Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

So in summery;

Other people made me do it, I did not do anything wrong, its all just bants, everyone is oversensitive, I is sorry and (probably) wont do it again, the GMC is being unfair, no one should be paying attention to the current stuff, its alll a plot by Mumsnet, I have gained all the insight I needs in the last few weeks, insight is gained over a lifetime anyway so..., if he did not use the fact he's a doctor to add credibility to his toxicity it would all be fine, and free speach.

Have I got that right?

I can't remember who was hosting the Kellie versus Harrop interview now, but whoever it was got so caught up hearing Kellie address him Mr, that she, too, started calling him Mr Harrop.

Remember, 'I know something you don't know'?

I think the 'something' is that the defence is a bit shit.

@WitnessE

If a doctor tweets to your local police, local council and local press that you are so angry that you present a danger to your children’s welfare, it’s bound to be taken more seriously isn’t it?

And what made you so angry? That’ll be the admission about looking up and identifying your kids and their schools.

Blimy, he did that? How exactly is that not harrassment?

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
·
16m
If they find his fitness to practise is impaired due to the
allegations found proved at the facts stage, then tribunal will move on to Stage 3 and decide what sanction will protect the public

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal
@tribunaltweets
Please join us on Monday at 12pm. With thanks, Sophie (today’s tweeter) and the team.

@Datun

I can't remember who was hosting the Kellie versus Harrop interview now, but whoever it was got so caught up hearing Kellie address him Mr, that she, too, started calling him Mr Harrop.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2G4IhPncF3w

He told everyone on national telly that he was very definitely a doctor, there.

I honestly don't understand the defence but what if I wasn't!

He at least admitted to poor behaviour, and that he should not have been sending those tweeted messages as a doctor.

That'll hurt, if he's advised by MPTS panel to drop the doctor status on Twitter if he wishes to continue to practise in the UK. Dilemma for AH.

Datun you know that if you say Harrop and Posie in the same sentence Bore will post that video

True fact

And that's my proof

Yes, if he's got a right to do it because of free speech, then he's not going to stop, is he? Which is the whole point they're trying to find out.

This is the distinction between a "profession" and a mere job, right?

Certain jobs come with a higher level of responsibility. Doctors, teachers, police, judges, lawyers. They have a code of conduct and you have to follow them to remain accredited.

And that code of conduct will constrain you more than a random member of the public, or someone who just works in a shop. The profession as a whole cannot be brought into disrepute. The public has to be able to implicitly trust any member of those professions.

Harrop has a choice - he can either be a professional, or someone unbound by those extra restrictions.

And that code of conduct will constrain you more than a random member of the public, or someone who just works in a shop.

Not sure we should say just works in a shop. Especially when you consider all those retail workers working during the pandemic. But in terms of reputation - wasn't there an American actor who was paid by one brand NOT to wear their clothes as he played a character they fear would harm their brand if associated with it.

@Redshoeblueshoe

Datun you know that if you say Harrop and Posie in the same sentence Bore will post that video

True fact

🤣🤣

@Datun

I thought his counsel was meant to be a high flyer?

I've got a theory on this.

Obviously they've been planning his defence for some time.

One thing I was surprised out from the get go was how many he admitted to.

At first I though it was simply because they were indisputable, but looking at the charges they successfully argued could not be proven, I think they could have contested quite a lot more and possibly been successful.

Of course you can argue hindsight is a wonderful thing, but perhaps there's an alternative....

Given how many charges there were, perhaps they were resigned to a decision of mis-conduct being proven.

Arguing them all/most of them would just mean the panel looked at his conduct more closely on those charges and it would have a cumulative effect above which admitting them would be.

As such his barrister was always planning his defence not by rejecting mis-conduct allegations (because no point) but by minimising the damage of sanctions by means of demonstrating his remorse. Part of which was to say - look how much he's admitted because he's now seen the light.

What he didn't count on was having a client who blew that out of the water by engaging with the press.

As such, he's now left scrabbling around for "any" angle in mitigation.

We all thought AH was a fool to do that Vice piece but I think it could be even more important evidence than we conceived of, because it blew his defence strategy to pieces (along with foot in mouth evidence from AH himself - paraphrase it might happen again but friends will tell me being the highlight) which his Barrister could not have predicted.

Anyway, just a thought. Could simply be a case of silk purse/sow's ear.....

Sorry for all the typos - on my phone and seem to have fat fingers today. Think the gist is still understandable though.

