The Warwick drama continues Watch

Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by ThomH97)
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.
I sorta agree with this (especially the apparent wild inconsistency of judgement). It would be interesting to know how the police assess risk in such cases, after all, these men named specific individuals that were known to them and at length discussed raping them. I don't think that we need to take these students' words literally for there to be risk however; talking about raping 100 females might be unrealistic but it could still be a precursor to an act of rape, talking about doing something, joking about doing something, sure, it isn't the same as doing it but it is probably a precursor for some of those who do actually go on to rape.
1
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#62
Report 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Notoriety)
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.
(Original post by 999tigger)
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?
There is the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. I'm unsure if the Student would be able to apply for this, but technically Universities are businesses and students are consumers. I'm no legal expert but I do know under contract law... and concerning codes of conduct with employee's, they have to be 'fair' and not break legislation. If you were fired for private messages, send in a private space, on a private device, in private time, that resulted in a dismissal from a job, you can actually fight it rather successfully (and many people have).

Yes nobody forced them to sign anything, but they 'had' to sign them to have a place at the university. It's no different to the fact about 80% of terms in tenancy agreements (which is my speciality) are completely unenforceable, despite them being initially written up by solicitors and nobody is forced to sign them either.

I'm not personally aware of any test cases concerning UK university codes of conduct, but it has been in other countries and generally the universities don't come out of it well. Especially if there is no criminal behaviour (whether proven in a civil or criminal court).
Last edited by DanB1991; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by DanB1991)
There is the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. I'm unsure if the Student would be able to apply for this, but technically Universities are businesses and students are consumers. I'm no legal expert but I do know under contract law... and concerning codes of conduct with employee's, they have to be 'fair' and not break legislation. If you were fired for private messages, send in a private space, on a private device, in private time, that resulted in a dismissal from a job, you can actually fight it rather successfully (and many people have).

Yes nobody forced them to sign anything, but they 'had' to sign them to have a place at the university. It's no different to the fact about 80% of terms in tenancy agreements (which is my speciality) are completely unenforceable, despite them being initially written up by solicitors and nobody is forced to sign them either.

I'm not personally aware of any test cases concerning UK university codes of conduct, but it has been in other countries and generally the universities don't come out of it well. Especially if there is no criminal behaviour (whether proven in a civil or criminal court).
I will just focus on the "I'm no legal expert" bit and leave it there.
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Notoriety)
I will just focus on the "I'm no legal expert" bit and leave it there.
Now now, don't be a meanie, we're not all seasoned CAB veterans
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by JohanGRK)
Now now, don't be a meanie, we're not all seasoned CAB veterans
Aye, when I was training I had one trying to tell me about the three sources of law in a gloaty voice. Common, stat and equity. As if I would be gob-smacked to learn this next-level info. He said it to clients, too; to dole mams, to impress them. Just stick to doing DROs, Chris, alright. Just stick to ****ing DROs.
0
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by Notoriety)
Aye, when I was training I had one trying to tell me about the three sources of law in a gloaty voice. Common, stat and equity. As if I would be gob-smacked to learn this next-level info. He said it to clients, too; to dole mams, to impress them. Just stick to doing DROs, Chris, alright. Just stick to ****ing DROs.
I can imagine that sort of guy. Had to deal with one when I was volunteering last year; a 23-year-old with a 'high 2:1' from UEL who thought that rocking up in a plastic £69 suit from M&S made him look more impressive than the rest of us plebs.
0
reply
username4411650
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by JohanGRK)
I can imagine that sort of guy. Had to deal with one when I was volunteering last year; a 23-year-old with a 'high 2:1' from UEL who thought that rocking up in a plastic £69 suit from M&S made him look more impressive than the rest of us plebs.
why are you lying? i know you, and you went to London Metropolita University, and oyu havent finished a law school. Thats why you spend your time here. Please guys dont listen to him, he is a fraud.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by Dez)
Reform is far better medicine than total exclusion. If they've shown proper remorse for their actions then they ought to be given a second chance. From the sounds of it they'll be closely monitored upon their return, and I imagine if they do anything similar again there won't be any third chance for them, that'll be the end of their educational career.
It's still pretty frightening for the women students who were the subjects of their violent imagery - which included, let's not forget, discussions about gang raping and murdering them. Quite strange topics for fun relaxing chats.

The university needs to have another think and at the very least, some sort of special security measure needs to be in place, for example, these dangerous-sounding individuals could complete their studies remotely and the girls be warned when they are in the vicinity. Some form of electronic tagging might be a sensible precaution if they must be on campus.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
(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.
I think you are overlooking that this was the decision of an appeals panel. Warwick is having to support the decision made by its appeals panel but that doesn’t mean that the management of the university agreed with the appeal panel’s decision. What it looks like to me is that the appeals panel simply didn’t buy the argument that the two appellants were more culpable than the majority of the students who received one year bans and reduced their sentences to match.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
Malevolent
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
Not sure why they would want to go back there, faces and names plastered all over. The amount of stick those two are going to get (rightly so) is going to be massive.
2
reply
DanB1991
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Notoriety)
I will just focus on the "I'm no legal expert" bit and leave it there.
In all honesty if you can explain why customers and staff members can fight similar codes of conduct and students can't be my guest. Workers unions fight this kind of thing successfully all the time.

