Adrian Harrop has had his medical licence suspended

[ShirleyPhallus]

Good. Odious little twerp

@Bobbingtons

Can't believe he's become a victim of cancel culture for expressing his beliefs which are a protected characteristic!

He hasn’t. You need to read some of the tweets. Where he threatens one woman in particular, openly plans a golfing trip to where this woman lives and posts pictures of the church where her husband works…..and we all know in Harrops mind that a golf trip does not refer to playing golf, rather assualting someone with a golf club after the infamous golfer incident. He threatens her kids, calls her all sorts of nasty names. He “diagnoses” people he’s never met with mental health conditions.

You can’t do that sort of thing as a doctor. I’m a midwife and I’ve no doubt I’d have been struck off for it. He wants to thank his lucky stars he’s got off with a suspension.

I tried commenting too but I can't get comments published under pre-moderated articles at the moment.

@Bobbingtons

Can't believe he's become a victim of cancel culture for expressing his beliefs which are a protected characteristic!

This is the problem with calling it cancel culture. It’s not cancel culture it is consequence culture. By the way expressing your belief is not a protected characteristic.

Personally I think the tribunal was poor and found in his favour way more than was acceptable and they should have looked at the pattern of behaviour not found on individual points. He even states that he wanted to silence the opposite side of the debate however necessary and they didn’t find that a threat.

I can follow the link to The Times article, but I'm a subscriber and cannot see this on the tablet edition for today.

I read the Times in a browser not the app and there it is fairly prominent in the news section Chrestomanci

Don't think it was proportionate for him to lose his job.

You don’t think it’s proportionate for a GP who clearly hates and despises 50% of his patient list to lose his job?

I wouldn’t go near that man for an ear infection. As for taking a child with mental health difficulties - can you imagine?? You could leave the surgery clutching a prescription for puberty blockers.

I commented on the headline too Ghostsinshelf. There's lots of moderating going on and I have (in the past) commented that holding up comments until late afternoon is, in itself, stifling debate.

I keep meaning to write to The Editor but keep forgetting. The Times used to moderate for 'intemperate' language and rightly so, but opinions are something other

Just wondering, has anyone here ever had to be treated/or met Harrop IRL? If so, what were your impressions?

I also commented on the Times article, and am awaiting moderation.
There are always lots of complaints from readers about the moderation. It often verges on censorship - posts are sometimes belatedly deleted wholesale even after hundreds of "likes". And I've often had them refused publication in the first place, despite using very polite language. Their moderators seem to be reality deniers who won't allow me as a doctor to state biological facts.

I don't understand the judgement that stated that because the women weren't affected by what he wrote it can be discounted.

Surely they were affected as they complained about it? Doesn't the fact that this evidence was in the tribunal make that point. So women have to react in a certain way for tribunals to take them seriously? I don't understand their logic.

Also, thanks to Harrop even I know where certain people live or work as they were doxxes at the time. So how did they determine it wasn't doxxing when he doxxed them blatantly on twitter.

@JellySaurus

What a mess of mixed messages!

In relation him blasting a female rival as 'a venomous transphobic bigot', it said there was no evidence of any personal offence having been taken.
It was therefore not satisfied the tweet was 'objectively offensive'.

So if you behave in a mature way and don't rise to the offensive bait, then it wasn't offensive.

But if you do respond, and ask the bully to stop, then the bully's behaviour is not bullying.

'The tribunal considered Person E's request for him to stop tweeting was somewhat contradictory and paradoxical,' said its ruling.
'Both sides appeared to be intent on provoking each other…the tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Harrop's subjective intent was to intimidate Person E.

Summary: you been a naughty boy (but only a bit naughty)

You've hit the nail on the head there.

There is apparently no correct way for a woman to respond to being bullied. If she maintains a dignified silence, then obviously she wasn't upset, so it's not really bullying. If she responds angrily, or appears to be hurt, then obviously she is just as bad as the person bullying her.

