The Warwick drama continues Watch

stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
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.

I personally think it is fine to let them in, but I would definitely not welcome them in with open arms. At the end of the day, giving them a second chance would be the appropiate course of action.
2
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by DanB1991)
That would only be the case if the individuals agreed to make it public, which I highly doubt they did....
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.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by stoyfan)
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.
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.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Unless I'm mistaken, I don't believe I said that they were being serious? I certainly wouldn't know if they were.
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.
0
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Axiomasher)
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.
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.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Notoriety)
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.
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.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by DanB1991)
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.
What civil action would that be?
The students signed up to a code of behaviour and they broke it.
reply
stoyfan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
The response I saw from from social media and TSR was quite mixed albeit with quite a few more people criticising the Uni on their decision.
Heck, there was a thread on tsr where loads of people didn't agree with what the uni did.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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.
Yeah, I might have misunderstood it because that comment makes sense when you're asking what the words mean. When you're starting to ask questions outside of the words, and which have nothing to do with our analysis of the words, then I get a bit lost.

Terrorism is a special and different issue, in law and policing. In matters of terrorism, we are interventionist and err on the side of caution, just because of the significant risk to human life -- mass casualty events. Many in the liberal crowd disagree with this approach. Rule of law would still apply; you might be surveilled by authorities, might get held in police custody than longer than is acceptable, but ultimately released if your words were considered benign or the authorities couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt serious malcontent.

I am not quite sure private messages, of jokes, have been flagged. As far as we know, FB and WhatsApp have been unwilling to share encrypted messages with MI5 and the Met.
1
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by 999tigger)
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.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by DanB1991)
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.
Tigger is well-versed in the code of conduct point. The disrepute provision is the catch-all and is designed to be as broad as possible.
0
reply
999tigger
  • Answer Heroes
Badges: 19
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by DanB1991)
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.
You should contact the students concerned and offer to represent them.

Nobody made anyone sign anything. A student agrees by applying and accpeting the offer of the university.

Back to the original question, then what civil action would that be?
reply
gajalaka
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
I'd like to see how people react to Muslims discussing a terror attack on the uni.
2
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by DanB1991)
As the students have acted against their rules the university can act on how they 'believe' their terms and conditions entitle them to....
Exactly, which is why you were wrong.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
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.
1
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by ThomH97)
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.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Axiomasher)
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?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
There probably has to be a line somewhere with the nature of jokes, but where is tricky. However private chats should remain private.

I have said things in private chats which could be seen as dodgy .For example I once said that whoever did my timetable should be taken into a dark room and beaten. Obviously I wasn’t planning to go into the school office with a metal pipe, but that nonetheless could have been taken the wrong way.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Andrew97)
Secretly. How do you plan to find out about all secret conversations?
The conversation was obviously intended to be secret but was leaked.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Axiomasher)
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.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (35)
12.54%
Yes - a food allergy (32)
11.47%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (9)
3.23%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
3.23%
No (194)
69.53%

Watched Threads

View All