Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning from Manchester. The tribunal will today consider if Dr Harrop’s fitness to practice is impaired. We expect to start at 9.30am.

Reminder; Dr Harrop’s representative is Mr Giles Powell (GP) and the GMC representative is Mr Ryan Donoghue (RD).

Chair has asked if the Harrop’s team wish to call a witness. GP has said it is up to the GMC if they wish to question the witness. The witness seems to be a female doctor.

We have left so they can set up the TV screen for the witness to answer questions remotely.

The witness is Dr Diane Exley for AH.

Dr Exley is reading the affirmations. Panel are introducing themselves.

GP wants to address four things. “Could you tell you Tribunal to what extent you value him as a member of staff.” Dr Exley says from the outset AH was a valued member of staff. Patients specifically ask for him.

GP asks Dr Exley what impact a suspension would have. Dr Exley (DE) is saying there has been a change in Harrop and has expressed regret.

DE says AH has excepted that he shouldn’t have done… erm… he has completely changed… erm… how he appears really.

GP asks has DE seen the articles in the Mail and the Vice. Does that alter your views on AH’s insight? DE says no, it’s not changed his insight.

GP now asks what support his practice will now give him and how likely it is this [his behaviour] will be repeated. DE thinks AH has changed and he has reflected and this process has been so traumatic for him and she can’t see it happening again.

Now GMC is questing DE.

RD begins; have you seen the list of allegations? DE says she has. RD asking about her witness statement about him getting into debates on twitter…

How many discussions have you had with AH about his conduct. DE says twice. RD asking how this conversation came to be. DE says it came to be because AH was worried about it. First meeting was 5 months ago, second was 4 months ago. RD wants to clarify are those the only

Discussions you’ve had. DE wants to clarify, this was about mentoring him.

RD asking if DE noticed a change in Harrop 12 months ago, why was it only discussed in mentorship 5 months ago?

Has AH ever discussed how his actions have affected the public and public perception of the profession. DE has gone back to talking about how upset AH was himself. DE was concerned about AH’s mental health.

Did AH ever consider the impact of his actions on his own patients? DE, “no.”

DE feels his patients don’t know about it because they specifically ask for him. GP asks EX did he ever discuss the impact on the twitter users, the other persons he was engaged with. Was there any expression of remorse?

“Yes.” GP asked specifically; Erm, I don’t recall it specifically being mentioned- there wasn’t any individuals or any names mentioned.

GP asking about the Vice article. DE says AH was naive to do the Vice article because the timing wasn’t particularly great, engaging with the press isn’t a particularly great idea. GP has no more questions.

To clarify, DE has said AH has been remorseful but couldn’t specify any particular conversation about individual situations.

The tribunal has now gone into private session whilst the chair asks DE some questions.

*accepted

We are back. The tribunal is now asking DE. Panel is asking about mentorship- discussions about his correspondence on twitter. DE is saying she didn’t discuss specifics. Panel asking did she discuss any specific twitter feeds. DE says she didn’t.

Panel asking about Vice article and that it didn’t alter his view about AH’s insight. Panel asking what DE would have done differently. DE says she wouldn’t have engaged with the press. Panel asking what impact do you think the Vice article had on the medical profession?

DE asked panel to repeat question. Panel says if a member of medical profession came across the article, what would her or she feel?

DE, potentially it wasn’t the right thing to do. I’m afraid I don’t know, I’m not doing a good job at answering. I guess colleagues that know about it.. but… it, it doesn’t necessarily but the profession in a bad way.

Did you discuss it with other members of your practice? Have you had any feedback. DE says only that it wasn’t a good idea at the time.

Back to GP. He is sorry if he is sneezing, he has a cold. GP coming back to how many times there was discussion with AH about twitter feeds. Twice, DE says again.

Outside of mentorship, how many times was there a discussion about twitter conduct, were there any times? DE says no. That concludes DE’s evidence.

Tribunal panel wants time to go through final submissions. They were only uploaded this morning. Chair clarified to panel what will be considered in law. GP wants to state that Panel needs to consider article 10 of free speech. Chair says this needs to be balanced with

Article 14 of discrimination. Panel is taking 30 minutes to read final submissions. Reconvene at 11.20am

*questioning

*RD

*RD

Chair is acting are there any further submissions. RD says GMC encourage panel to consider GMC’s social media guidance, he wants them to keep that in mind.

*asking

GMC invites to assess the tweets as a collective and individually. GMC identifies three tweets that make reference to medical elements, e.g. ‘morning meds’. GMC invites panel to recognise that these tweets would call the medical profession into disrepute.

GMC is referring to the tweet that states that ‘cis people are awful’. This would undermine (GMC submit) the public’s confidence in medical professionals.

