Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

I believe the panel are reconvening at 2pm today.

Just rewatched the Posie vs Harrop interview as I hadn't seen it for ages. Priceless. And lots of prescient comments about harassment & intimidation on Twitter. It only took 3 years to get anywhere with that.

It's unlikely that the direct source of a leak can be established.

A seedy looking account in twitter claims that AH shared the documents with Vice.

Not linking as it's clearly a troublemaking account but on this they are probably telling the truth.

It's unlikely that the direct source of a leak can be established.

Yes, even though Occam's Razor provides a shortcut here, a higher level of proof would be needed and that's not going to happen unless someone involved volunteers the information.

Best not to import the madness happening over on twitter into this thread.

@FannyCann

It's unlikely that the direct source of a leak can be established.

A seedy looking account in twitter claims that AH shared the documents with Vice.

Not linking as it's clearly a troublemaking account but on this they are probably telling the truth.

It's an obvious link however direct evidence of this would be difficult to obtain for all sorts of reasons.

I'd like to think that such documents have specific watermarks that indicate to whom they're distributed so the original source can be identified. But, if someone who received those documents then passes them on to someone else or could have done then that is a problematic direct evidence chain.

We also know that at least one person was boasting of having proper access to all the documents at the time of the Vice interview.

Hard to know if Haddock is being deep fried or deep frying himself. There seems to be a lot of egos in play and scores to settle.

The tribunal considered that Dr Harrop was good at articulating insight, but when the opportunity had arisen to demonstrate this - specifically in relation to the interview with VICE Global - he had failed to do so.

Yes, AH's menacing face straight to camera They won't win quote delivered as a threat is a perfect demonstration of AH's 'insight'.

AH didn't talk to his mentor prior to the article, such is his arrogance, again more proof of the lack of insight.

The panel stating that AH had brought the profession into disrepute was a particular gem, that epithet will stick to him like a bad smell.

But, if someone who received those documents then passes them on to someone else or could have done then that is a problematic direct evidence chain.

Wouldn't the responsibility then lie with the first person who received those documents?

This is all so nasty, there are some really fucked up personalities at work here. And I don't think the doctor is even the worst of them, although he's a piece of work.

AH didn't talk to his mentor prior to the article, such is his arrogance, again more proof of the lack of insight.

One thing I am wondering about (and possibly someone like @Motorina might have insight on this) is the allocation of a mentor to AH. Was this a first step in addressing the behaviour/actions of AH which eventually culminated in the tribunal itself being held? Was it hoped that the supervision and advice of the mentor would guide AH to temper his/her/furry's behaviour?

The panel stating that AH had brought the profession into disrepute was a particular gem, that epithet will stick to him like a bad smell.

Yes, regardless of the outcome, this is hugely important. The GMC were pretty scathing about him and now the MPTS have found he has brought the profession into disrepute.

I guess in theory if they allow the 28 days for an appeal he could argue against this but with no further evidence to suggest he somehow hasn't brought the profession into disrepute his argument would just be "well I don't agree that I have" which wouldn't be enough to change anything.

Given the febrile temperature of the debate, doxing random members of the public who complained to the GMC along with members of the GMC staff, is irresponsible.

Someone needs to be held to account for it.

One thing I am wondering about (and possibly someone like Motorina might have insight on this) is the allocation of a mentor to AH.

I don't think it means anything, I think all the newbie docs get a mentor don't they?

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

Given the febrile temperature of the debate, doxing random members of the public who complained to the GMC along with members of the GMC staff, is irresponsible.

Someone needs to be held to account for it.

Those who have the evidence and proof of this need to report it otherwise no-one will be held to account.

@UncleTonyinahotpinkbrandbeanie

Given the febrile temperature of the debate, doxing random members of the public who complained to the GMC along with members of the GMC staff, is irresponsible.

Someone needs to be held to account for it.

Hopefully evidence of this has been preserved. It certainly adds another layer of complexity to the wider conversation around Harrop and Co but it seems like it won't make any difference to this outcome. I'd be surprised if it didn't come up in some form during his next hearing though.

He's basically thrown his career down the drain.

And for what??

My mind is boggling just thinking about his thought processes.
It seems like misogyny just courses through the man's veins and pretty much gets him out of bed in the morning.

Thanks again to @Motorina and @MissLucyEyelesbarrow for all your insights.

Mentors are good practice for new roles or challenging times but not mandated as far as I know. Every doctor has an appraiser and doctors in training have clinical and educational supervisors too.

Appraisal is mandated btw and it's likely that this will come up at every appraisal he ever has going forwards.

Both the Twitter account & the blog with the witness statements are still live & there are 3 full witness statements now.

The abuse of process is absolutely disgusting.

Is this reported to the police?

@2319inprogress

Both the Twitter account & the blog with the witness statements are still live & there are 3 full witness statements now.

The abuse of process is absolutely disgusting.

Well let's hope someone has done all the necessary archiving and screenshotting then.

The abuse of process is absolutely disgusting

It's another intimidation tactic, to try to prevent future reporting. I hope MPTS investigate as it undermines trust in their process

I hope someone has reported it. I can't, because I have been unable to find it.

It's ok, sorted and thanks.

@2319inprogress

Both the Twitter account & the blog with the witness statements are still live & there are 3 full witness statements now.

The abuse of process is absolutely disgusting.

Wow. That’s awful ☹️

Dear god, I've just watched the Sky news clip with Posie Parker again, and the part where Dr Harrop accuses her and her organisation of 'appropriating' the term woman
She talks a lot about his behaviour on Twitter too. Right, derail over!

@BreadInCaptivity

Slight tangent but things I would love to know....

• are the GMC legal team reading this thread?

• do members of any tribunal enjoy bathroom breaks, not just for obvious reasons but the opportunity to "pull faces" after hours of neutral facial control?

• are the tribunal tweets volunteers touch typists/fast typists? I'm flummoxed by how they do what they do, as well as they do especially on Twitter?

• how many "do's" is acceptable in one sentence?

Am trying to catch up on the threads here as been drowned in work but some answers here:

• I don't know if the GMC legal team are reading the thread but GP IS reading @tribunaltweets and has been put out by typos and he says misrepresentation. Originally this was thought to be him goading but he's recently told me he's upset that his best quotes aren't being recorded!

• some of the volunteers are obviously touch typists but I don't think all are. I'm certainly not. It's very challenging but gets easier with practice

Also:

• A certain reporter has told me the information wasn't received from the doctor
• I strongly get the impression that the panel won't have read the article in stages 1 or 2 as it's not in the evidence bundle
• I've been very impressed by the questioning of the panel in the "delayed tribunal". It's been very thoughtful and insightful.