Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

[quote Motorina]@Jeeeez thank you for all your hard work. You’re doing a superb job!

I am deeply amused that GP is grumpy you’ve missed his best lines. Typical barrister!

The panel read the vice article at stage two - it’s in their determination where they summarise the evidence.

Out dog walking but poised for news![/quote]
Thank you for your insights Motorina. It can sometimes feel as though you have no idea of what you're reporting on - I get the medical stuff but the legal goes over my head. Yes, typical barrister! He's pleasant though.

Still lots to catch up on but very pleased they read the article. Apparently it was put out to counter the DM article on the first day, to dilute the DMs internet presence. Didn't really think it through tho...!

@BoreOfWhabylon

Afternoon all. Seems I missed an opportunity to link my favourite video

@Jeeeez
- A certain reporter has told me the information wasn't received from the doctor
Can you clarify which information this is please?

The whole evidence bundle I think it was described as.

I should have probed more but was dealing with an unexpected work crisis at the same time

I think a month’s suspension isn’t very surprising. Suspension for any length of time is a pretty bad thing for a doctor, isn’t it? Plus the bringing the profession into disrepute and the very detailed judgement, which is damning.

He is now on very very thin ice

This. Which is why the vice article and all that came later is so astonishing. I'm fairly sure he will completely sink his own career at some point, unless he makes some significant changes to his behaviour and social circles

he makes some significant changes to his behaviour and social circles

I can't see it happening.
I can see how social circles.being on Twitter at some point crowing about this being a victory somehow.

I'm not here to defend 1 month. I would have preferred to see longer.

However, to put it in context, it is extremely unusual for a doctor to be suspended at all for a first offence, unless after conviction for a crime; or being caught red-handed in dishonesty; or unless there is a direct and immediate threat to patients - e.g. the doctor is an alcoholic who is drinking at work.

So, in the context of normal sanctions, this is a major rebuke. I am not going to tell the witnesses that they should feel satisfied, or pretend that I would have been in their shoes. They should not lose sight of what they have achieved, though. It may not seem much consolation for all the trauma they have been through, but their complaints have achieved something very unusual that will have an impact on AH for the rest of his career.

What MissLucyEyelesbarrow says. This is massive. It's basically screwed his career in the public sector in the UK.

Apparently it was put out to counter the DM article on the first day, to dilute the DMs internet presence. Didn't really think it through tho...!

That is hilarious, who thought a vice article could dilute DM coverage. The DM, like it or not is the most widely read paper in the UK. Vice has a UK circulation the size of a small village

My understanding is he is now stuck between a rock and a hard place - if he appeals the suspension it will take more than a month to have the hearing held (and he won't be able to work while awaiting the appeal) but if he doesn't appeal he is acknowledging that he is guilty and what practice wants to employ a GP with a suspension on his record?

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I'm not here to defend 1 month. I would have preferred to see longer.

However, to put it in context, it is extremely unusual for a doctor to be suspended at all for a first offence, unless after conviction for a crime; or being caught red-handed in dishonesty; or unless there is a direct and immediate threat to patients - e.g. the doctor is an alcoholic who is drinking at work.

So, in the context of normal sanctions, this is a major rebuke. I am not going to tell the witnesses that they should feel satisfied, or pretend that I would have been in their shoes. They should not lose sight of what they have achieved, though. It may not seem much consolation for all the trauma they have been through, but their complaints have achieved something very unusual that will have an impact on AH for the rest of his career.

Exactly.

And he's going to have to prove that he's learnt the error of his ways before being reinstated. Which won't happen simply by him paying lip service to "reflecting" I'd have thought.

He did this to himself.

@PronounssheRa

Apparently it was put out to counter the DM article on the first day, to dilute the DMs internet presence. Didn't really think it through tho...!

That is hilarious, who thought a vice article could dilute DM coverage. The DM, like it or not is the most widely read paper in the UK. Vice has a UK circulation the size of a small village

The writer!

Will he be employable now as a doctor, GP or in the NHS elsewhere?

Is it likely he will return to his existing Practice/Surgery after his suspension and resume work for example, or will his GP employers be able to dismiss him (if they wish to)?

I just feel he will play it as a minor slap on the wrist and those not in the know as to how the system works will accept what he says. It feeds into his overwhelming belief in himself and the panel should have realised this aspect of his case/behaviour and taken it into account. I can already hear him boasting that he got away with it.

