Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

I am really sorry, E.

I am sorry Witness E. I wonder though if you should be posting this before the outcome is known? (IANAL, just concerned)

It's amazing, isn't it? AH parading around endorsing the spraying to chemicals on women for their views. Even as his/her/furry actions are under review.

Yet, women have to tread so carefully as we don't have the deodorant of being male.

@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.

Dear God E

I'm so sorry

Women are actively trained like this not to come forward or stand up to abusive treatment, the process punishes and re abuses all over again. This is appalling to read.

Nothing I can say here will affect any sanction applied to Adrian Harrop or have any impact on the assessment on his fitness to practice.

I’m just highlighting the flaws in the process. The witness statements, or mine at least, was heavily redacted.

We were all deemed too credible to speak and we were defamed with no right of reply.

And the whole affair was limited to 4 specific complainants which we know is the tip of the iceberg.

It may just be that intention to intimidate is too difficult to prove.

Women can make up their own mind whether or not they feel safe in the care of this doctor. I am very concerned for my child, whose full name Dr Harrop and his friends know (she was catfished on the fruit farms by one of them) who is hopefully going to study medicine at University.

As I said in my statement, thanks to Dr Harrop she’s not applied to a single English institution. But that was redacted.

❤️🌸💐to both

We were all deemed too credible to speak and we were defamed with no right of reply.
Sorry E
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Too credible to speak"?

I'm so sorry, E. This is so distressing.

AH will get his comeuppance. I believe that. It might not be this time, but it will come.

It was agreed with Dr H’s defence that the witness statements would be heavily redacted and there would be no need for witnesses to speak.

There was no dispute over the effect that his behaviour had upon us.

The dispute seems to be over whether or not this was intended.

WitnessE & LouiseMoody I am so sorry this process has been so difficult.

I guess we’re no longer surprised that it took so long to catch Shipman now.

I was abused as a child by a doctor but I can honestly say I was still ok with male doctors. However seeing what Harrop and to a lesser extent Jensen felt free to say publicly on twitter made me nervous that any male doctor I see could secretly hate women as much as they do.

@MonsignorMirth

We were all deemed too credible to speak and we were defamed with no right of reply. Sorry E I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "Too credible to speak"?

Does that mean the witnesses were told their written statements were sufficient so they didn't need to (or weren't allowed to??) appear in person?

I don't think this has ever been clear.

It seems from the tweeted accounts that the defence chose not to cross-examine the witnesses. But what about the GMC's barrister? Why didn't he choose to examine? Again, I was never clear on this point.

So sorry @MNHarpie

I’ve been incredibly distressed in the run up to the tribunal. Dr Harrop tweeted the police, my local council, children’s services and the local press to state I was an unfit mother and he was concerned for the welfare of my children.

He played on every mother’s fear.

But, and I mean this, it’s not false humility, I appreciate it’s not in the same league as physical abuse. I cannot imagine the effect this has on people.

@beastlyslumber

I'm so sorry, E. This is so distressing.

AH will get his comeuppance. I believe that. It might not be this time, but it will come.

Here's hoping.

X-posted.

I still fail to understand the GMC's rationale on witnesses.

@WitnessE

It was agreed with Dr H’s defence that the witness statements would be heavily redacted and there would be no need for witnesses to speak.

There was no dispute over the effect that his behaviour had upon us.

The dispute seems to be over whether or not this was intended.

So a defence that he was essentially stupid rather than malicious?

Again, a stellar endorsement of his abilities as a doctor. Absolutely right that he should carry on prescribing hardcore meds to children.

Venomous little toad. Some might think.

I’m just highlighting the flaws in the process. The witness statements, or mine at least, was heavily redacted.

I don't understand why this happened/was allowed, hopefully someone with more knowledge will explain. Surely victims and witnesses have the right to be heard in full and the right to have all their evidence heard?

Dr Harrop tweeted the police, my local council, children’s services and the local press to state I was an unfit mother and he was concerned for the welfare of my children.