And that code of conduct will constrain you more than a random member of the public, or someone who just works in a shop.

It's a weird one really. He has more of a voice because of his profession. He is amplified more by his status as a doctor than Dave is by his status as a forklift driver.
Part of being in a professional organisation is abiding by their standards on how you behave in public, because they are aware that the greater social standing comes with the profession.
And if that profession needs public trust to be able to function, then it's even more important.

So the random member of the public has fewer restrictions placed on them in theory. In practice, we've seen activists demand people are sacked from their shop jobs, we've seen the shops themselves targeted, you name it. There's a really sneery side to all online activists (not just TRAs) when they find out a particular voice on social media that is disagreeing with them belongs to a "lowly" shopworker. I actually believe the vitriol slung at people who don't have professional jobs is greater than that slung at lawyers and doctors online.
The difference of course is that Harrop has this formal tribunal and Debbie just loses her cashier job somewhere in a general store in a small US town because she said the wrong thing to the wrong person and wasn't anonymous enough.

As such his barrister was always planning his defence not by rejecting mis-conduct allegations (because no point) but by minimising the damage of sanctions by means of demonstrating his remorse. Part of which was to say - look how much he's admitted because he's now seen the light.

That makes a lot of sense.

Does free speech allow you to intentionally intimidate someone, a charge AH has admitted and has been proved? As we are constantly being reminded free speech is not free of consequences.

Interestingly a poster on the other thread was portraying AH as a good person and doctor, yeah such a good person that he intentionally intimidated someone and refused to stop his conduct even after being asked to, knowing full well the reasons why he was being asked to desist.

Placemarking

@FlyingOink

And that code of conduct will constrain you more than a random member of the public, or someone who just works in a shop.

It's a weird one really. He has more of a voice because of his profession. He is amplified more by his status as a doctor than Dave is by his status as a forklift driver.
Part of being in a professional organisation is abiding by their standards on how you behave in public, because they are aware that the greater social standing comes with the profession.
And if that profession needs public trust to be able to function, then it's even more important.

So the random member of the public has fewer restrictions placed on them in theory. In practice, we've seen activists demand people are sacked from their shop jobs, we've seen the shops themselves targeted, you name it. There's a really sneery side to all online activists (not just TRAs) when they find out a particular voice on social media that is disagreeing with them belongs to a "lowly" shopworker. I actually believe the vitriol slung at people who don't have professional jobs is greater than that slung at lawyers and doctors online.
The difference of course is that Harrop has this formal tribunal and Debbie just loses her cashier job somewhere in a general store in a small US town because she said the wrong thing to the wrong person and wasn't anonymous enough.

I agree with the point you are making in general.

However where I would see a difference (as someone who has to abide by rules of professional conduct) is that I am very clear that my use of SM is constrained and what the consequences could be if I bring my profession into disrepute by inappropriate posts/tweets.

In that sense whilst both people lost their jobs in your scenario, one of them should have not been shocked that this is was possible consequence.

But yes - I'm uncomfortable with this narrative of "worth" as well, whilst also recognising that some professions need to have standards because public trust is integral to being effective, not just individually but collectively.

The seriousness of unprofessional conduct is partly (mainly) about safeguarding and public confidence. The regulated professions that have these sorts of tribunals like medical/dental, law, teaching etc are in a position where cutting corners and poor judgment could cause serious harm. If you are dealing with confidentiality, vulnerable people, risk of harm etc. you should be held to a high standard.
Would any of you have confidence in a lawyer who posted about drug use affecting their work or racially abusing a neighbour. What would you think about the legal profession if nothing was done about that?

I used to work in an out of hours service. The patients there don’t know you from Adam. They are literally trusting you with the safety and well being of their kids. Or with their most intimate secrets.

That’s why ‘reputation of the profession’ matters. It’s about trust.

That’s why ‘reputation of the profession’ matters. It’s about trust.

Look at the Police for how quickly and how damaging it is when the public lose trust in the profession.

The orchestrated campaign remark over the VICE article was bizarre. The fact is that a GP disclosed confidential case files to both a major publication and others who were not parties to the case whilst awaiting their own tribunal. That's a profound violation of the witnesses information, and a violation I imagine they have strong grounds to complain about.

Turn it around and imagine if the witnesses had spoken to the media to talk about their experiences with Dr Harrop and, in doing so, disclosed all their GMC dealings? There are some things you just don't do.