The Warwick drama continues

That would only be the case if the individuals agreed to make it public, which I highly doubt they did....

Warwick is in a quite sticky situation as they will be criticised whether they choose to let the boys in, or continue to exclude them.

Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe I said that they were being serious? I certainly wouldn't know if they were.

If you were correct then Warwick University would be acting unlawfully by acting on a private conversation and they'd be open to legal action by the 'rape joke' students, yet that didn't happen. So, you're not correct, you're wrong. Once these students' conversations about other students were in the public domain that's it, doesn't matter if it wasn't their intention, it happened and the institution is compelled to act in accordance with its rules.

Alright then. Others who share the above views can treat my rant as applicable to them; and hopefully give me some nice and considered replies.

As for the point you're making, it is all rather tedious. The man saying "Oh my God, if that lecturer gives us another book to read, I will murder him in his sleep" could be "joking". He could have timed the wording so it seemed like a joke, could have smiled as he said it so it looked like a joke ... yet in his head be completely serious. Just as he could say "I really like him as a lecturer, top mind" and have murderous thoughts.

We can only judge the words in what they express in themselves, in the context in which they were said. Anything else is far too deep to engage and is not important, really.

As the students have acted against their rules the university can act on how they 'believe' their terms and conditions entitle them to.

However many students in different cases have taken action against their universities, especially in some high profile ones in the US. However they're difficult cases, which rely on test law nobody really is willing to test as they're rather expensive. It's mainly why they're so rare. Just because an organisation acts on it's rules, doesn't make those rules right or enforcable under legal scrutiny. It's a common joke that 90% of any contract you sign is unlikely to be enforcable under strict scrutiny.

Also the individual who shared such material without consent is open to civil action. Especially if the inviduals are not a public person.

This is a good point!

Also perhaps worth mentioning that the publicity surrounding the story when the messages were first released might have been the driving factor behind why they were kicked out. From a PR point of view it would have been preeeetty bad for them not to expell students who had been branded as rapists by the national media.

Yeah I think you misunderstood the nature of the questions I was asking! :P It's kinda my fault though, I guess I did not clarify properly.

I can see what you mean with regards to the last two points you made. That said what sort of implications would this have (and this is going off topic a bit) on counter terrorism measures? From my understanding if it's spotted that you're talking about engaging in terrorist activity then you (can) get flagged and monitored.

What civil action would that be?
The students signed up to a code of behaviour and they broke it.

I would seriously doubt it's a 100% watertight that they even broke the code of conduct.

Even then, you can't make people sign any code of conduct you like.

I would seriously doubt it's a 100% watertight that they even broke the code of conduct.

Even then, you can't make people sign any code of conduct you like.

As the students have acted against their rules the university can act on how they 'believe' their terms and conditions entitle them to....

To change a 10 year ban (i.e. you're past your main education years) into just 2 means something's very wrong with at least one of the decisions. Either they intended to use the harsh initial verdict as publicity they take a tough stance to secretly reverse it later, or they didn't look into the case properly at the time for the 10 years.

I think booting someone off the course for something that wouldn't actually have reached the person who ended up so scared (justifiably, given what she read) is harsh. If whoever leaked it thought there really was a genuine risk, they'd have reported it to the police, and the police having seen it now would have done something. All that said, though, I think Warwick should have at the very least insisted those 'potential rapists' (for want of a better phrase) do not go anyone near the subject of their words.

I don't think any student that has been found to have secretly discussed raping others with a conspiratorial group, even if in a 'jokey' way, should be allowed on campus. Warwick is all too obviously trying to be pragmatic to suit the moment when it should in fact be principled, shame on them.

Secretly. How do you plan to find out about all secret conversations?

I don't think any student that has been found to have secretly discussed raping others with a conspiratorial group, even if in a 'jokey' way, should be allowed on campus. Warwick is all too obviously trying to be pragmatic to suit the moment when it should in fact be principled, shame on them.

If the group were a genuine risk, then the police should be involved. Encouragement of violence or something similar. Whoever spread the screenshots (and knows the individuals better on a personal level) didn't think it worth reporting to the police either.

So it doesn't seem that they were/are a risk, at least in that regard. I mean, you're talking about a few guys breaking into a female dormitory and going room to room raping a hundred women one at a time while the next victim waits patiently next door listening to the screams. That's obviously not happening.

That said, Wain is understandably upset and I'd think the very least the university should do is have some civil (rather than legal) restraining order on the group to keep away from her. There's still a issue with the university's inconsistency in judgement too, there's too big a gap between 2 and 10 years.