Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are back.

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?

AH: due to my suboptimally developed insight that stopped alarm bells ringing. Obvs when revising for an exam one has a lot other factors that makes one less perceptive if those types if thing. I'm regretful to say that opp passed me by

Dr Sen: you can't really say insight is complete but in this specific instance...let's fast forward 2 or 3 years and along comes a new SM platform, let's call it Meta, how would you tell me you wouldn't do the same thing again

AH: If a new SM came along I think I'd recognise the warning signs of this ilk and how they can develop. One example on present day, I've removed myself from Twitter but I still have an Instagram account. It doesn't have the same sort if exchange if ideas. It's a different animal

These instances don't arise o Instagram so I have an awareness of what those platforms would be. My insight has developed over an extensive period of time and I'd recognise those characteristics and would choose not to engage. However there may come a point that engaging on SM..

...would fine once a time gap has extended somewhat. Going back on twitter now wouldn't be a very good idea. It would be a triggering environment. Nothing is impossible bit I'm about has certain as I could I wouldn't repeat mistakes

Dr Sen: from your evidence, your colleagues seemed to be very supportive, would they remain supportive. I do get a bit emotional when I talk about where j work (getting upset) from first day they knew about situ and stood by me.

One of the support mechanisms we gave a named senior colleague and we have check ins particularly someone like me who has certain vulnerabilities. I'm confident those warning signs would be recognised by colleagues.

Chairman has two matters. Not withstanding the contend of the debate, what's your personal opinions of how your words can be viewed by a member of the public?
AH: ...I understand the foul & abrasive language reflects poorly in me and as a doctor.

AH: It's a profound source of regret and may have a negative effect from the public on me and the medical profession
Chairman: do you think they undermined the public's trust in the profession
AH: (missed a bit) even if it was a minor degree it would cause me to regret

Dr Mufti:how do you think your other colleagues think of that
AH: there's been a diversity of opinion. Some said there was nothing wrong with what you said, their understanding may be limited. I imagine colleagues who don't know me would likely take a dim view as how I've engaged

AH: it's immense source of shame that my actions will have been viewed so negatively. Its an unpleasant thing to think about. My awareness has come into much sharper focus in the recent months

Chairman hopes that's the last we need to hear of AH evidence.
GP: do your colleagues know you're here. Have they expressed support?
AH: a massive amount and a multitude of messages wishing me back to work.

AH: It can be demonstrated by my feedback questionnaire.
Chairman thanks AH for last few days. Giving a quick chance to discuss a news article with your counsel, 15 minutes should be enough. We'd like AH to be finished today.