Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning from Manchester on Day 4 of the tribunal of Dr. Adrian Harrop (abbrev. Ah). It's due to commence at 9.30am.

Ryan Donahugh is representing GMC (abbrev. RD) and AD'S representative is Giles Powell (abbrev GP)

We have two further updates to person B. There is another document that we won't need to go private to discuss.

Discussion about the article published yesterday considered over night by British medical Council and we want to ask AH about this.

The GMC are saying there is contents to the article that are relevant. There is complexity about him being under affirmation. Two options.

The existence of the article was only known after AH spoke yesterday. says already dealing with this evidence.

AH hasn't been able to seek legal advice about the document. Chair needs to speak to colleagues for 5 minutes. Adjourned.

Chair suggest cross examination carries on.

AH is ready to carry on

RD: Ask about E. First encounter with E was around 2018
AH: Yes
Rd: Actually first interaction was earlier 2018 in relation Mermaids

Rd: you didn't like their views
AH: That's fair
On page 16 D1 paragraph 34 'deeply offensive and abhorent'
RD: just establishing background. Firm and strong views. She was the other person TG debate whose views you found most repulsive

(Too fast)
RD: you knew the tweets you published would come to his attention
AH: yes I was aware what I was putting on twitter in relation to E would almost certainly come come her attention

RD: And you wanted it to come to the attention
AH: doesn't want to say I'm 'high profile but ....(too fast) and would decemintae quite widely

Ahead of 14a with specific tweets to golf. Paragraph 39.

AH: however tenuous the links were. Every single tweet I put on twitter came to E's attention
RD: You were aware of
AH: Yit would be hard not to

CHAIR: need to double check what AH has admitted what he has done. 14a B, C, D (e has been deleted) F, 15a has been admitted.

We need to be aware what is admitted and what is not

RD: A-d I can shorten cross examination

Tweets are on 186-188 of C1 GMC bundle.

(Looking at tweets)

Rd: starts from post from C with ref to E. Was this the first post?
AH: from the look of screen shit it's highly likely, can't recall for sure

Rd: in relation to golf refs, how upsetting that was to your friend but wouldn't say it
Ah: particularly difficult for them to handle. We tended to take a more of you don't laugh you'll cry...(too fast) refs of golf for C caused her some significant emotional distress

RD: despite what you said about C upset, you're the first one to reference the golf. Do you agree
AH: yes
RD: You're first to bring it up
AH: yes

RD: thread continues, we see...a tweet
AH: Wentworth raised by C, exhibits don't show that. I accept that reference to Wentworth is in the same geographical area of E.

RD: do you maintain the reference and location that it's not a threat of violence?
AH:...light hearted jovial way...(too fast). There was no intention of any meaningful threat of violence

AH: I wanted to get her back up. E will take anything written by me or C and take out of context. ...(too fast)
RD: you say misrepresented? You accepted 14g1 that 38 tweets were about E

Ah: yes
RD: so wasn't all her
AH: No there were tweets directed at RD: is it a coincidence that these jovial tweets with B and E coincide with opposite transgender views

AH: my state of mind was quite skewed by my emotional state by the way E triggered a lot of very very challenging emotions in me and the whole thing became a lot more personal rather than just about TG

RD; why was the tactic successful
AH: because it was pounced upon in minutes.
RD: she felt threatened by it
AD not intention to threaten to irritate and annoy and it was apparent she was

RD Did E say she felt threatened
AH: can't recall
Rd: to fats
Ah: fine line to walk. Only ppl in the world who can piece together the Wentworth is a very oblique ref would be either E herself or anyone who already aware

RD: what your doing is bringing the info together and publishing on your public twitter with refs golf with violent undertones
AH: what I would agree with is reason C and I refused Wentworth as we were both in knowledge of where they lived.

AH: E is characterised as the Surrey Stalker. As as I understand Wentworth isn't close to where that it. It was avague and oblique reference. I don't accept this info would have been sufficient to provide any meaningful info to anyone else

AH: I knew this tweet would come to Es attention within minutes. Of course E would then say this is a reference to where me and my family live. E didn't keep that to themselves. E confirmed it

AH: the idea that E was frightened by this information the credibility is undermined by E doing that

RD: move on to 14b, page 200, you accepted published Retweet was inappropriate. D1 page 16, you provide context to original appearance. You then explain you gave more info what was said on televised footage

RF: at the time of RT, you were aware of Es appearance on TV.

