Thread by @tribunaltweets

We are back.
Chair welcomes back.
RD discussing submissions.
Chair says the guidance documents weren't contained within it, they're publucally available, rarely placed into a bundle. Other point to article 6, missing tweets, not determinative in this case

RD: ....evidence could be obtained and rare to stop because of missing evidence overlaps with article 6. Gmc say can make this decision fairly

Chair: if we don't have that context then the burden rests with GMC
RD: there the only points I'd like to raise
GP: hope its convenient to structure submissions as follows. Starting to ref paragraph 3. Hope helpful I've summarised

GP: Secondly summarise what learned friend has said and third, talk of C and run through the factual (missed)
Chair: it's a different jurisdiction and relevance not binding

GP: this is from a high Court judge looking at Bs tweets not AD'S
It's helpful as an analysis for your benefit what another judge has said, against the background in which was a police investigation with retention of material....the I want to run through the submissions

Unless you want details of those submissions I'd rather assist you with questions about them. Paragraph 5 identified remaining issues. 1st issue 4, 6 and 10 as to whether they're offensive. 4 and 6 admitted inappropriate

Second one is if tweet 10 is any of those things. I'm not convinced ( missed)
Issue 3 is revealing information. Just remind you it has to be an intention. A few paragraphs I didn't know

So far as tweets concerned B is not referenced at all. So far as 4 issues this is the question whether actions were meant to intimidate.
Issue 5 deals with tweet relating to D, inappropriate suggestion of 'whatever means necessary'

Issue 6, is posting of tweet in relation 3rd party costs.
Issue 7 referring to mention of family
Issue 8 and 9 again Issue of intimidation.
Hope that's helpful. I said I'd touch on RD, we submit to you and point I make is that GMC hasn't even analysed

against their own guidance. There's no allegations it's a breach against guidance. More important did any bother to look at the evidential evidence at the time... needs to be proper analysis and investigation

You've it in my submissions...you can see there's complaints in Jan and Aug 2019 and continued comms between E throughout 2019. We're told looked twice once in 2019 and once in 2020. This isn't as inference, we have documents. (Gives hyperthetical example of what GMC did)

Gp: More mentions of importance of context of what was said. Says it feeds into the other issues and whether you have the appropriate context...

GP: were not asking dismiss these on the grounds of abuse but I'm asking there's no analysis of these matters. There's no evidence by E. You will have picked up from submissions it's a cardinal principal of cross exam not to examine something else...

Chair responds to 'discreet' point, fact is GMC has burden of proof...if relation to doubt (missed)
Chair talks of safeguards and weighs that in ...if any evidence relevant it's up to defence to produce this.
GP: GMC has got that. E tweeted regularly about AH regularly.

GP: (just getting) 'it wasn't put to E'...that predisposes something was put to her but no evidence at all on her witness statement. Can you turn up the GMC bundle and turn to page 60. Post made 2019.
GP: not being pejorative but is no substance at all. AH says constant tweeting

GP: AH says the reason I was tweeting was to come back to that.
What I ask you to do is to look at the quote from Miller because it summarises helpfully ...and also addresses article 10 point...cites from independent televisions. (Cites quote)

GP then cites Lord justice sedler (?) about free speech. Should be free to speak what they feel...mentions George Orwell and Animal Farm. Talks about freedom of expression and reads another quote. Says it included offence, disturbance and shock.

GP: reads another quote of free speech...having made those observation can I ask you to turn back to 16 and 17. Just looking at right to reply....and in law context is everything. Another quote including language protected by article 10. It doesn't disqualify it from article 10.

GP: Justice Knowles takes us through sorts of exchanges B was engaged in...described him as a '(missed) bastard'. Knowles was looking to see if tweets fall into that. He's looking at whether disqualifying there's a proportionate aim against the state.

Gp: not only is what's said by B lawful, the intervention of the state, police looking at it, isn't lawful. Noone is saying N has the same professional standards but would be ironic to look at quality of treatment of B next to AH

GP: you couldn't make the conclusion he breached me medical standards. Talking about cyber bullying definitions. I've quoted a number of the dictionaries. Just want to draw out that it's the perception.

AH hasn't been measured by that standard and we should give it the normal dictionary definitions.
Strength or power to frighten people. There's an anticipation if one is bullying there's an imbalance of powere and difficult to see that in this instance

GP talks of AH being a doctor and E is a journalist, E should be considered the same profession standards. GP picks up an observation of RD, if you look at paragraph 7, 28, 30, 47, 52...and underscore those paragraphs.

This case was open on the basis against the background of the debate, what SH did was in relation to his view on debate, 3 AH evidence were that his motivations were to challenge and remove views he consider homophobic degrading, hateful...

denying human existence, one aspect discriminatory on sexuality, second discriminatory on transgender. Its self evident those are important factors and features of society today. We know the Equality Act 2010 has been brought in to discuss discrimination.

So when you come to look at this you can't but look at it other than being significant social and political debate. Which is why is say this is about freedom of speech.

Funded by the state, the surprise it didn't get greater traction in labour party conference. How would I objectively as anything else than a joke?

The third party costs, he's a witness not a lawyer. He was discouraging, he actually put out familiarise yourself. What's wrong with telling something that's accurate?
You'll have seen the tweet when he describes someone as a 'vile bigot' and noone has looked at why he said that

But if you take that to the community. If someone said there was discrimination in nazi Germany one would think there's nothing wrong with making remarks about the holocaust. Can I quickly run through RD submissions in relating to factual position.

Point I made earlier, paragraph 34 and 45. You can see there's an agreed use and glossy something called a TERF (says terms). One might think that body which is exclusionary and radical just by it's description

This is not tweeted at anybody is, 49 is point I've made about hate group. It's a bold submission and considered offensive. I accept if you called someone a venomous transphobe is bad but not if they are exclusionary

GP: make the point on 63 and 64. Fundamental difficulties they are if someone in AH following group how on earth would they know it was about B?

GP: I'll delay with B and the point from earlier and remind you to read the B judgement, paragraph 26, clearly a history before January. There is context to this.

How on earth did you reconcile what was really going on with the absence of material in the investigation. In my respectful submission you can't. Of course AH has given evidence. Brief adjournment while tribunal members discuss.