Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

I really don't think he will avoid a suspension.

When someone gets a whiff about them then people do distance themselves.

Those who hang around are generally the types who pull strings and egg them on as long as it suites them / as long as they find it entertaining, then they move in when bored. It’s a bit like bullying.

Shame someone with the brains to become a doctor is just throwing it away like that. His parents must be going mad.

If this means that all of the golf-related shenanigans were of no great significance to the panel then they've failed. Even if AH now leaves E alone, those who have been tormenting her will be delighted.

Thanks, @Motorina.

The second series of papers says that more tweets are being admitted for evidence. They are three tweets about E and will be considered. The admission of this evidence was agreed during the tribunal when they talked about the wording that that were at least 38 tweets about E and her family.
Have they already been considered and one of the 'not provens' results from that? Or are they still to be considered? It's confusing. I guess we'll find out over the next couple of days.

An interesting exchange on
twitter.com/radfemlou/status/1463486871359664133?s=20

This has become confusing but I daresay it will be clearer when the public has sight of the papers, in the fullness of time.

The tribunal sits tomorrow for Stage 2. It will consider if Dr Adrian Harrop's ability to work as a doctor is impaired. This may take one or two days.
12:39 pm · 24 Nov 2021·Twitter for iPhone

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
Dr Harrop and his lawyers have been given the reasons in private. The tribunal will issue the written determination on Stage One - later on today [hopefully].
12:43 pm · 24 Nov 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Dr Harrop and his lawyers have been given the reasons in private. The tribunal will issue the written determination on Stage One - later on today [hopefully].
12:43 pm · 24 Nov 2021·Twitter for iPhone

I used to want to be a lawyer when I was a kid, but having read this thread I would have given up in my first year of university! It really does need a certain type of brain.
Thanks Motorina for your interpretation and insights for us laypeople.

@Manderleyagain

The second series of papers says that more tweets are being admitted for evidence. They are three tweets about E and will be considered. The admission of this evidence was agreed during the tribunal when they talked about the wording that that were at least 38 tweets about E and her family. Have they already been considered and one of the 'not provens' results from that? Or are they still to be considered? It's confusing. I guess we'll find out over the next couple of days.

This is the write up from the decisions at the start of last week. When they decided to extend the date of the charges and add in more tweets. They’re not relevant to what will go forward into stage 2.

I confess to being a bit confused about the 38 tweets. I thought Harrop had admitted some of them referred, directly or indirectly, to E, so unsure what’s happened there.

Waiting the full determination…

@Manderleyagain

The second series of papers says that more tweets are being admitted for evidence. They are three tweets about E and will be considered. The admission of this evidence was agreed during the tribunal when they talked about the wording that that were at least 38 tweets about E and her family. Have they already been considered and one of the 'not provens' results from that? Or are they still to be considered? It's confusing. I guess we'll find out over the next couple of days.

I may have misunderstood but it looked like the second set of papers headed Annex A was just setting out the rulings made by the during Stage 1 about the evidence admitted and amendments to the allegations - so events that have already happened rather than admission of new evidence for the next stage.

The underlining of "at least 38 tweets" just looked to me like a way of marking the amended text rather than signifying anything about the seriousness of the allegations.

Hunte is bad news for AH. AH has no real friends i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶c̶r̶o̶w̶d̶

Fixed that for you

I would not encourage any woman to bother wasting so much time and emotional energy reporting their concerns about an abusive doctor to the GMC.

Your statement will be redacted by over 70% to the point where it is almost unreadable, you will find yourself blamed and re-victimised, your witness statement containing confidential medical details will be passed to third parties, your wish to stay below the radar not respected and your abuser given licence to continue to abuse, while laughing at you.

Terrifying a woman by pretending that you are minutes away from her house, gloating about identifying her children and their schools, pretending to distribute intimate photographs of her, engagement with abusive accounts gloating that she will go to prison, tick tock, following accounts tweeting rape threats and videos targeting her 9 year old daughter, liaising with blogs publishing 50 times a day - all of these things and so many more, absolutely perfectly acceptable for a family doctor and absolutely do not constitute intimidation.

Only banter. And she was asking for it anyway.

So sorry to E. It was hard to read the transcripts last week thinking how E's views were not being represented on the day at all.

I am so sorry E.

I can second everything E says.

And will have more to say once we know the judgement.

Thanks all x

@WitnessE

I would not encourage any woman to bother wasting so much time and emotional energy reporting their concerns about an abusive doctor to the GMC.

Your statement will be redacted by over 70% to the point where it is almost unreadable, you will find yourself blamed and re-victimised, your witness statement containing confidential medical details will be passed to third parties, your wish to stay below the radar not respected and your abuser given licence to continue to abuse, while laughing at you.

Terrifying a woman by pretending that you are minutes away from her house, gloating about identifying her children and their schools, pretending to distribute intimate photographs of her, engagement with abusive accounts gloating that she will go to prison, tick tock, following accounts tweeting rape threats and videos targeting her 9 year old daughter, liaising with blogs publishing 50 times a day - all of these things and so many more, absolutely perfectly acceptable for a family doctor and absolutely do not constitute intimidation.

Only banter. And she was asking for it anyway.

😥😡 fucking hell.

Sorry WitnessE - that was my take from the refusal to cross-examine witnesses. Essentially witnesses weren't allowed a voice in this tribunal, and AH and his legal team (and so-called journalist friends) were allowed to repeat claims of abuse, intimidation and provocation without having to provide any proof at all.

I hope I'm wrong, but at this stage it's looking like a bit of a farce.

So sorry E.

@TurquoiseBaubles

Sorry WitnessE - that was my take from the refusal to cross-examine witnesses. Essentially witnesses weren't allowed a voice in this tribunal, and AH and his legal team (and so-called journalist friends) were allowed to repeat claims of abuse, intimidation and provocation without having to provide any proof at all.

I hope I'm wrong, but at this stage it's looking like a bit of a farce.

Exactly.

Do not trust the process.

When well over 70% of your statement is redacted to the extent that the panel cannot read it & ask questions which were covered by the redactions, when you are silenced because your testimony is too credible and when the panel is made up entirely of men, then what else can you expect?

Not proven, does not mean it did not happen however.,

I am appalled that the intimidation against E was "not proven".

@WitnessE I’m so sorry. It was so unfair that Harrop was able to both accuse you of provocation and at the same time refuse you the chance to put your testimony across. It read like you were on trial, not him.

The thing that gets me is the blatant misogyny behind the “she provoked me with her thoughts” defence. I’ve worked in the NHS. I’ve seen patients and relatives be explicitly abusive to staff and we are expected not to rise to it. I’ve looked after people with views I don’t agree with, even views I find personally offensive. And yet I had enough professionalism and restraint to ignore them.

E, what he has done is criminal. Can you press charges?

I am sorry E.