Heads the bully wins, tails the bullied person loses.

See also: domestic abuse, sexual assault.

A GP I know of got suspended for a year for kissing a colleague on the cheek at a work party - this seems a pretty tame punishment in comparison, for what was horrendous, targeted, deeply unprofessional behaviour!

That Times article headline is misleading. They are painting anyone gender critical as "opposing trans rights". We don't oppose trans rights. I support anyone's rights to live as they please, call themselves what they want and wear what they want. But they can't change biology. That's a fact. And men do not have the right to enter women's safe spaces and parents do not have the right to give their children harmful and unnecessary medicine like cross sex hormones. There are no rights that trans people have that I oppose.

[quote GAHgamel]@BoreOfWhabylon are you familiar with the running joke in Private Eye about Andrew Neil? I think this has potential to turn into the FWR version.[/quote]
Must admit I'm not familiar with it @GAHgamel. But yes, that car crash of an interview will haunt Harrop for the rest of his days. It's glorious

I'm being very cautious here as someone thar practices medicine in the same region as Harrop and has not only one friend at a surgery I know he has worked at.

I can't pretend to know how the system that struck off a trainee working under unbelievable pressure with no senior support for the immensely sad death of a child in her care thinks that months (years?) of threatening behaviour only needs a month's suspension.

But the wisdom above is right - it will follow him. Sadly most places are soooo desperate for locum GPs I'm not sure how much of a practical impact it will have. My understanding is that his clinical reputation as a GP is not bad, though again, that's all I should say I think.

@NotTerfNorCis

Borrowing this from the other Harrop thread: grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-caroline-farrow

That is some stalker behaviour. 'Deplorable' is too mild a word.

And TRAs are pretending he was just speaking up for trans rights. Good thing the evidence is online for everyone to see.

I would urge everyone to read the linked blog post. It's absolutely shocking. Harrop should be in front of a criminal court, not just a fitness to practise tribunal.

I agree @Blooeyes, and I'm bloody sick of this lazy characterisation of women who give a fuck about women as 'anti-trans'. A lot of it is in the headlines, so that's sub-editors isn't it rather than journalists writing it?

It's pathetic reporting for a serious newspaper.

One of several bizarre aspects of the judgment was the interpretation of "by any means necessary" as meaning just by legal means.

Never mind the context of doxxing, doorstepping, and threatening, you just need a basic grasp of English to understand that "any means necessary" means ANY means necessary. The speech in which the phrase was first used - by Frantz Fanon - was actually titled "Why we use Violence". Which was also the obvious import when Malcolm X used it. It's as if a panel of medics just couldn't entertain the very idea of another medic meaning it.

All patients in any practice should be made aware when any GP has publicly demonstrated racism or misogyny. We continue to be conditioned into accepting the latter as no big deal.

I'm hoping that some of his victims will feel able to share their stories with the press.

Never mind the context of doxxing, doorstepping, and threatening, you just need a basic grasp of English to understand that "any means necessary" means ANY means necessary. The speech in which the phrase was first used - by Frantz Fanon - was actually titled "Why we use Violence". Which was also the obvious import when Malcolm X used it. It's as if a panel of medics just couldn't entertain the very idea of another medic meaning it.

Absolutely this. And if you know anything about the context of Harrop's tweets his meaning is pretty clear.

So he is now on record as a misogynist.

"The tribunal said the retweeting of highly offensive language and the tweeting of 'misogynistic references to women's menstrual cycles' were further examples of wholly inappropriate communications by Dr Harrop."

Must admit I'm not familiar with it @GAHgamel. But yes, that car crash of an interview will haunt Harrop for the rest of his days. It's glorious

Between the huge spectacles the gawping maw, Harrop reminds me of one of those goggle-eyed goldfish.

and the gawping maw

Except the goldfish are cute.

Medical misogyny is a real and well understood problem.

I'm sure there are many medics who'd like to see him removed from their ranks.