AH: I saw the live TV and have personal relationship with G (?) and knew more of the intricate layers of what was going on.

RD: if we look at the retweetdid that represent yourview
AH: certainly not. My recollection, GMB attracts millions of viewers and the commentary on twitter was extensive. There was 1000s of refs to this interview.

My rt came along a multitude of others . E did not come across all that well on TV show. My tweet was just one. I didn't read it properly or see any great detail. I saw key words. I was trying to get ready for work and distracted.

AH: I did the same thing for a number of tweets for the rest of the day. I belive either was my own mother who said have you seen that tweet you've RTd about E. Within 15 minutes. Further exhibits GMC have got and can see my reply came at 8.40am

AH: I was absolutely horrified. I accept it was an offensive tweet. I was horrified I had been responsible for bring a tweet with horrible language to wider attention. I don't know who the person who tweeted

AH: I immediately retracted upon realising and apologies where E is tagged into tweet
RD: just want to look at the retweet.

AH: immediate glance
Rd: you must have seen Es name?
AH: I'd have searched for refs to E...
Chair intervenes and says this is an admitted tweet.
RD: I'm trying to get to the point
Chair: concerned were talking about a debate

Chair: do you accept there was a retweet then an apology. How the tweets are placed, is it relevant?

In relation to the apology 202, there's a phrase tagging E using 'mia maxim culpa' (?)
AH: It's a phrase millions would use and not familiar the terms belongs to E. Term familiar for me at school.
Rd: have you used it before?
AH: I can't think of when I have but i will have

AH: it was an honest tweet and apology that E acknowledged and accepted by addressing me directly. As far as I was concerned the matter was dealt with immediately.

AH: I was and remain, horrified for signal boosting such a horrendous word and contained an unpleasant and misogynist slur.

RD: soon after tv and RT, is that red mist that referred to with A that you retweeted with that language in it.

AH: as I've said, there were a number of RTs that I did at the time and were there for public consumption. If I'd been more selective I certainly wouldn't have rtd it

RD: 14c and d have been admitted - page 216. 3 tweets. We can see in ref to E, unhinged and unstable, and look at page 218, again ref to E and 'it looks like wheels have come off the bus, unstable'

(Too fast but read other tweets with subtle and clear refs to mental health
AH: you mentioned this yesterday and I admitted it was unaccepted behaviour. It's regretful.
RD: it's another tactic as getting to E
AH: I wouldn't characterise it like that

AH: these are comments are not just made for annoyance. (Too fast)

Unhinged and unstable are colloquial and I appreciate as a medical practice they'll be read through a medical lens. I have reflected it wasn't the right thing to do

RD: move on to look at 14 F. Tweets on page 281 of GMC bundle. (Reads out tweet with various emojis) in relation to the injunction made by C. April 2019 the injunction was put in place. You accept you were a witness in these proceedings

AH: Yes
RD: (reads tweets about legal advice)
Why did you tweet it?
AH: It would be difficult for C herself to make any commentary and so that's what I was doing. Making a general comment about the general proceedings

Rd: I'm going to say that this was to scare E and to stop people talk
Ah: no. I was aware Es actions in relation to C it was causing mental distress to a dear friend. I believe the facts were spelled out at the injunction. This wasn't a device to silence E

RD: if someone was support Es case they may face third party cost that's right isn't it
AH: anyone who was supporting should know they may face this
Already explained, noone on that side of the debate is going to come to my twitter for honest and well intentioned advice

AH: The tweet in question doesn't sound like any legal advice.
RD: but you knew that ppl would know what it was about
AH: anyone familiar with ongoing saga would have understood what it related to

Rd: Dr H do you accept that the fact you're a witness in the application do you accept it was inappropriate.
GmC: you have to explain to him why it's wrong.

CHAIR: I'm aware I don't want any ill tempered debate.
GMC denies
CHAIR: I wasn't suggesting there was, just what happens after an hour. Break until 11.05