that was definitely used to mean a cigarette when (and where) I was growing up.

Looked up the f work. Seems the Normans brought it to England from the french for bundles of sticks. Kindling. That was it's original and primary meaning. The Merriman says that pictures of the f bundles were drawn on the clothes of people condemned to be burned by the rightous. So for heresy etc. Then Merriman goes on to say that it started to be used as a slur in the US. My own experience of it's use (by my mother towards me and with affection) was different again.

I think pointing out that there are other meanings to that f word is not saying that it was definitely used for those other meanings. I would stop short at that. As I would stop short in saying that it was definitely used as a derogatory double entendre.

Anyways, I suppose we could go around forever on that. Maybe this meaning, definitely this meaning etc. Even if E did mean to use it as a double entendre, she/he would be unlikely to say so. However, that does not mean that was the intention.

If you look it up on social media people use it in its derogatory sense every second, including the LGBT community.

Harrop wanted to stop her and punish her from using it because he sees himself in the role of police officer.

Also people form the US use fanny quite happily, even though their meaning is for for a different body part. That was a rude word when I was growing up. Probably still is as it was a somewhat milder form of c*nt.

Context is everything in word usage. Lots and lots of words in English have multiple meanings. It's perfectly obvious from E's tweet that when she talked about "faggots", she wasn't referring to the popular meat dish, so that's entirely irrelevant.

In context, the word faggots is clearly referring to the bundles of wood piled up around the stake at which witches (and others) were burnt. That is the primary meaning and, as I and others have said, it's a well-known and widely-used meaning - not even a regional one. No doubt the reason you don't hear it very much these days is because hardly anyone uses bundles of wood to create fires.

The worst you can accuse E of is that she was exploiting the dual meaning of the word for homophobic ends, which would indeed be quite nasty. But as none of us can read her mind, we have no reason to draw that conclusion.

@Datun

Personally, for me, it's less about what E actually meant. Since it looks like E was actually having a conversation about bundles of wood called faggots, then it could be innocent. Or not. E can't be unaware of the dual meaning. But it looks, certainly from this thread, that the emphasis on the two meanings is regional. So who knows.

Either way, I suspect Harrop sought out that comment in order to justify his behaviour. And still is.

I agree. We will never know her intention. I am sure she was aware of the double-meaning, but may or may not have intended to convey it. I still regularly use words that can have a double meaning - e.g. fag or spook (offensive in the US) - if I'm confident that the context makes it clear that I mean the non-offensive sense.

If AH genuinely thought she meant the offensive sense of the word, that would have justified one angry tweet back. Doctors are human and allowed to insult back if insulted outside of a clinical context. But that's an irrelevance here, as we are not talking about one angry reply, but a sustained campaign against several women.

We deffo use the word fag for cigarettes here. Not as a slur

Maybe he/she/furry identifies as a self appointed Witchfinder General. I'd hazard a guess the really threatening nastiness towards women doesn't attract his self identifying quixotic interventions. Funny that, isn't it? Indeed, he/she/furry may possibly be more sinning than sinned against in that regards. I don't know as I haven't looked at his/her/furry's actions on twitter. Just that it may be a possibility.

The tribunal didn’t mention the revenge porn or the changing his banner and location to make it look like he was in E’s location.

I wonder if these were the tweets that got dropped?

I'm a bit incredulous that those meanings are the primary usage and that it's not used or widely recognised as an insult in the UK.

Really? I live in an area where butchers compete for the best faggot accolade.

I drive passed at least 3 farm gates with faggots of barn dried wood for sale, it's different from kindling which they also sell.

I am aware of the homophobic insult version but round here? As I said earlier the assumption would be you were offering food or a fire.

I admit I live rurally, but it's not that backward.

But ultimately it doesn't matter what she did or did not mean by the words she used.

As a GP, or in any public-facing role, you are going to be dealing with people who behave very badly, in ways that you will find upsetting or personally insulting. And that must be particularly the case for medical settings, where patients are very anxious and also bringing lots of baggage and projection to the encounter.

So learning to deal with situations where people are being abusive to you is part of the job description. Presumably if you are an openly gay GP, people will abuse you on that basis, and similarly female medics will get sexist abuse, and ethnic minority medics will be exposed to racist abuse from patients. None of that is acceptable, but you have to find a way of managing your professional reactions without being abusive in return.

The panel seems to be composed at least partly of doctors from ethnic minority background, so I would assume they must have direct personal experience of abusive encounters of various kinds and will have learnt to deal with those situations without stooping to the same level themselves.

Focussing on what someone else did or did not say is just another variant of 'she made me do it.'

He’s admitted to intending to intimidate A, admitted to B, D and inappropriate comments about E, which makes a denial of intention to intimidate E, quite a hard sell I would think.

Especially when he then has a further swipe “you will not win”, “foolish emotionally fragile people” in a media interview.

foolish emotionally fragile people.

and he then went on to portray himself as just such an emotionally fragile person to the panel in order to gain their sympathy, the depths of his disingenuousness know no bounds.

I know there were sound technical legal reasons explained by knowledgeable posters upthread for limiting the tribunal investigation to a few witnesses who had been subject to particular bullying and harassment etc. But I remain disappointed that the scope couldn't consider his wider twitter use and that it was presented as being about two sides of the debate and all about trans - giving the opportunity for his "they made me do it" defence.
One issue worthy of investigation imo is the extent to which he was busy on twitter during working hours, which could be easily established with a comparison of timelines and work diary. There was the time a receptionist emailed him a compliment from one of his patients he had just seen and he instantly screenshotted it and put it on twitter. Failing to adequately blank out the email addresses so that his place of work and practice manager were identifiable. I sent a complaint to the practice manager, senior partner and his training supervisor after that.
Then there is the matter that many of his tweets were downright nasty and showed a very unpleasant side to his character. (I know, it couldn't be used in the tribunal, but still...).
Christmas Day 2019 he posted a particularly cruel and nasty tweet which was discussed at the time on the farming site where I recently refreshed my memory of that tweet. Really horrible but not aimed at anyone in particular.

Anyway, now it's all over bar the verdict I hope he has suitable sanctions and sinks into obscurity never to be heard from again. I hope this is the last Mumsnet thread devoted to him. I am looking forward to deleting the "hidden" folder of screenshots on my phone. It's like knowing there's a cat mess behind the wardrobe that you can't clear up because the wardrobe can't be moved. My phone will be clean again!

Letting this discussion become dominated by analysis of the intent behind the usage of one word (with multiple meanings), rather than the sustained pattern of behaviour by AH is presumably why it forms part of his defence.

Let's hope the panel don't chase the rabbit down this hole as we have.

What else should we be doing whilst waiting for them to deliberate?