Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

@FannyCann

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

They didn't have enough time to come to a conclusion in the time set aside, so the panel will reconvene next year

Thank you, @Motorina. I appreciate your time.

Thanks @Jeeeez I must have missed that somehow.

Thanks, everyone. It genuinely is a pleasure.

UPDATE

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
The Tribunal will hand down their decision on the facts tomorrow at noon re the misconduct allegations that Dr Adrian Harrop inappropriately posted tweets that were offensive and/or insulting &/or inappropriate in nature & some of which were intended to intimidate.

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1463207790705528835

TWEET

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
19m
Dr Harrop admitted some of the facts.

So the Medical Practitioners Tribunal will decide if:

• the other allegations are found proved
• the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired
• any action should be taken. >>

This second stage of the medical practitioners tribunal hearing is the impairment stage, focusing on whether the doctor's fitness to practise is impaired due to the
allegations found proved.

The tribunal exercise its judgement and applies relevant case law. >>

If the tribunal concludes that Dr Harrop’s fitness to practise is not impaired, it may issue a warning to the doctor.

This is not a sanction and does not restrict the doctor’s practice. >>

Neither
@gmcuk
nor Dr Harrop's lawyer can argue about whether the facts have been proved at this stage.

Both have the opportunity to call witnesses and make
submissions.

Dr Adrian Harrop can present testimonials and evidence about the insight he has into the concerns into his fitness to practise, and any steps he has taken to address those concerns.

A tribunal can:

• take no action
• accept undertakings offered by Dr Harrop & agreed with the GMC
• place conditions on the doctor's registration
• suspend the registration
• erase the GP's name from the medical register, so he can no longer practise.

We'll be reporting at noon

Got everything crossed for a sensible decision. I hope this leads to dazzling sunlight on the tactics and bullying that certain activists are so fond of.

At some point our MSM will have to admit that the threats and abuse only ever stem from one side of this debate.

Roll on Wednesday

12 minutes until hopefully wonderful Wednesday..., 🤞🤞🤞

I truly hope that I'm wrong - my expectation is that there will be a tap to the wrist: accept undertakings offered by Dr Harrop & agreed with the GMC and it will be pigeon chess.

But there are fresh complaints to go in about Dr H and his apparent inability to truly relect and learn.

It's like stacking a tower. Broad and deep foundations upon which to build.

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

I truly hope that I'm wrong - my expectation is that there will be a tap to the wrist: accept undertakings offered by Dr Harrop & agreed with the GMC and it will be pigeon chess.

That was my initial expectation also, but dwelling on it, I've changed my mind and I don't think AH should be sleeping well tonight.

I'll preface by stating I'm not an expect, so this is just personal opinion and a view formed based on the information we have.

Firstly a lot (most) of the allegations have been proven to be true.

So the next question is, has AH brought the profession into disrepute?

I cannot see how the answer to this can be no without serious questions to be had about the standards doctors are expected to uphold.

So then it's a matter of sanctions.

This isn't about a single error of medical judgement/negligence that can be solved by training/supervision.

It's a matter of character, choices and behaviour over a sustained period of time.

That demonstrates a deeply entrenched mindset of a person who failed to change his behaviour despite two (I believe) supervisory warnings and being referred to SM policy.

So the last question is, has he changed his ways? Is he truly remorseful?

I think he shot himself here, not only in his very late in the day reflections/remorse, but with his testimony.

The three key things that struck me re: his defence was 1) she made me do it 2) Twitter is toxic (but other SM is ok) and most damning is 3) I can't guarantee it won't happen again but my colleagues will tell me if it does.

None of these indicate a person whose truly understood the implications of their own actions and the Vice article was the icing on the cake (going to the media irrespective of what it said when you're facing a tribunal is in itself poor judgment, then stating the chance of erasure from the medical register is virtually nil.....mind blown).

It's akin to using the "my dog ate my homework" when you don't own a dog.

So my money is on a suspension. No idea how long.

But that's a biggie. On his records for life.

And before he can practice again it's my understanding that it's not just that he serves him time and that's it...no he has to go back to a Panel and convince them he's a changed man....

Indeed, so changed that straight after his last tribunal evidence he was photographed with someone who (under-said) offers controversial SM content, wearing a badge that's threatening and inflammatory.

So, yes whatever happens I think it's worth reporting him, every time he steps out of line because I think he can't help/stop himself.

Might be eating my words tomorrow though....

@BreadInCaptivity 110% yes. You've highlighted all the key issues - a character/behavioural issue; repeated and sustained over a long period; late and limited insight; and blame casting - which means I also think that a suspension is the most likely outcome.

But we won't find out today. Today is the stage one decision, on whether the charges he has denied are proved or not.

Just realised, I hope some of the panel have a Twitter account so they can see how easy it is to engage on there without being a spiteful threatening misogynist.

I think AH should be worried. I have experience with another regulator and it would be the repeated pattern of behaviour directed at a number of people that would be causing me concern.

To give an analogy
If A turned up at work on a Monday still drunk from a party that finished at 4am and had to be sent home after a service user complained that would be serious and could be below acceptable standards for the profession. However, if it was a one-off misjudgement because they had been to their Dad's 75th birthday party and A was really embarrassed then a panel may decide that no action was needed.
On the other hand if B turns up to work stroppy and hungover several times a month and continues to do so even when spoken to the panel may regard it as more serious than A even though B is in a better state each time than A was. This is because B is persisting in behaviour that has been challenged and showing little insight or remorse. Even if B was supremely remorseful in front of the panel that insight and remorse would be considered in the context of their previous behaviour especially if they had had earlier opportunities to reflect on their behaviour.

Each individual instance of B's behaviour is less serious but the sustained nature would be taken into account.

Good point Chaz.

A similar concept is behind the Bradford Factor used by HR to assess absence.

Whatever happens.
I doubt that he will be self reflective.
It will be "see what these women made the Panel do"

@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.

So why doesn't this apply to the police with their rainbow insignia, and councils flying the trans flag above town halls?

@Maskless it annoys me every time.

I used to have a religious poster behind my desk at home. Since covid, and zoom meetings from home, I’ve taken it down as my personal religious beliefs (which I obviously think are a good thing!) might prove a barrier or give the perception of bias.

In the same way the police shouldn’t have rainbow lanyards. Gay rights are a good thing! But they need to police all communities fairly, so shouldn’t be declaring support for any one community because it impacts on that perception of fairness.

@BreadInCaptivity, I agree with all you say, but just wanted to point out that the panel, while aware of the existence of the article, apparently won't have been allowed to read it.

So two fresh complaints from this point would be:

1. The content of the Vice article (and AH's co-operation with it; and the questionable timing of it);
2. The content and context of the photograph that appeared on SM with him wearing his unpleasant badge, posted by his friend (and again, AH's co-operation with it; and questionable timing).

I think those are the two biggies that have happened since the MPTS tribunal hearing started and which are outwith its current terms.

Both of these evidenced examples go directly to the issue of his credibility and fitness - they suggest that even during a MPTS tribunal hearing, AH, it could be alleged, is inclined to act in a provocative, impulsive or otherwise ill-judged way, without showing any evidence of genuine remorse, reflection or understanding.

It's the poor judgement that's a major problem for a doctor - see many previous MTPS rulings.

I'm incredibly curious to see what happens here.

I’m not feeling overly optimistic. After seeing what’s happening in the girl guides and that SNO numpty (the one who posted rifle images as a warning) is now running for office... world gone mad.

Placemarking

I really want to be hopeful that today will show the panel have really looked at the concerns and this won't be another exercise in lip service...

Surely the panel must have seen the VICE article in order to allow cross-examination on it?