Thread by @tribunaltweets

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

Rd: can you say members of public would not see it like that?
AH: yes
(Too fast)
AH saying RD has already discussed this. At this point in time, I had limited insight to my actions at the time....already explained in quite a lot of detail

Chair asks are you saying AH has interfered with legal process
Rd: yes
There is mumble from GMC
CHAIR: he's never suggested he's a lawyer.

GMC RD and Chair discuss the whether the RT is inappropriate due to AD'S place in the legalities

GMC: I haven't heard a single question why the tweet was inappropriate.

Chair: reflective of guidance it was inappropriate for DR for live litigation that could be construed (too fast)

Chair: there must be something inaccurate what was said in the tweet. No other evidence would indicate that is not an inaccurate statement

RD: it's the discouragement that's the basis of my point

AH: I'm not legally trained and I don't understand the conversation that just transpired in the last few minutes. I'm concerned I may incriminate myself.
Chair: apologies the convo went over your head.

Chair: our discussion was centred around you having a response to the allegation of paragraph 14.

Chair: confident we can draw a line under it as you provided a detailed response
RD: charge 14g you admitted posting 38 tweets to E. Look at non admitted matters in a moment

Page 20/21. D1, Paragraph 47.
(There's confusion due to different copies of allegations)
RD: 'My tweets were in support for my friend' do you still stand by that?
Ah: (long answer saying yes)

RD is going to go through unadmitted tweets.
Chair: are you going through 17 tweets? Now it's been amended to 38 tweets directed at E. Surely we just need to determine 38 are inappropriate. It was accepted that 38 were inappropriate.

RD: it's relevant because of the cyber bullying allegation
Chair: whether it's 38 or 55, I can't envisage it's make an enormous difference. There are a lot.
GMC: we debated that earlier. We appear to be going back.

Chair makes tribunal position clear. We don't think it would be a proportional use of time to go through the 17 tweets.
RD: thank you sir and I'll take further instructions

Breaking for 5 minutes, AH advised not to speak to anyone about the case.