RD now referring to tweets attempting to intimidate others, the GMC submit are of concern are well below standards expected of a doctor. Whether deleted or not, these tweets were published.

The GMC invites panel to consider tweets talking about Golf to wind up someone on the opposing side of the debate is not inline with GMC guidance. AH, GMC submit added fuel to the fire. This caused B and his wife to leave their home for a period of time.

Tweets relating to D. August 2019, makes reference to health of person. Any such comments in a public forum are highly inappropriate for a medical professional. Public could believe this to be true because a doctor is saying this. This falls far short of standards expected.

In relation to E, GMC submits his approach towards E, these tweets alone should relate to misconduct.

Retweet in March 2019. The GMC submit this language, or the reproducing of the language, would be very likely to bring the professional to disrepute.

Individual tweets added little relevance to the debate [transgender debate].

GMC submit, in relation to E that the tribunal take into account misconduct. Heated discussion between RD and GP in relation to collective and individual tweets.

[Speaking more generally now] GMC invites panel to consider the misconduct was repeated on a number of occasions.

GMC submit that AH was warned about his conduct, and specially provided with GMC social media guidance. For AH to continue to post, that would significantly undermine public confidence, if he were to return to practice.

In terms of insight, it has only developed in the last six months. GMC submits he has a flippant approach to GMC hearings evidence by advice to a junior colleague about his hearing on twitter.

GMC says that AH lacks the insight to move forward. There is lack of remorse and lack of considering impact on others. Even DE states it was naive of him to speak to press so close to the tribunal. GMC state his insight is thus incomplete.

Chair asking what is the GMC’s position on a medical practitioner tweeting anonymously? Chair says this is hypothetical but may be relevant to their decision.

GMC’s position is that, it is the fact that AH identified himself as a doctor, [that we are here]. GMC states it’s not mandatory to be anonymous as a doctor.

Chair is asking GP, if AH didn’t state he was a doctor, but just put ‘trans activist’, would there still be malice?

To an extent yes, but a less obvious extent because there’s a removal of the doctors perspective.

Over to Mr Powell (GP). GP says it’s remarkable and unfair that there hasn’t been an investigation into the GMC. GP saying this is supposed to be a fair investigation but… [he’s referring to article 6].

GP is talking about the Vice article and it’s unfair this has been submitted. GP says AH apologised for his behaviour in the Vice article, and while it might be unwise, doctors are still allowed to talk to the press.

GP submissions are that AH has gained insight. GP says that insight is a continuing path that continues for a life time. In relation to Vice, there was an orchestrated approach by the complainants.

It’s remarkable that AH is being described as blaze and flippant when the GMC has not investigated fully.

In this GMC investigation, GP continues, it appears that the investigative process has not been independent, but has just been from the complainants perspective.

Context in Law is everything, GP says. He’s talking about the ‘approach’. Absent of identification as AH as a doctor, none of the considerations are relevant. Chair and GP discussing hypothetical situations.

*blasè

GP submits that there’s a disparity in treatment between an anonymous doctor and a doctor who identifies himself as one.

GP reminds the panel that the fact that something is offensive to someone, doesn’t mean it’s unlawful and that it isn’t protected by free speech.

Everything needs to be reviewed, GP invites the panel to consider, within the rights of free speech. GP says AH was expressing his views not as a doctor, but in a ‘private capacity’.

There’s one inappropriate tweet in 2020, by ‘whatever means necessary’, you accept [panel] wasn’t intended as such. [missed next part].

GP asking panel to accept human error and makes reference to a tweet in which AH apologised for.

Chair referring to a letter sent in 2018 about AH tweeting at work. GP says there’s was no evidence AH was tweeting at work.

GP referring to something noted in a private session. [GP alluding to mental health of AH]. Because of AH’a mindset, he didn’t pay attention to the document sent to him in 2018, GP is saying.

There is evidence to suggest AH has accepted he ‘got it wrong’. All of this points in the direction of insight, remediation and remidiability [will have to look that up- possibly wrong word]. This isn’t a matter or serious professional misconduct, GP submits.

Context is everything, AH has the right to submit his views as long as they don’t cross the line. GP’s ‘beef’ with the GMC is the investigation wasn’t looked at in context. GP suggesting that a warning for the inappropriate conduct would be the [correct action].

The tribunal will now go into private session. Panel don’t think it’s likely that they’ll have a determination before midday on Monday.

GP has a commitment on Wednesday. Panel will try their best to accommodate.

If they find his fitness to practise is impaired due to the
allegations found proved at the facts stage, then tribunal will move on to Stage 3 and decide what sanction will protect the public.

Please join us on Monday at 12pm. With thanks, Sophie (today’s tweeter) and the team.

*RD