[m:)ckel]

You could always aim for 123456

[ice_cube]

(Original post by m:)ckel)
You could always aim for 123456

That would be a lot for 13 days*, and would also fail

*now that Im counting in days not weeks, the fear has kicked in. ****.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by m:)ckel)
You could always aim for 123456

Or even 134,816

[m:)ckel]

(Original post by ice_cube)
That would be a lot for 13 days*, and would also fail

*now that Im counting in days not weeks, the fear has kicked in. ****.

Hey, I have an exam in 84 hours. The fear really should have kicked in by now but I'm just sitting here eating biscuits.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by m:)ckel)
Hey, I have an exam in 84 hours. The fear really should have kicked in by now but I'm just sitting here eating biscuits.

You've not heard of the folklore of the biscuit then.

Malted Milk - oh, that thing. Hah.
Ginger Nut - Slightly nervous, not gonna lie.
Chocolate-caramel Digestive - ah ha, I'm so afraid I need a rom-com.
Wagon Wheel - Take it like a man, man.
Hobnob - Genau! Was ist zu tun? [ Yeah. And? ] (a loose translation )

[m:)ckel]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
You've not heard of the folklore of the biscuit then.

Malted Milk - oh, that thing. Hah.
Ginger Nut - Slightly nervous, not gonna lie.
Chocolate-caramel Digestive - ah ha, I'm so afraid I need a rom-com.
Wagon Wheel - Take it like a man, man.
Hobnob - Genau! Was ist zu tun? [ Yeah. And? ] (a loose translation )

Interesting. What about a digestive (plain)?

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by m:)ckel)
Interesting. What about a digestive (plain)?

Depends on your opinion of Adam Sandler films.

[m:)ckel]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
Depends on your opinion of Adam Sandler films.

They were funny when I was 14.

Ok, in truth, I'd still probably like Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore.

[Craghyrax]

Just no.

[Craghyrax]

http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/...leaked-to-tcs/ This beggars belief. The authorities of the University of Cambridge are acting like pathetic children.

[Drogue]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/...leaked-to-tcs/ This beggars belief. The authorities of the University of Cambridge are acting like pathetic children.

While not to necessarily defend their actions, reading that they seem to have behaved exactly as you'd expect a court to: hearing the evidence and testimony of both sides, considering the relative merits of each and giving weight accordingly, coming to a verdict and then explaining the reasoning behind it and the sentence given. I'm sure many people will have different views as to the rights and wrongs of his actions and the courts findings and whether the sentence is appropriate, but I don't know many children that act like that.

Personally I find the focus on it being the chanting and occupation that prevented Willetts speaking, rather than the epistle, to be a bit strange. Willetts left after 10 minutes, during the epistle, so it seems strange to blame the lack of a lecture on things that happened after this. I'm sure he was well aware that a long disruption like the one he caused may have resulted in the lecture not happening - it seems like the reasonable, expected outcome, and it indeed happened.

I don't think it matters that he was only a co-author either, as no rule had been broken until it was read. He could have simply read the bible or Shakespeare loudly in the same fashion and it would have disrupted the event.

To me the legal side of it seems simple: without his actions, Willetts would have been able to give the lecture and people could have engaged in the debate. Because of his actions they couldn't. That is "intentionally or recklessly impeded freedom of speech", as per the rule he broke. This isn't to comment on the justification or worth of his actions, but according to the rule he seems to be pretty clearly guilty.

On the sentencing, it seems strange to me for people to take issue with sentences having an element of deterrence about it. Isn't that a significant point of enforcing the law, to deter others from breaking it? Most courts, as far as I'm aware, are required to take this into account. The sentence still seems a bit harsh to me, I think they could have had enough of a deterrent with a shorter rustication, but their reasoning seems sound - his actions were intentional and deliberate and he has not shown any remorse or apologised, and there is a significant likelihood of others doing similar things without a deterrent.

So while I'd have arrived at a different conclusion, I can't see what there is to fault in the reasoning, or how the university are acting like children.

[Craghyrax]

Somehow I knew you'd show up to argue

[Drogue]

But not with the primary issue of whether or not the outcome is right. As I've said I disagree with part of the outcome, but I don't understand the issues people seem to have with the method. I think they made a reasoned, rational decision with which you (and to a lesser extent I) happen to disagree, rather than this being some unbelievable, unthinking, child-like behaviour.

[sj27]

I tend to agree with Drogue, and i think this is one of those cases where sympathies obscure the facts of the case. If the exact events had happened, but the lecture was to be given by, say, a Nobel peace prize winner, and the disruption was by, say, a neo-Nazi, the outcome should be the same but I'd bet public sympathies would not lie with the disrupter.

