Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

So, if the panel were sent a copy of this thread with a note to scroll through to the end, would that be helpful?

Or, is it all too late to include?(which is evidence itself of something?)

@BlackandGreen

De lurking. (Usually, on BMN) but have followed this saga for a number of years.

Former patient at Brownlow surgery. We moved to another GP.

This badge bothers me so much. Incitement to violence and a nod to acid/corrosive fluid attacks against women, from a man who has sworn "first do no harm". (But, allegedly, agrees with Janssen it's ok for certain young black girls to be forced to have sex - because "culture" FFS?)

Wearing it in a City with a recent violent event around a Women's hospital. Not far from this hospital and his places of work. The arrogance, and the hatred of this man, for women and girls, is evident.

I'm appalled. Who makes these badges?
Who is producing them? Did he make it himself?

I think they were sold on Etsy - possibly still are, along with all the other anti-JKR and anti-terf items

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

So, if the panel were sent a copy of this thread with a note to scroll through to the end, would that be helpful?

Or, is it all too late to include?(which is evidence itself of something?)

Do not send the panel anything! The panel can only see material which has been given to them by one barrister or the other.

If they see material related to the case which has come from an outside source, then they potentially have to remove themselves from the hearing as it could be seen as unfair. That risks the whole thing collapsing.

Don't do this!

The GMC barrister potentially could introduce more evidence at stage two. I'm anticipating Harrop's barrister is likely to introduce more material - testimonials about what a good doctor he is, more reflection on how he's changed. But anything the panel sees must come in the hearing room, from one of the parties.

@SpindlesWhorl the decision we will get at some point after wednesday lunch time isn't the final outcome. It's the decision on what charges are proved and what aren't. What sanction Harrop gets will be decided after that.

Thank you Vivarium and Jeeeez for the information re the pins and prints. Misogyny needs to be a hate crime.

The grubby things some Etsy vendors will make for money. Such an ugly world these people frequent.

Noted, Motorina.

@Artichokeleaves

Medics can of course express a political view or publicly come down on one side of a certain issue.

I'm not sure that they publicly can.

Certainly when I was working in a public service role it was made extremely clear to us as employees that we had a responsibility for the general public not knowing our private and personal politics, upto and including not having stickers on cars, key rings on bags etc. As soon as you declare your affiliation and make it part of your job you affect the way the public will see you, and that message you send out takes away your impartiality, the ability of all to approach you equally without fear or favour.

That's the bit where it is necessary to choose your career in public service with all the responsibilities involved, or to choose a different line of work in which you can signal whatever politics you like.

Quite a few practising doctors are/have been MPs! Doctors are definitely allowed to have political views openly. Doctors are not like civil servants or judges - there is no reason why they need to be politically impartial, as it is unlikely to affect their work. Even if your doctor is a Tory and you, as a patient, are a Socialist Worker, your political affiliations are not going to come up in a clinical setting, unless you choose to raise them, so even subconscious bias is unlikely to be a problem.

I don't think it's realistic to expect HCPs of any sort to be forbidden from espousing political views when the chances of it affecting patient care are remote. Our default should always be freedom of expression, unless there is a compelling reason to restrict it.

(I'm talking about freedom to express views in a normal way though, not freedom to harass and intimidate, as AH is alleged to have done.)

Thanks MissLucyEyelesbarrow and Motorina

Thanks to everyone for their thanks, but my expertise and contribution are nothing, compared to @Motorina's.

vivariumvivariumsvivaria if you want to do something send a screenshot of priors tweet to the gmc and make a complaint about a doctor wearing a badge with a slur used for women and suggesting they should be sprayed with chemicals

www.gmc-uk.org/about/get-involved/complaints-and-feedback-about-our-service/how-to-raise-complaint

Complain about a doctor - this is the best route for GMC

Thank you, both.

Good idea.

If Wednesday becomes a cause of celebration for this man, then perhaps a further investigation of a slew of complaints would dampen that a little.

I am not a vindictive person, but I would not want my vulnerable female relatives being seen by a GP who holds his beliefs.

No Thank You.

What I dont get about activists like Harrop, Christiansen and Tatchel is that they are all for changing the culture of homophobic countries like Russia or 'transphobic' cultures like UK but its ok to rape children because 'culture'

Its racist bulllshit.

If anyone is minded to complain, it might be a good idea to include the tweets from Joss Prior where he/she/furry says that they have no problem with Adrian Harrop’s conduct and defends it as being perfectly acceptable.

There is also a tweet where Joss Prior claims to have some inside knowledge of the proceedings and finally the “Free the Bronwlow one”, once again bringing a surgery into disrepute.

Dr Harrop is clearly very keen to be associated with this activist and if you look on the Peak Trans blog there are some very juicy examples of the type of invective employed.

Here is one.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Thank you, both.

