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

Keep Current with The Adrian Harrop Tribunal

The Adrian Harrop Tribunal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

16 Nov
GP 3 5 6 7 and 9 are admitted
Ch Their feelings are important but not determinant
GP Not trying to suggest that witnesses will consciously lie in their statements
Ch This is opportunity to x exam
GP Doesn't avoid you looking at credibility. Everyone has polarised feelings ...
about this which hightens emotions. Wants to avoid a show trial. Look at what actually happened and you need to determine the reality and I'm happy to take this risk

RP Confirmation that no GMC witnesses are req to give evidence.
Discussion of dates re blocking accounts
GP E blocked AH on 1 April but we don't believe AH blocked anybody. He doesn't recall blocking anyone and has no access to the account. Doesn't deny it

Ch B blocked him after July.
RP We don't have a date for B being blocked but can ask B to recall this
Read 11 tweets
16 Nov
RP We're not ready to proceed yet (GMC). Will be an amendment of charges by GMC to improve time usage of court by 2pm.
Ch: Then GP will need time to assess the wording
GP Likely to be an issue re offensiveness, I'm happy to indicate which tweets should be referenced but this...
...won't be ready in 20 mins. We dispute the stem of 14
Ch Always the case of 14g were not inappropriate
GP Yes but No wrt the employers and those that refer to her family
Ch Is it likely to save time?
RP Tweets need exploring in x examination so all matters will be explored.
RP But if the stem isn't admitted?
GP 17 tweets don't refer to E, employer or family so these should be removed which would improve times
Ch GMC is taking too long to make decisions. Now 2.15pm is the latest time available to feed back instructions
Read 13 tweets
16 Nov
Good morning on Day 2 of Dr Adrian Harrop's tribunal (abbreviated to AH). We are due to start at 11am today. I will use initials RD for the GMC representative Mr Ryan Donoghue and GP for Harrop’s representative Mr Giles Powell.
New docs from GMC re where to place tweets but RD hasn't been able to assess this new info yet so will be given time to look at this new categorisation of the info and the info itself. Insulting vs inappropriate determination
Also Chair says he was in error saying that AH does accept the evidence by not cross examinating. Not needing to determine a witnesses feelings as a relevent fact. For 3 indivs is whether was planning to intimidate, but this isn't the only factor
Read 19 tweets
15 Nov
Good morning from Manchester. Day 1 of Adrian Harrop’s tribunal due to start soon.
Tribunal members consist of the Chair (legally qualified) and two medical persons.
Dr Harrop is present in person. Introductions are taking place.
Read 20 tweets
13 Nov
This account will now focus on Adrian Harrop’s tribunal; from the 15th November. Join us, 9.30am on Monday.
The misconduct hearing will inquire into the allegation that Dr Harrop inappropriately used his Twitter account (10/5/18- 23/11/19) to post tweets that were offensive &/or insulting &/or inappropriate in nature & some of which were intended to intimidate. The Adrian Harrop Medical P...
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) is the tribunal service for doctors in the UK. MPTS run hearings, which make independent decisions about whether doctors are fit to practise medicine.…
Read 5 tweets
8 Oct
This is a summary of the closing submissions made by Mr Simon Jackson QC on behalf of the General Medical Council. This is not a verbatim record and should not be taken as such. I will post a similar summary of the closing submissions of Mr Ian Stern QC on behalf of Dr Webberly.
I will then post my summarised note of the legal advice which the Chairman Mr Angus Macpherson has provided to his fellow Panel members. This advice was the subject of detailed discussions with both parties' Counsel.
HW accepted that the standard by which breach of duty was to be assessed was the standard of a reasonably competent General Practitioner with a special interest in gender dysphoria. HW held herself out as a Gender Specialist and as an expert. This was the basis upon which HW
Read 30 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!