I'm quite seriously not going to be offended. If you tell me something I didn't know great!
0
reply
ANM775
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
The lifetime bans and permanent expulsions were over the top imo

back when i was in secondary school some kid said to a girl he wanted to rape her. The girl made me tell the form tutor [it seems she couldn't get the words out]. The kid who said it ended up getting a stern telling off and that was that. No detention, no expulsion, no news crews, no suspension

ok this was like 20yrs ago, but seeing the amount of trouble these uni folks got in over a private chat just seems ott imo...
0
reply
username4350740
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's still pretty frightening for the women students who were the subjects of their violent imagery - which included, let's not forget, discussions about gang raping and murdering them. Quite strange topics for fun relaxing chats.

The university needs to have another think and at the very least, some sort of special security measure needs to be in place, for example, these dangerous-sounding individuals could complete their studies remotely and the girls be warned when they are in the vicinity. Some form of electronic tagging might be a sensible precaution if they must be on campus.
Erm what? That's ridiculous.All that happened was a couple of jokes were made on the internet.People probably say worse things on here or would if it wasn't moderated.They committed no crime.If they had they would have been charged.If you really really try hard you might twist the definition to show intent but that is just seeing stuff that isnt there.Clearly the police found nothing.And you talk of ankle tags? This isn't China.Its actually quite frightening how authoritarian some " liberals" are.
1
reply
username4350740
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Being given a stupid name on a messanger doesn't stop you from being taken seriously.
Yes, it doesn't.But only because some people either have no brain or have elected not to use it.
0
reply
Doonesbury
  • Section Leader
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Malevolent)
Not sure why they would want to go back there, faces and names plastered all over. The amount of stick those two are going to get (rightly so) is going to be massive.
They aren't returning:

Warwick University says rape threat pair won't return
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...y_to_clipboard


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Doonesbury)
They aren't returning:

Warwick University says rape threat pair won't return
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...y_to_clipboard


Posted from TSR Mobile
Sounds like they decided not to. Probably for the best all round.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Rs5644)
Erm what? That's ridiculous.All that happened was a couple of jokes were made on the internet.People probably say worse things on here or would if it wasn't moderated.They committed no crime.If they had they would have been charged.If you really really try hard you might twist the definition to show intent but that is just seeing stuff that isnt there.Clearly the police found nothing.And you talk of ankle tags? This isn't China.Its actually quite frightening how authoritarian some " liberals" are.
They don't come across like jokes. The statements come across like intended threats and they sound as if they've had extensive experience of rape. However, if they are just very, very stupid, it's a pity that the direction of travel of their stupidity has to be rape and assault, but even more of a pity that they are now permanently and indelibly associated with the reputation of Warwick.
1
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Axiomasher)
The conversation was obviously intended to be secret but was leaked.
Isn’t that the problem. People should be able to have private conversations. I bet everybody here has said something in a private chat that they’d rather not be heard in public.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
They don't come across like jokes. The statements come across like intended threats and they sound as if they've had extensive experience of rape. However, if they are just very, very stupid, it's a pity that the direction of travel of their stupidity has to be rape and assault, but even more of a pity that they are now permanently and indelibly associated with the reputation of Warwick.
You're just too soft to have experience of this type of "edgy" humour (which populates sites like 4chan (and a few chats Papa Noto saw in his younger days, might I say)). It therefore becomes quite irrelevant that you think they're threats rather than jokes, because you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
1
reply
username4350740
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
They don't come across like jokes. The statements come across like intended threats and they sound as if they've had extensive experience of rape. However, if they are just very, very stupid, it's a pity that the direction of travel of their stupidity has to be rape and assault, but even more of a pity that they are now permanently and indelibly associated with the reputation of Warwick.
No they are jokes.Not very high brow ones but still jokes.Being offensive is not yet a crime.Extensive experience of rape? Listen to yourself.The police found no crime was committed.All that has happened here is that some immature boys have posted offensive jokes on a chat.They didn't threaten anyone.They didn't rape anyone.They had no intention of raping anyone.I've heard worse jokes about Madeline McCann.Is everyone who jokes about that now a potential child abductor? You are being ridiculous.Its ok to joke about offensive things.
The police and the uni clearly agreed as they were coming back until Twitter outrage erupted.
0
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 (42)
11.93%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
11.08%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (11)
3.13%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.56%
No (251)
71.31%

Watched Threads

View All