Thread by @tribunaltweets

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

AH: E brings up repeatedly the fact they have children so I wouldn't regard it as a private matter. I would concede that me and a medical profession writing in those sorts of terms writing about anyone's children could be characterised as inappropriate. I'm regretful

AH I've reflected on in depth now after reading the guidelines. It's a profound source of regret for me. Same themes as other tweets you've drawn my attention to

RD: looking at 10/11. Another reply from the other individual. Draw attention to all the accusations about doxxing E had a public Instagram with all children's details. You're telling her there she had a public profile

AH: I wouldn't characterise it like that. E had an account with all her information on it. When this tweet was written the account has gone or locked down. I was drawing attention to their hypocrisy.

AH: E so fixated in details of children remain private but then had it all publically available. E comments incencasntly she has 5 children. Commenting on the hypocrisy of the statement
RD: (reads out the tweets) you've viewed the account and the photos of children

AH: I'm sure E would characterise anyone who looked at her profile is a stalker.whixh I say it's not the case if someone puts the info out into public consumption. Whether I've looked at it or it doesn't tell you one thing or another

RD: You wanted her to know you'd seen it
AH: I would hope E was already aware of that fact as was public. If it caused E a sense of alarm and distress that public are looking at her Instagram profile that's her problem

RD: look at tweet 13, (reads tweets too fast about homophobia)
Chair: is it being put that this tweet was inappropriate?
Can I make it clear we've read through all these bundles.
So going through that isn't helpful.

Chair wants GMC to explain why it's inappropriate.
GP: we just thought it was a generic appeal to stop
Chair: had this person asked AH to stop tweeting at this point?

RD: I hope to explore. Ah makes the point its a doctored screenshot. Did you check at all before you referred that in your tweet?
AH: it's very difficult to tell and it's some years old so wouldn't be able to verify if it was true or not.

AH: my impression at the time...which is horrific in its context...horrifying..it fitted quite comfortably in the course of conduct by the specific individual. No reason to doubt E had written something so heinous

AH: I didn't say at any stage that E had said this
RD: you know she would have seen it?
AH: I would have hoped she would.

Chair: are you suggesting that someone tweeting someone else's tweet must be able to verify the tweet?
RD: in this case yes

RD: (too fast and moved to E's workplace.) We've seen you refer to A's job too
AH: Not place of work but job yes

RD: (reads tweet) Reference to Es former employement of E
AH: it was an oblique reference. I think that's on very shaky ground. It may of course relate to an area which E used to work but doesn't refer to that place of work.

RD: this is around the time of the injunction. Is that what ten minutes to landing means?
AH: it was in reference to C serving papers to E...it refers directly or indirectly...( I didnt understand what he said)

AH: that tweet was only written because C was in the process Es home address to serve high Court papers. I wrote this in ehat you might call dark humour.

AH: it was an oblique reference
RD: did you intend it to be oblique when mentioning cabin crew
AH: E had published themselves they used to work in that role, widely known what E had put out in the public domain

RD: let's look at tweet 50. This you accept is direct reference to E. (Reads tweet about blocking and allegations)
But of course it was and there's references to location relevant to E?

AH: this is an area I was aware the area was nearby
Chair: when did E request no further interaction from AH
Rd: 10th April
Chair: do have evidence if there were continuing tweets?
GP: this is a point I objected too. E withdrew (too quiet)

Chair saying he may need a discussion with colleagues about this. It's one thing that E hasn't made any further ref to AH after this point. Is it not a different thing if E continues to refer to AH?
RD: yes I can't argue otherwise

RD: the GMC objects to the number of tweets directed at an individual.

RD, GP, GMC discussing if ok for AH to respond to tweets made by E after she said stop.

GP clarifying it's the number and content and the number if time tweets presided over that GMC is concerned with.

Chair is asking what's a best use of the time. RD is saying he was going through the tweets thematically and would come to specific details as working through. Chair asks to cover it more broadly. RD agrees.

AH interrupts to ask to go the toilet and CHAIR decides to stop for lunch. Back at 1.30