Good morning on Day 3 of Dr Adrian Harrop's tribunal (abbreviated to AH). He is on the witness stand, under oath. Please see @selfcommit2othe report here.
In an exclusive interview with Dr Harrop, Ben Hunte writes he "was sent all of the material being discussed in the tribunal, including the full dossier of allegations, witness statements, & documents defending the doctor."
The Tribunal has become aware of the VICE article and proceedings have been adjourned so the GMC can investigate and Dr Harrop's counsel speak to him about the matter.
Chairman: have you had a time to talk about the Vice article?
AH: yes
Chairman: do you have questions Mr. Donahugh?
RD: you've read it?
AH: I've skimmed it
RD: there's a number of quotes are they accurate
AH: They are accurate.
RD: how did the article come ro be?
AH: my friend Ben hunter reached out as a friend saying he'd like to write an article in support of me and my experience.
RD: did you know it'd be published this week?
AH: no
RD: going to read a few quotes, AH believes it was an orchestrated campaign against you. Do you believe that's the case
AH: no, that quote was from a long response to Hunte
GP: says not the quote can we have the full quote
RD reads full quote
Dr Sen paraphrases AD'S evidence.
Sen: when you first saw Dr kumar and Dr Cooper, you looked at the guidance superficially and cast them aside. The guidance has only come come be a thing for you in last 6 months. You've been a salaried Dr since 2019
Sen: when did you finish your membership exam, did you have a chance to read the guidance.
AH: I did have knowledge of it but only for purposes for passing the exam.
This is different from holding information dear that remembering things for an exam
DR sen: would some of it not sunk in?
AH: I'm speculating to be truthful...lost my trail of thought.. ask me question again.
Dr: would some of that info not have sunk in?
We are back.
RD: just want to look briefly at the issue of 'insight'. You've said your insight was partial in 2018/2019
AH: yes
RD: when do you think your insight has begun to develop
AH: to a significant degree in the last 6 months
AH: My org is fantastic org and had some xonvis with senior members an dlooked at why I conducted myself in a certain way. Looked at triggers in situs and why that was a maladaptive way of viewing the situation. Only ever wanted to do the right thing
AH: it was maladaptive and it was wrong and I was point scoring and gaming idea. It felt joyous scoring these points.the likes, the retweets, I was given awards for it. It made me feel a rush of adrenalin and dopamine. I thought I was doing the right thing. I realise now
We are resuming now.
AH asks for more water.
RD: AH I'd like to look at E's tweets towards you, relevant to these allegations. Paragraph 49, D1 p.22.
You said E tweeted you 50 tweets from 30th March to 1st april
RD: you've not produced these tweets.
(Confusion over pages) AH says he can't see it and needs assistance. Chair clarifies the bundle number and RD says he doesn't know why his bundle is different and it's concerning
GP isn't sure why.
RD: want to ask AH the tweets you produce in that bundle. Some are specific refs to you. Tweet beginning 'yes you are you sick degenerate'
AH isn't sure if he's got the right tweet.
We are back.
RD: if we could look first at tweet number 9, 415 of GMC bundle. Do have that? Thread starts earlier on 413.
Rd: Starts with E referencing debate on kiwifarms. We see your tweet (he read and too fast it's about doxxing). Tweet 9 appears which is about personal notoriety and psychological trauma. Mother of child is autistic, is autistic
AH: that person is talking about that child of E being autistic.
RD: and your tweet referred to same child?
AH: 'the' children refers generally
RD: do you agree tweeting about others children is personal and private and it was inappropriate to comment on public
We are back and ready to go. Waiting on AH to continue.
AH apologises for lateness.
RD: it's clear what this tweet is. Attempt to stop support for E
Do you accept
AH: The way tweet is expressed and me expressing , means the impact on any relevant person means I don't really think I can agree. Active discouragement of these people.
I would have been pleased they didn't support it, course I would. I understood at the time was not being consumed in any such way on the opposing side to be anything like good faith advice. Context would be clear to those who wanted to support