My god. I'm so sorry E. 💐💐💐 Intimidation and harassment by an NHS Doctor on social media is one thing but to contact children's services because you believe sex is real!! and dared to challenge his extremist ideology? This isn't right. It's appalling. WTAF is going on in this country?

The MPTS have provided the basis for their decision:

twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1463547446487920640

@FindTheTruth

This was in the context of Dr Harrop tweeting about looking at my kids and identifying them/their schools on Instagram.

I kicked off and was upset by this, so Dr Harrop tweeted that he was concerned by the level of my anger, that my home environment cannot be safe for my children etc and copied in these people.

This was after admitting that he had got all the details of my family from a Mr Drewitt-Barlow who was also, coincidentally, the source of a doctored screenshot of my FB in which I supposedly said that “children with cancer & AIDS deserved it because of the sins of their parents”.

Dr Harrop reported this comment and said it was entirely consistent with my views but that he wouldn’t share the (looked as though it had been doctored by a 3 year old) screenshot because I would only gaslight people by pretending it was doctored and he wasn’t prepared to facilitate gaslighting.

Sorry, off to spend time with family. But I have found the panel’s reasons for their decision fascinating. They weren’t prepared to accept unchallenged evidence.

💐💐💐💐❤️ E ❤️💐💐💐💐

Reading the findings

"Witness E was contradictory and paradoxical"

She's not a doctor and is not employed by the GMC you feminist baiting, vile, bigoted tribunal.

Apparently it's fine to say that to people so..

They didn’t believe me. Time to be where others are not.

@WitnessE I am so very sorry you had to go through this and I hope you have good people around you. AH comes across as a toxic raging misogynist regardless of the outcome and he will be forever tainted with the stain of it.

Those reasons are interesting. Misogynistic...wholly inappropriate...highly offensive...plainly inappropriate... concerning...

Plus one 'not proved' is because he only sent 10-20 inappropriate tweets about E, rather than 'at least 38' as the GMC had asserted. So it's more about the GMC setting its stall too high, rather than disregarding E's evidence.

There's not a lot for Haddock to crow about there.

@RedDogsBeg

I’m just highlighting the flaws in the process. The witness statements, or mine at least, was heavily redacted.

I don't understand why this happened/was allowed, hopefully someone with more knowledge will explain. Surely victims and witnesses have the right to be heard in full and the right to have all their evidence heard?

This isn't a comment on this specific case, because all I know is what is in the public domain. It's much more general principles. But...

Redactions are normally agreed by both sides. Where there's a dispute, the panel would decide, either at a preliminary meeting before the main hearing or during the hearing itself.

It would be normal to only include material which is relevant to the charges. Material which isn't relevant to those charges isn't useful to the panel because it can't be used to prove anything. It also can be seen as being unfair to the doctor, because it in effect tarnishes their name in a way which they can't defend against, because it's not in the charges.

There are strict rules of evidence in all courts. Including criminal courts. For example, if you were a victim of sexual assault you would be allowed to give your evidence on what happened. You would not be allowed to say, "And I know he has convictions for doing it to a dozen other women" because that would prejudice the jury. If you were accused of theft, the prosecution wouldn't be allowed to say that you were feckless and workshy, and had been appallingly rude to all your colleagues, and everyone knew you were a drunk, so were just the sort of person who was likely to pinch the petty cash. That would be seen as unfair to the defendent. The would be allowed to say they saw you sneaking out of the building with a big bag marked 'swag' and then found all the money had gone, because that is relevant to what has been charged.

I suspect - only suspect, because I haven't seen the statements - that the redactions were because much of what the witnesses had said in them wasn't relevant to the charges. I understand why that hurts and why it seems unfair, but, if that is the reason, then it's the correct decision in law.

The more interesting question to me is why the GMC seems to have charged only a relatively small element of the concerns which people have raised. But you'd have to know more about the inner workings of the investigation to know why those decisions were made, and I simply don't.