Harrop MPTS Thread 3

[BoreOfWhabylon]

For when the last one fills up

Motorina, I must say, you've been an absolute godsend on these threads.

Thank you so much for giving up your time to clarify everything. I'd also to other posters here, who have all the specialist knowledge. It makes everything so much clearer and easier to understand.

@Datun

Motorina, I must say, you've been an absolute godsend on these threads.

Thank you so much for giving up your time to clarify everything. I'd also to other posters here, who have all the specialist knowledge. It makes everything so much clearer and easier to understand.

Well said 👍

just on the regulator contacting the employer. DE admitted that the profession was in a bad way. That may mean they'd overlook anything that may lose them staff. It would be more in their interests to say 'nothing to see, no problem at all

As they are also doctors, his employers would be risking a suspension from the register themselves, if they lied to the GMC.

There are enough serious allegations against AH. We don’t need to make any up, or believe that his employers are conspiring to conceal them. And we certainly don’t need to start suggesting that doctors who have medical conditions or disabilities are less insightful or trustworthy.

DE admitted that the profession was in a bad way. That may mean they'd overlook anything that may lose them staff. It would be more in their interests to say 'nothing to see, no problem at all'.

Did they? I have no recollection of this from what was tweeted.

Even if they did your conclusion is a stretch.

Lying to a tribunal makes you liable to facing one yourself.

Checking in

@Cailleach1

and her admission but the profession in a bad way. You get the impression (rightly or wrongly) they'd hold on to just about anyone.

I think this is a typo and it's been misunderstood.

The tweet from tribunaltweets says

"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."

As in, 'it doesn't necessarily put them in a bad light' or similar - that's how I understand it in context.

There are enough serious allegations against AH. We don’t need to make any up, or believe that his employers are conspiring to conceal them. And we certainly don’t need to start suggesting that doctors who have medical conditions or disabilities are less insightful or trustworthy.

Yes, more light, less heat needed. Also we know this thread is being closely monitored by some very litigious individuals, so don't give them any ammunition.

And thanks MNHQ for allowing the thread to continue to run. I rather think they will have been dealing with a lot of reports about it.

As in, 'it doesn't necessarily put them in a bad light' or similar - that's how I understand it in context.

That was my understanding also.

That DE felt the article wasn't necessarily a bad reflection on the profession.

The "necessarily" is an interesting caveat that's open to interpretation.

Absolutely Bore and I know this thread is being heavily monitored, due to the speed of a response from HQ last night

Yes, thank you to MNHQ for some highwire modding 🙂

Yes, DE said that. I wasn't concluding anything, but speculating on what DE could possibly have meant by that utterance; in response to being questioned as a witness at the tribunal panel. And, which was reported in the tribunal tweets.

I still am unclear as to what DE (the witness for the defence) meant when s/he said but the profession is in a bad way .

Is the profession in a bad way because of the behaviour of some doctors?

Or is the profession in a bad way, so they don't monitor the extracurricular activities of some doctors? As that would mean they'd be down staff. Certainly in light of the statement from the witness for the defence that they didn't even check the tweets which had given rise to the tribunal.

Maybe someone else has a suggestion as to what the witness for the defence meant when they made that statement at the tribunal. I'm surprised at the incoherence.

Remember, the tweets are not an official record of what was said. It may have been a mistype or mishearing.

Like others, I interpreted it as something like "put the profession in a bad light"

I meant one interpretation could be that DE meant the profession is in a bad way numbers wise.

I still am unclear as to what DE (the witness for the defence) meant when s/he said but the profession is in a bad way

Again when did this witness say this?

Please state your source.

As for the rest of your post you are asking projective questions that have no relevance to this thread and drawing conclusions/making allegations that are not merited.

Ah ok. DE may not have said it exactly like that then.

I realy don't think so. MissLucy and others have explained why.

But I'm not drawing conclusions. If that was the way it was said, it has a myriad of possible interpretations. The phrase was tweeted from the witness for the defence from tribunal tweets.

However, I stand corrected by BoreofWhabylon that it is not a full transcript. So maybe if there is a transcript it will give a fuller and more coherent account of the DE's responses to questioning.

You're perfectly entitled not to be interested in it. I think it is amazing.

The statement was in relation to "what impact do you think the Vice article had on the medical profession?"

No, not tweeted from the witness. It was reporting the questioning and answers of DE and was tweeted by tribunal tweets.

But I'm not drawing conclusions. If that was the way it was said, it has a myriad of possible interpretations. The phrase was tweeted from the witness for the defence from tribunal tweets.

The follow up questions you asked were based on your interpretation of what was said.

An interpretation that was highly improbable in context.

Those questions then went down a rabbit hole that was irrelevant/unhelpful to this discussion.

TribunalTweets are volunteers. They started attending the Webberley hearings and reporting back to GC Twitter what had been said. They then continued with the Harrop tribunal.

I copied and pasted their tweets (not sure I got them all) to this thread.

They are in no way any sort of official record of the hearings.

@Cailleach1

No, not tweeted from the witness. It was reporting the questioning and answers of DE and was tweeted by tribunal tweets.

I read it as a typo too. But instead of put.

I don't think she would have stood in the MPTS tribunal in front of the GMC and made a general comment about the state of the profession being in a bad way. That doesn't make any sense as it definitely wouldn't help anyone's case.

I've been lurking, and it is my opinion that "but" is a typo for put, and the witness was saying she did not think AH's behaviour had put the profession in a bad way, regarding public opinions of the medical profession.

But I was not in the room!

Also, the tweeters do a brilliant job but are not (afaik) professional court reporters and the tweets are not necessarily verbatim.

I don't think there's any point in endless examination of specific phrases.

@BoreOfWhabylon

TribunalTweets are volunteers. They started attending the Webberley hearings and reporting back to GC Twitter what had been said. They then continued with the Harrop tribunal.

I copied and pasted their tweets (not sure I got them all) to this thread.

They are in no way any sort of official record of the hearings.

And I think we can all say we very much appreciate their efforts and send a collective 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏😘