Good afternoon. We are due back in shortly. I will use initials RD for the GMC representative Mr Ryan Donoghue and GP for Harrop’s representative Mr Giles Powell.
In relation to the privacy application, some matters will be heard in private session, but not those the GMC submitted.
We proceed; Dr Harrop is being asked for his full name and GMC number. GP, Harrop’s representative is being asked for his submissions. [he is speaking awfully quiet, (GP)]. Chair has asked him to speak louder.
Submissions happening. Harrop is admitting that some of tweets were ‘inappropriate’ and GP says it’ll be up to the tribunal members to decide if the tweets are offensive. Paragraph 3 A-D admitted. 5-A-D admitted. 6 is admitted. 7. Denied.
8. (A) admitted. 13. (A) admitted. (B) denied. 14. (A-D) admitted (F) denied 15. (A) admitted, (B and C denied). 3. Admitted, 4 and 5 and 6 admitted. 8. (A) admitted (B) denied.
[very sorry- that was very quick- we will get this is writing]. By admitted, this means that Harrop agrees ‘it was inappropriate’. He is not agreeing it was ‘offensive’. Chair says Clerk will write this up and hopefully we’ll get a copy.
GMC rep RD now going through Harrop’s background and training.
“This case revolves around Harrop’s use of twitter… and Dr Harrop’s involvement in ‘Transgender rights’.” GMC talking about what ‘transgender rights’ mean. GRA 2004 being discussedZ
View points around the ‘transgender debate’. Harrop was a ‘transgender ally’. GMC rep now talking about the ‘gender critical’ side of the debate. [GMC rep has referred to women as ‘cisgender’ and ‘assigned female at birth’].
The GMC say that Dr Harrop should’ve exercise restraint in his views and not used them to undermine public confidence in doctors.
RD has said this case is not about the ‘transgender debate’ but about abusing public’s trust in a doctor. He’s reading from a good practice guidance, published by GMC.
‘Doctor’s use of social media, guidance’ RD is now referring to and all of this guidance is of use to this case. This explains how doctors can follow social media guidance.
“You must not bully or make comments about individuals or organisations online.” RD still reading from GMC guidance. GMC invites tribunals to refer to this guidance throughout the case.
Royal College of Practitioners 2013, sets outs the code of 10 points for doctors to follow. GMC says ‘need to treat others with kindness… and respect’. GP is not reciting the whole thing. Freedom of expression is useful for debate, but there is guidance to adhere to.
British Medical Association guidance the GMC is now referring to (2012). Issues of trolling, harassment and abuse is covered. ‘There is never any justification to be abusive’ even though there will be differences of opinion.
Core expectations from the previous documents stated will assist the GMC is their case.
In 2018, Dr Harrop was on his Post Grad (Health Education England) the GMC received a number of complaints. The GMC asked his professor to discuss with him and remind him of his duties.
Harrop, as this point said the complainant was “transphobic” and he was “using his public platform for good.” Dr Harrop was reminded of guidance and warned further complaints would leave to a referral to GMC.
At a further meeting, Harrop said that he was “defending an important position.” Harrop had two written warnings. Further complaints received led to a referral in 2019 to GMC. Referrals were also made by a “number of other individuals.”
General twitter conduct; offensive tweets and insulting individuals through replies for example. Referring to one particular tweet now. It’s a response and states ‘the conclusion is that you are just a bit cognitively impaired… and the anti- trans bigots will take care of you’
‘Give it another hour and your morning meds will have kicked in.’ GP is going through a few tweets and saying they were inappropriate.
‘Cispeople’ are generally just awful…. GMC says that he is referring to the majority of his patients and thus is “offensive and inappropriate.”
Relating to twitter user A… ‘You’re the creepy stalker one’ and then goes on to publish user A’s full name. Tweeter A asks for name to be removed. Harrop responds, ‘I want you to apologise… delete your tweets and get off twitter forever.’
Harrop screenshots A’s employer and repeats real name. Harrop publicly revealed A’s real name on his public platform to his thousands of followers, 4,000 approx at the time.
He also calls tweeter A ‘a transphobic bigot’ and that she doesn’t deserve safety. GMC were tagged in tweets but did not make a response.
GMC say that ‘doxxing A’ was motivated by his “differing views on the transgender debate.” GMC’s view is that “Harrop saw it as his job to try and silence those on the opposing side.”
RD is now referring to a separate set of tweets, where he was chatting with tweeter C. ‘We should go on a little weekend away… ‘ C is on same side as Harrop and their twitter exchanges were used to ‘harass’ Tweeter B.
GMC say location references in tweets between Harrop and C were not out of chance, but a result of research into tweeter B, and there were “threatening undertones towards B.”
Tweeter B became aware of tweets sent to him. GMC say tweets were motivated by Harrop’s knowledge that tweeter B was the opposite side or the ‘transgender’ debate.
Moving on to tweeter D. GMC says this tweet made reference to a medical diagnosis, and Harrop should not have commented on the mental health of tweeter D.
Tweets by Harrop were again made because the individual was on the opposite side of the debate. GMC say the tweets were intimidating.
Short break until 3.30pm.
There is a journalist here from The Mail Online too.
Twitter user E. March, 2019- Harrop engaged in a conversation with Twitter user C. ‘Do let’s get our collective knickers in a twist…’ Then go on to talk of a golf course and discuss where Harrop and C will be meeting for a cream tea.
The tweet had violent undertones as it talked of a golf club and they referred to tweeter E as ‘Surrey Stalker’.
There were many references to Tweeters E’s location as some mentioned were near to where Tweeter E lived.
March 2019, Dr Harrop publishes an apology to E, for his inadvertent retweet [I believe this is relating to Tweeter C].
14.c.Referring to E’s health Harrop tweeted “… she’s more mentally unstable than I previously thought…#unstable #unsafe”
Further example the GMC say of Harrop referring to people who were not his patients in terms of [some sort] of medical diagnosis.
The mentioned tweets are only a small amount of his activity in relation to E, approx 50 more towards E. E asked Harrop and C to stop on 10th April, Dr Harrop still continued on after this point, including about members of E’s family and E’s location.
Harrop tweeted about E having a public Instagram of photographs of her children and where her children went to school. Harrop also posted about E’s Husband.
Harrop also inferred he had a private photograph of E which he said he would DM to others in one of his tweets, “check your DMs.”
Dr Harrop manually set his twitter location close to where E was, also chose a banner picture that was close to E’s area too. GMC this was Harrop intimidating those on the opposite side of the ‘transgender’ debate.
*GMC say
When positioned behind his smartphone, Dr Harrop lost sight of his professional responsibility. GMC say Harrop acted in a way that called the medial profession into disrepute.
RD concludes his opening with, “This is just an outline of the evidence the GMC wishes to submit.”
Harrop’s representative Mr Giles Powell (GP) is referring to Article 6. GP wants to know exactly which tweet is for example offensive, which is considered insulting, which is considered inappropriate. They accept some are inappropriate but defence want GMC to specify which…
Tweet is categorised as what. GP wants the categorisation to be clear with reasons why…[e.g. tweet 20 is insulting because].
The chair is now referring to the witnesses. GP states the defence won’t be cross examining any of them. GP won’t challenge the way the witnesses view the tweets.
The chair is now asking, “are we going to take an objective view as to how the tweets would be viewed?” Both GP and RD seem to be in agreement with this.
By not challenging the witnesses, GP wants to make it clear that that doesn’t mean, they are accepted. Adjourned until 11am@ tomorrow.
With thanks for your patience. It was very fast paced. Signing off, Sophie.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
