Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

@FlyingOink

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.

All this ^

Especially the bit around polarisation of debate. People can have feet of clay. There are GC people who are not feminists and who don't agree with us about many other things. We don't have to pretend everyone who is GC is perfect, they won't be.

@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.

Lack of education?!

Crikey. You could only see it as a pun if you were aware of both usages. That's what people are saying. And innocent until proven guilty is only a legal standard, not one applied to people on a messageboard discussing what someone might have meant in a tweet.

Lack of education right back atcha!

Apparently some people are unfamiliar with this usage, in which case perhaps they should blame their own lack of education

That's a fairly regular fall back position on here if posters don't agree - they're just too stupid.

No-one has said they were unfamiliar with the other meanings. If anything it was the other way round. Posters are aware of the multiple meanings and are surprised at the number of posters who apparently "were unfamiliar" with the derogatory version which apparently is a little known Americanism.

@HoardingSamphireSaurus

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

Adrian Harrop will be raging if Parliament listens to this evidence and delays the bill. Harrops future customer base depends on it passing. twitter.com/twisterfilm/status/1460054790717808646

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.

@Motorina, indeed. My impression is that the defence has been rather a gamble in that regard. I detected echoes of 'she made me do it' more than once, which is not indicative of reflective, insightful thinking or practice. IME such defences cause concern to panels making decisions on fitness to practice / fitness to hold a particular license.

There's a permitted legal test for Licensing Panels adjudicating on cab drivers' licenses (in the private session part), which goes along the lines of, 'Would you be happy for a member of your family to get into a cab with this driver?'

I wonder if there's a similar question that MPTS panels members can ask of themselves and each other: 'Would you be happy for a member of your family to be treated by this doctor?'

Fortunately there are 2 or 3 recent threads about the conversion therapy bill, and the consultation etc

Am I missing something here? Doesn't the context make it completely obvious? To give another example:

"I'm wanting to buy a pedigree dog, but I'm only looking for bitches."

Yes, I'm aware that the word 'bitch' can be used as a misogynistic slur. But why would anyone interpret that statement as being misogynistic? The context makes the meaning completely clear.

Is it possible that I chose this word because deep down, secretly, I wanted to say 'bitch' to someone listening in to my conversation? Well, of course. But you speculating that would say more about you that it would about me. If I tweeted that and someone I'd had an online fight saw it and said I was calling her a bitch, or that I hated women, would you think she had a point?

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting it.

Seeing people on here defending the use of the term faggots has been my very first ‘...are we the bad guys?’ moment.

@beastlyslumber

Am I missing something here? Doesn't the context make it completely obvious? To give another example:

"I'm wanting to buy a pedigree dog, but I'm only looking for bitches."

Yes, I'm aware that the word 'bitch' can be used as a misogynistic slur. But why would anyone interpret that statement as being misogynistic? The context makes the meaning completely clear.

Is it possible that I chose this word because deep down, secretly, I wanted to say 'bitch' to someone listening in to my conversation? Well, of course. But you speculating that would say more about you that it would about me. If I tweeted that and someone I'd had an online fight saw it and said I was calling her a bitch, or that I hated women, would you think she had a point?

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting it.

What if you were involved in an online discussion in which you had been repeatedly accused of being misogynistic and then you said that. Wouldn't that cast a different light on it?

Rather in the way that we can assume that Harrop wasn't just innocently suggesting a game of golf with a friend.

If I were repeatedly getting called homophobic online I would avoid the use of the word 'faggot' everywhere and above all others. Even when
it was apposite. Because it's very open to interpretation isn't it?

I agree that it doesn't actually matter but pretending that she couldn't possibly have meant the double entendre just males us look stupid, partisan and homophobic frankly.

@Nasturs

Seeing people on here defending the use of the term faggots has been my very first ‘...are we the bad guys?’ moment.

I don't think we are the bad guys but I do think we are as susceptible to having to believe everything 'our side' does is beyond reproach as anyone else.

Then you've not read the discussion properly, Nasturs. That's not at all what people are saying.

They're saying that, in the UK, the word is well established with two definite meanings and they're objecting to being called liars because they aren't as familiar with its American slang use as those posters who would see it as a slur.

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

This argument is a stretch, IMO. Firstly there is no evidence that AH has ever responded inappropriately in a clinical setting. He has worked in A&E and, if he is perceived as gay IRL, I can promise you that he will have received homophobic abuse from patients, sadly. We have no evidence that he has ever been unprofessional at work. As part of the GMC investigation, all current and recent employers will have been contacted so, if there had been incidents of bad behaviour with patients, the GMC would know, but there are no allegations to this effect.

Secondly, it just isn't the case that every doctor who is an arsehole in their social/professional life is an arsehole to patients. As discussed in the first thread, doctors tend to have a professional persona that is different from their non-work persona.

Thirdly, we're doctors, not saints. Yes, if a patient insults us at work, we have to behave professionally and not insult them back. But we are entitled to behave like anyone else in a non-work environment, as long it doesn't cross the threshold of bringing the profession into disrepute. That threshold is rightly fairly high. If we suspended every doctor who had ever been rude to a friend/acquaintance/stranger outside of a work context, on the off-chance that he might go on to abuse patients, we would struggle to staff a single GP clinic.

