Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

Step away E, as someone else said you know the truth, the people who know and love you know the truth, the opinions of those trashing you on social media are not worth anything, who would want their high opinion?

Me neither. I suspect this board is being watched by certain parties.

Ask for a specific reading from @MNHQ - the bald 'isn't in the spirit' etc doesn't cut it.

I also advise WitnessE to step away.

Hi WitnessE,

We've removed a few posts as we're concerned we're veering close to contempt of court with some of this discussion.

We don't want to prejudice or interfere with an on-going legal matter so we ask everyone to be careful and cautious when posting on this case.

We'll remove the thread or close it to new posts if you wish - just let us know.

for you at what must be a difficult time.

I'm just going to dance, dance, dance.... to show my delight at a world of good, honest people.

WitnessE

@FlissMumsnet

Hi WitnessE,

We've removed a few posts as we're concerned we're veering close to contempt of court with some of this discussion.

We don't want to prejudice or interfere with an on-going legal matter so we ask everyone to be careful and cautious when posting on this case.

We'll remove the thread or close it to new posts if you wish - just let us know.

for you at what must be a difficult time.

Hang on. As difficult as this situation is for the witnesses, most of this thread is not about Witness E. Please do not remove a thread to which many people have contributed useful information and debate.

I totally understand and support the need to protect Witness E, and the tribunal process, but surely you can remove the posts responding to her (if need be) and/or close the thread, without pulling the whole thing?

Hi @FlissMumsnet thank you - please don’t close the thread. I will withdraw.

It’s funny though how accurate comments are being reported for being “in contempt of court” whereas the VICE interview and disclosure of documents have posed no problem. Such is life.

E you know we are sending you love and best wishes x

@BreadInCaptivity

I think it's unwise to draw too many conclusions about what we heard today.

Whilst I sympathise and understand the frustration/anger/disappointment some of the witnesses are feeling over certain decisions today, he's still got one hell of a rap sheet to account for.

This. He won't just get a 'slap on the wrist'. I doubt he'll be struck off but the Chair of the Panel has already raised AH's lack of evidence of all the reflection and self-improvement he claims to have done.

Look at the material released today. The number of people contacting the GMC, including named medics. Two formal warnings which he disregarded. The Panel's emphasis on maintaining public trust.

This will follow him forever. He's destroyed his career.

Stage one determination posted by tribunaltweets as a single document, which is much easier to parse than photos across numerous tweets:

docs.google.com/document/d/1hdrlN9Q813qdHyMWxb0hpZvD9WHPl1bL/edit?rtpof=true&sd=true

@WitnessE

Hi *@FlissMumsnet* thank you - please don’t close the thread. I will withdraw.

It’s funny though how accurate comments are being reported for being “in contempt of court” whereas the VICE interview and disclosure of documents have posed no problem. Such is life.

The Vice interview was reported to the panel and they seem to take a dim view of it.

Take the high road. Don’t risk saying anything here that could give the twats lawyers ammunition. Doesn’t matter that it’s the truth - there’s time later for that.

Keep going - I’m glad you have found the strength to pursue this - it is important and you are right.

Dr Harrop - Determination on Facts FINAL - PUBLIC
docs.google.com/document/d/1hdrlN9Q813qdHyMWxb0hpZvD9WHPl1bL/edit

[quote Motorina]Stage one determination posted by tribunaltweets as a single document, which is much easier to parse than photos across numerous tweets:

docs.google.com/document/d/1hdrlN9Q813qdHyMWxb0hpZvD9WHPl1bL/edit?rtpof=true&sd=true[/quote]

Thank you.

I'm going to read through it again.

I note on Twitter a lot of people are taking today as a bad outcome - but I think they are scanning the "not proven" decisions rather than reading in detail.

Even when not proven, there is lot of criticism of AH's behaviour.

I think people need to remember exactly what was not proven.

For example, if the charge was x tweet was offensive that's solely what's being determined. That doesn't mean it was appropriate for a doctor, that it wasn't inflammatory or that it didn't happen and there is a lot of caveating in that document to make that very point.

@BreadInCaptivity agreed.

Also, inevitably, the majority of the discussion in the document is about the disputed matters. The admitted matters receive little attention.

It's therefore easy to focus on what's not proved, because that's what's mostly discussed. But, actually, there are a lot of allegations - serious allegations - which have been proved but, because they were admitted, were barely touched upon in this determination, but which will be considered at stage two.

I agree with others - even where the panel has concluded something was not proved in legal terms, it’s clear they consider the behaviour of Dr Harrop deeply, deeply inappropriate.