Good idea.

If Wednesday becomes a cause of celebration for this man, then perhaps a further investigation of a slew of complaints would dampen that a little.

I am not a vindictive person, but I would not want my vulnerable female relatives being seen by a GP who holds his beliefs.

No Thank You.

This is the only route open to us. Enough complaints they have to take a look. Repeated complaints and the GMC don’t have plausible deniability if something goes wrong in the future. Really hope it doesn’t but him continuing to wear that pin whilst having just said again he’d seen the error of his ways worries me and there’s no way I’d go to him as a gp. My worry is those vulnerable female patients who know nothing about any of this.

This is the only route open to us. Enough complaints they have to take a look. Repeated complaints and the GMC don’t have plausible deniability if something goes wrong in the future.

Again, none of this will be the GMC's decision. It took complaints and presented their case to the MPTS. The MPTS will be the one making a decision about what happens. All the GMC could do if there was no finding against him is appeal.

What @iklboo said.

We know already that there will be a finding, because many of the charges have been admitted and found proved. That will form part of his fitness to practice history regardless of what happens from here, and will have to be declared every time he applies for a new job.

The outstanding questions are whether the charges which have been denied are found proved, whether the panel finds misconduct and impairment as a result, and what sanction follows from that.

Clearly I don't know the answer to those but, were I in his shoes, I wouldn't be sleeping well right now.

After this week mind he might need Jessica on speed dial...

@Motorina

What *@iklboo* said.

We know already that there will be a finding, because many of the charges have been admitted and found proved. That will form part of his fitness to practice history regardless of what happens from here, and will have to be declared every time he applies for a new job.

The outstanding questions are whether the charges which have been denied are found proved, whether the panel finds misconduct and impairment as a result, and what sanction follows from that.

Clearly I don't know the answer to those but, were I in his shoes, I wouldn't be sleeping well right now.

So beautifully explained.

If there are now fresh complaints made, outwith the scope of this particular tribunal hearing, is it the GMC which decides whether or not to take them to MPTS? Is there some sort of filtering committee at the GMC for that? Or does it refer everything on?

I'd love to know a bit more about it all works, if posters like Motorina have the time and patience!

Bear in mind I've never worked in the investigatory phase, so only really know second hand. Also I work with another regulator and have no direct experience of the GMC/MPTS, so to an extent I'm assuming.

But the way it works where I am is:

1. Initial complaint comes in
2. Someone non-clinical looks at it and decides if it could be something they should investigate. So, if the complaint is "I didn't like the colour of the waiting room" or "The coffee was awful" (both genuine examples) it will be closed at that stage with a polite letter to the complainant. If it's something of substance an investigation will be started.
3. The investigation happens. Depending on what the concern is, this may mean requesting patient notes, and taking statements from them. It may be getting an expert to give their opinion on what happened. It may mean looking through social media. It will involve asking the doctor for their side.
4. Someone rather more senior looks at all that info to decide if it should go forward.
5. If they decide it should, it goes to an investigating committee to make a formal decision about whether to bring it to a hearing, whether to just issue a warning note, or whether to close it. A warning note is kept on record, will be taken account of in future complaints, and can be published publically.
6. If appropriate, a formal hearing is booked.
7. Investigatiosn continue. More statements may be taken. Further experts instructed. There's a fair bit of case management to keep things moving. So the GMC (the prosecution) will be told they have to get these papers to the defence by that dates, and the defence will be told they have to indicate what will be admitted and which witnesses will come by this date. There is a team of people keeping that on track. In my head they have cattle prods. They probably don't, but they probably should.
8. The hearing happens.

I know some of the regulators are moving to a system where, if it's clinical issues which can be addressed through training, and they're admitted then the professional agrees undertakings. So, instead of a hearing, the professional says "I'm crap at X, Y, Z. I promise to do more training and work under supervision." That gets to the same likely result quicker, saving everyone time and grief. That's then monitored and moves to a hearing if it doesn't work out.

In this case, a couple of things might happen. If he's struck off, I suspect the complaints will go in the round file. If he's suspended then there will almost inevitably be a review. I don't know, in that case, if they'd start a new hearing or simply use that material at a review to argue he should stay suspended. Tactical decision, I would guess, but who makes that decision and how I don't know.

Thank you Motorina, again for sharing your insights.

*nominated for poster of the month

Seconded!

You can read MPTS hearings and decisions here (all publicly available)
www.mpts-uk.org/hearings-and-decisions/medical-practitioners-tribunals

After about a month they add a PDF to each case which sets out details and the decision making involved, so going back to hearings from the beginning of this month and earlier you can read it all. It's very interesting and informative.

Adding my voice to the nomination. I love posts that shed light, not heat.

Sorry to derail but I understand that the decision in Webberley case is not due for several months. Anyone know why or when?