Harrop MPTS thread 2

[Personwithrage]

Starting the new thread

@SpindlesWhorl

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.

She's worked with him for years. It's clear he's loyal to his friends. He may well have been a good friend to her.

@Redshoeblueshoe

So is she going to say it's all banter ?

Doesn't look like she's gone down that road at least. In fact from what I've read this morning her support is as vague as his remorse

@SpindlesWhorl

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.

Well she has to work with him

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

To me, she was a bit 'poor boy' ish but I guess also she has to be supportive because otherwise, the question could be asked why he still has a job there (but she did say his patients ask for him).

And the tribunal tweets suggest she is specifically his mentor?

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

Seems a bit like DE was "mentor" in name only.

I imagine her loyalty is to the practice. I don't believe that they didn't have a clue. I'm sure some people had said that they had complained directly to the practice

Also, she hasn't seen the tweets.

@Signalbox

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

Seems a bit like DE was "mentor" in name only.

She's a woman. How likely would AH be to listen to a word she said?

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)

Surely #1 is likely and there's a good argument for #2 as at this point Harrop is fairly notorious?

@BoreOfWhabylon

Also, she hasn't seen the tweets.

That's unbelievable. She's gone to a tribunal and hasn't read what it's actually about? I think she might be going for plausible deniability. Also if she knew months ago she was going to be in this situation then his Vice article must feel like he's put her in an even more difficult position. I can't imagine she would have ever wanted to set foot in an MPTS tribunal, even as a witness.

@FlyingOink when the evidence for his insight is:

1. A couple of courses on probity this august
2. Him saying he's very very sorry then talking to the press
3. His mentor saying "We had two quick chats, we didn't talk specifics, and he didn't say anythign about the impact on his patients or the reputation of the profession"

It's not a compelling case thta he's done the hard work to turn around an extended and repeated pattern of inappropriate behaviour.

We'll need a new thread soon if someone wants to start one?

[quote Motorina]@FlyingOink when the evidence for his insight is:

1. A couple of courses on probity this august
2. Him saying he's very very sorry then talking to the press
3. His mentor saying "We had two quick chats, we didn't talk specifics, and he didn't say anythign about the impact on his patients or the reputation of the profession"

It's not a compelling case thta he's done the hard work to turn around an extended and repeated pattern of inappropriate behaviour.[/quote]
I hope you're right and they see it that way. If I had to lay money on whether Harrop was going to act inappropriately online again or not I know where I'd put my fiver.
If he goes back to work and does the same thing again how does that reflect on her?

New thread for when this one's full

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4410751-Harrop-MPTS-Thread-3

Thanks @BoreOfWhabylon

She's been at that Practice a long time as pp said upthread. I found an article from 1996 in the Independent and she was already putting her heart and soul into this inner city practice in Liverpool at the age of 30.

How sad that it's come to this.

@SpindlesWhorl

She's been at that Practice a long time as pp said upthread. I found an article from 1996 in the Independent and she was already putting her heart and soul into this inner city practice in Liverpool at the age of 30.

How sad that it's come to this.

OK so she's very established there, so presumably if he makes a fool of her by continuing to be inappropriate online it won't damage her professional standing too much.

Maybe he's unmentorable.

If she's given honest evidence on oath (and there's no reason at all to suspect otherwise) then it won't effect her standing with the GMC at all.

This is one of DE's answers:-

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.

but the profession in a bad way , is that why DE is steadfastly ignoring the tweets. The practice is desperate for any staff at all. They'd have anyone.

I am aghast that DE steadfastly resisted looking at the tweets or issues which have given rise to this tribunal. Remained (apparently, if believed) as ignorant as possible. I do hope DE probes more diligently into the background of any issues if they are treating a patient.

@Motorina

If she's given honest evidence on oath (and there's no reason at all to suspect otherwise) then it won't effect her standing with the GMC at all.

No sorry I didn't mean any suggestion she was being dishonest, more that her ability to mentor and her professional judgement with regard to a colleague might be called into question if he makes a fool of her. But it doesn't look like she's planning on changing employers any time soon.

What’s happening? I can’t see!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4410751-Harrop-MPTS-Thread-3