Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning from Manchester on Day 5 of @the_mpts case of Dr Adrian Harrop. The proceedings are due to begin at 10:30am and we're here ready to go.

For Clarity, Adrian Harrop will be abbreviated to AH, his representative Giles Powell, GP and GMC representative Ryan Donahue is RD.
Tribunal members Nicholas Flannagan is CHAIR, Dr. Vivek Sen, VS, and Mr Gulzar Mufti, GM.

We are running late. Hopefully we'll get started soon.

We begin.
GP begins giving apologies (voice too low) and saying there are typos in the documents he's forwarded. Chair is fine with this.
Discussion about burden of proof.

There is a disagreement between GP and RD about the advice given yesterday.

Chair discusses second issue for GP, in relation to good character, he has admitted intimidating to A. Therefore no ability to say no propensity to intimidate

Chair: AH has no criminal convictions.
GP: 'propensity' needs to be looked at as a single issue
Chair: you've both made submissions, I don't intend to summarise though as they're complicated. Just grateful for submissions. Just looking at anonymity.

Any doctor that identifies as a doctor on social media. I'm intrigued...in relation to article 10, there's nothing wrong with him exercising his rights of article 10. ...what I'm asking is...a professional may be obliged to identify themselves... (not clear)

Chair: he didn't have to identify himself as a doctor, he didn't have to use his name to express himself unrestrictively. One reason we're here is that he's identified as a doctor
GP: I come from a different direction. We see no way seek to depart from the standard...

...he's subject to the standards in the same way you and I are. First he has a right to free speech and he has a right not to be subject to discrimination. When you look at what he's done you have to judge it against that. You'll see B brought his own judicial review

GP: ...when you come to look at you can't throw out the right of expression. You have to consider that.....(missed a bit) need to work if inappropriate or offensive.
Chair: where there may be evidence to intimidate/cyber bullying. How does article 10 relate to that

GP: all I'm saying is you can't look at...(too fast) context is everything.
Example: you're thinking what is he doing here...he comes back to that and we have to look at was that is his intention. You've got to loom at the background of it all and cyberbullying you have to the...

GP: same. You can't just ignore it...and second proposition in relation this is if fact he's exercising free speech to B, do you want me to call it by his real name.
Chair: keep it as B
Gp: ...you can't find him to be guilty...if in fact it's protected outside article 10

GP: why is the discrimination aspect right.. he's also entitled in doing that, he's also entitled not to be subject of discrimination from others to him.
1. Relevant to circumstance
2. Relevant to (missed)
3. Point about its a qualified right under article 10.

RD: given article 10 is a right there are circumstances where its not appropriate.
(Chair explaining discrepancies between free speech and saying AH is arguing whether people can exist)
RD: comments issue is way they are phrased, underlying meanings, the contents,

Chair: some of the tweets AH was responding to was discriminatory. What do you say to that?
RD: can't dispute...
Chair interrupts to say no evidence, from E for example. It wasn't pit to him that when E called him a 'faggot' why didn't he take it to twitter

Chair: second case is if he complained to twitter they may have allowed it, is he not supposed to respond.
RD: ...he didn't take the heat out the situation, he didn't follow the guidance. I'm aware there's no evidence in that regard.

Chair says the convo has been very useful. GP is 'slightly concerned with what's just suggested. He was motivated by Transgender issues...concerning..I'm sorry can you remind me last point
CHAIR: the right to respond

GP: (missed)...they're infringing his right to reply... (missed) shouldn't have said what you said but if doing it against the background of discrimination, a material reason is that he expressed views of discrimination

Chair: our intentions is read through RD submissions...we'll read those and adjourn until 12.

The tribunal members have asked for another 10 minutes.