Okay a couple of posts from me in quick succession.

First off, what I think is being decided now.

I think the panel are deciding whether to impose an immediate order.

The suspension doesn't start for 28 days. In the mean time, Harrop is free to work unrestricted. Obviously there are some circumstances (e.g. a doctor who is found to have sexually assaulted multiple patients) where that would be unacceptable, so the panel has the power to suspend immediately. That's an immediate order. It runs til the proper order starts.

The tricky bit is what happens if he appeals. If he appeals in that 28 days then the suspension is put on hold til the appeal is heard.

Appeals are taking perhaps 9 months or so to get to the High Court. So that's a 9 month period in which he could work unrestricted (if there's no immediate order) or would be suspended (if there is).

Given the panel have found only one month suspension is neccessary, that could be seen as disproportionate and undermining his right to appeal.

I think that's the current decision.

@FissionMailed

he makes some significant changes to his behaviour and social circles

I can't see it happening.
I can see how social circles.being on Twitter at some point crowing about this being a victory somehow.

The golfer is already insisting their mate has been cleared of all charges. Obviously using Newspeak definitions of all of the words.

It’s short but it has also given us the means to hold him more strongly to account from here on out, right?

If so, then if he so much as puts his pinky toe out of line again... (which I am certain he will), then the future complaints might end his career entirely?

I wonder how the threat of being professionally ‘cancelled’ makes him feel in light of his gleeful squawking when it happened to women?

His card is marked. It's up to him now. I hope he learns from it.

Obviously I have no idea about his employers plans, but if they're happy with his clinical work, I'd have thought his two current employers would keep him on as long as a suspension doesn't drag on for ages

It will take several months for him to reapply I think so it isn't a case of a month off and then straight back to work

[disclaimer: I'm not in HR]

I don't think he will Roystnov, he's, as a pp said, on thin ice, all his colleagues in the profession will know how serious this is. He has been publicly embarrassed by this being heard and reported in widely read papers such as the DM, his 'friends' may try to play it down amongst themselves and their allies but the phrase bringing the profession into disrepute will forever be attached to him and that cannot be spun to sound anything other than what it is and what it says.

If it was viewed as a minor slap on the wrist why are his Counsel arguing about appealing against it?

Ben Hunte is tweeting the 1 month suspension as a win . Plenty of responses congratulating him on his contribution to securing the verdict.

On the length of the order, I am surprised it's only a month. I don't think that's consistent with the panel's finding that there was risk of repetition and limited insight. But we are where we are.

I think a review is unlikely as what's the point after a month.

However, I also don't think it's a light sanction. In addition to the very public embarrassment, there are these consequences:

1. He will have to declare it for ever and a day, any time he applies to a new job or for post-grad training. I'm not saying he's unemployable - there's a shortage of doctors - but anything competitive? It's going to be putting him at a real disadvantage.

1. I suspect (@MissLucyEyelesbarrow tell me if I'm wrong) he will have to be on a local performers list to work as a GP. His place on that list will lapse on suspension. He will have to reapply to go back on. This may take some time!

1. He can be assured of being very carefully watched going forward. If he continues to act as he has done he will end up in front of another panel, and can anticipate more serious consequences. I think we are unlikely to see another interview like the one with Posie. (Sorry, everyone.)

1. Again, I defer to MissLucyEyelesbarrow but my guess is he will be covered by crown indemnity. So if he screws up a patient's care he's insured for the costs of them suing him. That's part of the standard employment package for anyone employed by the NHS. But he won't be covered by crown indemnity for regulatory matters like this. He will pay additional indemnity for that. I do that, it's about £800 per year for me. He's just done the equivalent of losing his no claims bonus. I'm guessing he will be paying hundreds if not thousands a year more for that indemnity, because he's just become higher risk.

I wonder if the panel have decided that although they condemned his behaviour, he has not been found unsafe in terms of his clinical practice - he is not a danger to his patients. Therefore the balance of a short but sharp punishment may have seemed the most appropriate conclusion.

Hopefully the TRAs will start to realise they are not invincible, their words and actions have consequences.

If he appeals would the high Court just look at evidence presented in the tribunal? So only the redacted witness statements? Or would they look at tweets etc that have more recently come to light and unreached statements?