AH is not in front of the MPTS because people on Twitter threw some insults at him and he insulted them back. Nor should he be.

What if you were involved in an online discussion in which you had been repeatedly accused of being misogynistic and then you said that. Wouldn't that cast a different light on it?

Well in my example... no. I'm clearly talking about dogs. It's obvious that I mean female dogs.

E is talking about burning witches. So the usage is in that context.

And there isn't a double entendre in that context. The word's meaning is unambiguous in that sentence. It's not actually open to interpretation, at least not from any reasonable reading. The rest of the sentence guides the reader as to the interpretation and it is perfectly clear which of the meanings of the word is being deployed in this case.

Focusing on other meanings that weren't expressed because some speculate they might have been intended just sounds like thought policing to me. We can judge people on what they say and do - we don't know their private intentions or their subconscious processes.

@Tanith

Then you've not read the discussion properly, Nasturs. That's not at all what people are saying.

They're saying that, in the UK, the word is well established with two definite meanings and they're objecting to being called liars because they aren't as familiar with its American slang use as those posters who would see it as a slur.

I've read it properly and haven't seen anyone called a liar. I think your characterisation of the conversation is both biased and patronising.

I had faggots and peas for my tea just last week. It's a word with more than one meaning and we should be able to use context to guide us. Obviously I am not saying anything homophobic. I also didn't choose to have faggots for my tea because I'm secretly homophobic. But it seems like some people would think it reasonable to interpret the statement that way if someone else was accusing me of being a homophobe?

Anyway. I don't know why I'm still talking about this. It's just when I can't find the logic in an argument, I find it hard to let go.

@beastlyslumber

What if you were involved in an online discussion in which you had been repeatedly accused of being misogynistic and then you said that. Wouldn't that cast a different light on it?

Well in my example... no. I'm clearly talking about dogs. It's obvious that I mean female dogs.

E is talking about burning witches. So the usage is in that context.

And there isn't a double entendre in that context. The word's meaning is unambiguous in that sentence. It's not actually open to interpretation, at least not from any reasonable reading. The rest of the sentence guides the reader as to the interpretation and it is perfectly clear which of the meanings of the word is being deployed in this case.

Focusing on other meanings that weren't expressed because some speculate they might have been intended just sounds like thought policing to me. We can judge people on what they say and do - we don't know their private intentions or their subconscious processes.

Well then we can't extrapolate from AH anything other than that he wanted a round of golf with his mate. Either the wider context matters or it doesn't

I think it does.

@Nasturs

Seeing people on here defending the use of the term faggots has been my very first ‘...are we the bad guys?’ moment.

I'd re read again. Reading comprehension issues and challenges with literality is at the bottom of this entire conversation.

Also bear in mind that any concerns you may have with women's rights and children's safeguarding being subordinated instead of finding answers that work for all equally is not rendered suddenly into poor behaviour on your part because one woman said something open to misinterpretation on twitter.

What was the context?

Just examples but -

Witches are usually burnt at the stake.

Villagers descend on the vampire's castle with burning faggots.

Bad guys(!?) for eating award winning meat products?

Your 'misunderstanding' is as daft as AHs.

Unless of course you do want to start calling some posters liars?

Cos I'll repeat myself. I know that it can be used as a homophobic slur. However where I live it is a commonly used term for food and firewood. Very common. Faggots and peas is as common an evening meal as fish and chips. Kiln dried faggots of wood are burned regularly in homes all around me.

If you think that those products need to be renamed because the word has been coopted you'll have centuries of consistent use to argue against.

Good luck making that gain any traction anywhere such terms are in every day use.

I believe that E is a person who has had her attitude to homosexuality challenged and who some believe (for reasons other than trans issues) to be homophobic. I may have that wrong in which case apologies to E.

And my point is - reading comprehension issues aside - that in that case I think E should have avoided use of the word 'faggots', even when referring to burning wood, so that her comments couldn't possibly be misinterpreted.

That was in response to Kimiko.

I do not intend to remove either meat or wood products from sale or to rename them.

And do you so think that AH should have refrained form terms such as bitch, TERF, etc?

She is an individual.

He represented himself as Dr AH.

Which is why he was brought to book and she wasn't.

@RepentMotherfucker

I believe that E is a person who has had her attitude to homosexuality challenged and who some believe (for reasons other than trans issues) to be homophobic. I may have that wrong in which case apologies to E.

And my point is - reading comprehension issues aside - that in that case I think E should have avoided use of the word 'faggots', even when referring to burning wood, so that her comments couldn't possibly be misinterpreted.

Yes, it just provided ammunition.

Was there a follow up tweet to clarify? If I had inadvertently said something that could be misconstrued, even if I hated the other person I'd clarify. "No, it wasn't in reference to you, I was looking for a female puppy".

Again, irrelevant, because regardless of what E said or meant, its Harrop who has professional standards to maintain. But I'm really not sure why so many people are convinced there was no malice intended, when we can't possibly know.

Even Twitter didn't reprimand her for it... as was agreed during Thursday's submissions!

I would like to think that all people should be able to use the language of Shakespeare when writing of witch-hunts and witch-burning, even metaphorically.