Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

Probably along with 'he's a nice boy really'.

GP asks Dr Exley what impact a suspension would have. Dr Exley (DE) is saying there has been a change in Harrop and has expressed regret.

But not regretful enough to ditch the terf repellent badge eh?

Yes, will try not to get my feet wet!
What is the aim of having a witness for trying to ascertain if his fitness to practice is impaired? What relevant information will the witness be able to provide? (Just wondering about how it works)

I assume the witness would say the same thing regardless of what was found "Proven"?

Bit of a case of the wimmins will be listened to when they support the mens eh?

What is the aim of having a witness for trying to ascertain if his fitness to practice is impaired? What relevant information will the witness be able to provide? (Just wondering about how it works)

Misconduct is about what happened then. Impairment is about the current situation.

Part of impairment is how likely it is that the bad things that brought the doctor infront of the tribunal will be repeated. And risk of repetition is directly impacted on whether the doctor has understood that they screwed up, why they screwed up, and has strategies inplace to stop it happening again.

A professional colleague, who works with him closely, is in a good position to say, "Yes, he's learned from this experience. I've seen a real change. I'm confident he won't repeat it."

It doesn't impact on the seriousness of what happened. It does go to the likelyhood of it happening again.

Well the impact of suspension would surely be that Dr Exley and her colleagues would be a GP down at the Brownlow and have to pick up more patients between them, so she's got an interest here.

Surely though to say there's been a real change you need to acknowledge there was a problem in the first place?
"Yeah it wasn't his fault anyway but yeah he's stopped being misogynistic on Twitter"?

Do you think Dr Exley drew the short straw ? Because if no one from his workplace stood up for him it looks like they didn't care about his behaviour, now we're getting remorse

@Motorina, could the Vice article in theory be introduced at this stage, to suggest that he's not learned? And the 'terf repellant' badge - shows continuing poor judgement?

My prediction, based on no insider knowledge at all is a slap on the wrist.

The NHS is desperately short of doctors, especially GPs. There was a brief and consensual discussion at the end of the last thread about how it is well nigh impossible to fail someone in a medical school. The newly appointed young consultant (consultants are like policemen in that you know you are old when you notice how young they are) who told me this said it was a real worry as people who struggled in medical school often went on to be problematic doctors. (My example had been a boy who seems to have an issue understanding female boundaries, exacerbated by cultural factors.)

The panel will hear that the practice don't see a problem, that they can't afford to lose a GP, and that they will keep a close eye on him. He will be told to stay off social media to avoid bringing the profession into disrepute, with presumably some sort of probation.

And the witnesses. Sadly I think other posters are right. This process was not about them. It will be about what suits the NHS, and by extension, its patients. Not losing a GP will be the priority.

"GP asking about the Vice article. DE says AH was naive to do the Vice article because the timing wasn’t particularly great, engaging with the press isn’t a particularly great idea. GP has no more questions."

Silly naive boy!

Bingo ! She was concerned about his mental health

@MonsignorMirth - agreed.

There's a bit of case law which I really like, which cuts right to the nub of insight and remediation, which I think isn't quoted enough. It's Kimmance v. GMC and reads:

I do not much like those jargon words. They do not do much to illuminate the reality, which is that a doctor or other professional who has done wrong has to look at his or her conduct with a self-critical eye, acknowledge fault, say sorry and convince a panel that there is real reason to believe he or she has learned a lesson from the experience

I can rattle off the relevant case law on impairment if anyone likes (I'm sure it will be heard in the tribunal) but basically it boils down to two things:

1. Is he at risk of repeating the misconduct? If yes, impaired. (Cohen v. GMC)
2. If not at risk, is what he did so awful that a finding of impairment has to be made to uphold standards and protect the reputation of the profession? (Grant v. GMC)

Many more words will be used in the tribunal, I'm sure, but that's it in a nutshell.

First they decide on misconduct, though, which is basically "Is what he did a serious departure from professional standards?" I anticipate both sides will accept that it was, but that will be the first decision.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal

To clarify, DE has said AH has been remorseful but couldn’t specify any particular conversation about individual situations.

Harrops remorse seems to centre just on how this impacts him.

Well he wasn't remorseful on Friday night when he was out in
Liverpool wearing his Terf repellent pin

It looks like the Vice article is in play.

Did AH ever consider the impact of his actions on his own patients? DE, “no.”

This is hugely damning, and very much undermines her position that he has good insight.

@Redshoeblueshoe

Do you think Dr Exley drew the short straw ? Because if no one from his workplace stood up for him it looks like they didn't care about his behaviour, now we're getting remorse

She seems to have been at Brownlow most of her working life.

Given the huge staff list. Is there no letter in support of darling Ade signed by everyone?

I want someone to ask her if there have been any withdrawals from Brownlow by patients concerned about AH.

The overall thrust of her evidence is that he's expressed generic feelings of remorse in a couple of meetings four and five months ago. But he's never articulated any understanding of/remorse for:

1. The impact on his patients (who she thinks don't know about it because they still ask for him)
2. The impact on any named individual who was the recipient of his tweets
3. The impact on the public perception of the profession

I agree with @PronounssheRa - I think she's saying he's very sorry he got caught and is in a mess, rather than he demonstrates understanding of the broader impact of his conduct.

I don't think this witness is helping his case.

@Redshoeblueshoe

Bingo ! She was concerned about his mental health

Well, to be fair, we all have been for years and she hasn't even seen his tweets!

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
We are back. The tribunal is now asking DE. Panel is asking about mentorship- discussions about his correspondence on twitter. DE is saying she didn’t discuss specifics. Panel asking did she discuss any specific twitter feeds. DE says she didn’t.
2
1
7

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
Panel asking about Vice article and that it didn’t alter his view about AH’s insight. Panel asking what DE would have done differently. DE says she wouldn’t have engaged with the press. Panel asking what impact do you think the Vice article had on the medical profession?
1
1
3

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
DE asked panel to repeat question. Panel says if a member of medical profession came across the article, what would her or she feel?
1
4

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
1m
DE, potentially it wasn’t the right thing to do. I’m afraid I don’t know, I’m not doing a good job at answering. I guess colleagues that know about it.. but… it, it doesn’t necessarily but the profession in a bad way.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
8m
Did you discuss it with other members of your practice? Have you had any feedback. DE says only that it wasn’t a good idea at the time.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
7m
Back to GP. He is sorry if he is sneezing, he has a cold. GP coming back to how many times there was discussion with AH about twitter feeds. Twice, DE says again.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
5m
Outside of mentorship, how many times was there a discussion about twitter conduct, were there any times? DE says no. That concludes DE’s evidence.

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
2m
Tribunal panel wants time to go through final submissions. They were only uploaded this morning. Chair clarified to panel what will be considered in law. GP wants to state that Panel needs to consider article 10 of free speech. Chair says this needs to be balanced with

Article 14 of discrimination. Panel is taking 30 minutes to read final submissions. Reconvene at 11.20am

Very glad to see the Vice article in play.

I get the impression that Dr Exley is perhaps being as honest as she can be while not throwing AH under the bus. I wonder if she feels some loyalty towards him for some reason or other.

Chair talking about submissions.

If they've reached submissions then Harrop won't give evidence at stage 2. Which is probably sensible, as it would give the GMC the opportunity to cross examine him on the Vice article, which I suspect would be a disaster for him.

It's really frustrating that they've gone for written submissions again - I want to know the substance of those submissions, particularly what the defence is conceding.