[Becca]

(Original post by Cora Lindsay)
Oh. OK. Glad but surprised to have been some use

C

Thank you

(Original post by m:)ckel)
They were funny when I was 14.

Ok, in truth, I'd still probably like Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore.

Surely everybody loves Happy Gilmore?

[hobnob]

(Original post by sj27)
I tend to agree with Drogue, and i think this is one of those cases where sympathies obscure the facts of the case. If the exact events had happened, but the lecture was to be given by, say, a Nobel peace prize winner, and the disruption was by, say, a neo-Nazi, the outcome should be the same but I'd bet public sympathies would not lie with the disrupter.

There's an important difference, though. A neo-Nazi interrupting a Nobel laureate would be charged in a regular court, the punishment would presumably be in keeping with the way a similar offence would be punished anywhere else in the country, and after the court proceedings, the detailed notes of what happened during the trial would be publicly accessible. This is an internal disciplinary proceedure, though, so a) everything takes place behind closed doors and unless details or notes of the 'trial' are leaked by people who were present, there is no way of telling what happened and b) they're only bound by internal university regulations, so as far as I know there's no way of appealing against the verdict other than by appealing to the body that pronounced it (i.e. if they say no to his appeal he can't go any higher than that).
So it's not just a matter of people feeling sympathetic towards the issue at hand, but also about the fact that someone facing one of those disciplinary university courts is almost entirely at their mercy, and the University of Cambridge is kind of acting as judge and jury in this (well, judge, jury, defence and prosecution, really). And there's no question that in this case the punishment was particularly harsh. I mean, a few years ago there was a PhD student who shouted and threw a shoe at Wen Jiabao and I think in the end he wasn't even fined. In all fairness, the shoe-thrower missed, and he was a lone heckler who was thrown out of the room quite quickly, but the kind of interruption was very similar - if anything, I'd say it would have been a more aggressive action than a chant, let alone a chant after the speaker had left. It's a bit as though in this case the guy is being punished far more harshly because other people agreed with him, and because the interruption wasn't sorted out quickly enough and Willets didn't stay around to deliver his speech after all.

(Also: hello again, I'm almost back.)

[sj27]

(Original post by hobnob)
x

Hello again too

OK, maybe the specific example I used was bad. The point I was trying to get at though was: are people upset because of the principle of what happened, or are they upset because they agree/disagree with the specific views involved? From much of what I have read about this on student forums etc it seems to me more of the latter. If it is principle, then I am happily wrong. (It's just a rather sensitive topic for me as I have seen all too often how a noble principle is upheld - until it doesn't suit the upholder anymore.)

[hobnob]

(Original post by sj27)
Hello again too

OK, maybe the specific example I used was bad. The point I was trying to get at though was: are people upset because of the principle of what happened, or are they upset because they agree/disagree with the specific views involved? From much of what I have read about this on student forums etc it seems to me more of the latter. If it is principle, then I am happily wrong. (It's just a rather sensitive topic for me as I have seen all too often how a noble principle is upheld - until it doesn't suit the upholder anymore.)

Hmm, I'm not a huge Willetts fan, but I wouldn't say I generally have a lot of sympathy for people who go to events and then try to cause maximum disruption. And reading out a poetic 'epistle' is a uniquely pretentious and cringeworthy form of disruption, so I'm not terribly sympathetic towards him on that account either. So yes, I'd say it's about the principle, unless I'm such a massive hypocrite I've even managed to deceive myself.

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by Drogue)
But not with the primary issue of whether or not the outcome is right. As I've said I disagree with part of the outcome, but I don't understand the issues people seem to have with the method. I think they made a reasoned, rational decision with which you (and to a lesser extent I) happen to disagree, rather than this being some unbelievable, unthinking, child-like behaviour.

I really don't. I think that evening was shaping up to be one a proud moment in the Senior Proctor's life, which was then ruined by some students, and that the authorities are having a throwing-toys-out-of-pram response to a mild embarrassment, but on a grand scale. And as hobnob says, the whole trial was a farce. They'd decided what they were going to do about it and clutched at any old excuse to do it, even when that reasoning was inconsistent as the article showed.

[Feefifofum]

My problem with it is not with the procedure as much as with the lack of possibility for appeal. Given the extremely harsh nature of the punishment, the student is going to have real problems finding academic employment, since he will have to explain the long gap in his studies. For a relatively minor offence, a punishment that will severely limit his future career prospects seems over the top. After all, if that report is accurate, then Willetts walked off when people climbed onto the stage, not when the letter was read, and the guy who has been punished only joined the group on stage when it was already there, he did not instigate it.

He's certainly not innocent, and I would fully support a short suspension or even a fine, but since the court have gone so far with their punishment, it seems ludicrous that there is no facility for appeal to a higher authority.