Witness E was basically called a liar by the Tribunal. Her evidence was not accepted and the Tribunal was “unpersuaded” by the explanation of Witness E for her blatantly homophobic remark back in 2019. The Tribunal also held that Witness E was provocative and had been less than forthcoming with details of their own conduct. The ruling is damning for Witness E. The Tribunal has held her evidence to not be credible and anyone else having issues with Witness E in a judicial setting will be able to cite that ruling to impugn Witness E.

Witness D complaining about “death threats” was an interesting one. It was somewhat ironic that the Tribunal had evidence that Witness D had tweeted in similar terms some months later. Though the ruling in respect of Witness D is less damning than Witness E, the fact remains Witness D was not an impressive witness either. Consider that these rulings were made without Harrop’s legal team having to cross-examine any of the witnesses, it becomes apparent that the GMC case on the intimidation issue was fundamentally week. I have to admit the Harrop strategy was risky but his legal team have played a blinder and it has paid off for the doctor.

Stage 2 will be interesting. The Tribunal needs to consider whether Harrop’s fitness to practise is currently impaired. You can never take a tribunal or court for granted but, given Harrop’s admissions and evident insight, the fact that the Tribunal found in Harrop’s favour on the vast majority of the contested issues, Harrop’s good character and the findings of provocation by Witness E, my bet will be on an overall finding that his fitness to practise is not currently impaired and the overall outcome of this exercise will be finger wagging, a lecture, expressions of regret, and a stern warning. I am not sure that the admitted facts make out a case for his fitness to practise to be called into question but the Tribunal will need to mark his admitted conduct in some fashion. I guess time will tell.

@Motorina

I technical question if I may?

In the instances where a charge was not proven, but the panel were still critical of AH's conduct, is that something they will consider with respect to fitness to practice/sanctions?

Or do they remove that wholly from their deliberations?

I'm just pondering....

Thanks in advance!

From the document above:

A formal GMC fitness to practise referral was made on 2 November 2018 by Dr Richard Cooper, Director of Medical Trainee Revalidation at HEE NE. This followed the GMC notifying Dr Harrop’s employers of posting tweets in May 2018, following which Dr Cooper met with Dr Harrop to discuss the concerns raised. The HEE NE Revalidation Team then received a number of further complaints about Dr Harrop’s posts on Twitter. The complaints were from a variety of individuals and in various forms such as via email, letters and tweets. The HEE NE were concerned with regards to the style and tone of some of the tweets that individuals may have felt that Dr Harrop was being aggressive, or believed that they were being bullied. This resulted in a further meeting being conducted with Dr Harrop.

5. In his referral to the GMC, Dr Cooper stated that if any individuals who read Dr Harrop’s tweets happened to come into contact with him in a clinical setting, they might feel they could not trust Dr Harrop if they had divergent views to his in the transgender rights debate. Dr Cooper indicated that HEE NE believed that Dr Harrop was not following the GMC Guidance `Doctors use of Social Media' April 2013 (‘Social Media Guidance’) particularly in respect of the areas: Respect for colleagues, Anonymity, Communication, Partnership and Teamwork, Establish and maintain partnerships with patients, Maintaining trust, Show respect for patients, Treat patients and colleagues fairly and without discrimination, Act with honesty and integrity.

So, Dr Richard Cooper, as Director of Medical Trainee Revalidation at HEE NE, voicing concerns regarding Harrop ignoring warnings over his SM use and his ability to build trust with patients with a differing viewpoint, which lead to Dr Cooper referring Harrop for a formal fitness to practice review.

That doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement for Harrop.

I would continue to think that the lack of response to all previous warnings, the article in the middle of the tribunal, and that regardless of who said what to whom a GP got himself repeatedly involved with multiple inappropriate (proven) misogynist (proven) communications and behaved in a way not really professionally appropriate at all for someone in a position of such serious responsibility, trust and supposed good judgement, is a pretty significant problem.

But I suppose we shall see.

@BreadInCaptivity anything not proven falls away and doesn't go forward to stage two.

One of those times when it's worth checking the posting history.

The Tribunal has held her evidence to not be credible and anyone else having issues with Witness E in a judicial setting will be able to cite that ruling to impugn Witness E

That is not true and really unhelpful. It’s evident from her responses tonight that E is (understandably) struggling. Don’t come on here, pretending to sympathise with her, then twist the knife with bullshit inferences that will create unfounded anxiety. Run along and play with your fellow ghouls on Twitter and Reddit, if that’s your idea of support.