Warwick University- would you want any dgc of yours to go there?

when I hear them publicly apologise and say they will transfer elsewhere I might, just might, think there is a glimmer of hope for them but their intention to return says all you need to know about them.

Indeed.
One can only hope that the outrage this incident has created will make them think twice.

The problem would not have occurred if University staff had shown a bit of common sense in telling them they were not welcome back and needed to find another place to study, for their own sakes, for the well being of the girls who were their targets and for the reputation of the University.

I believe two appealed their 'punishments' and that is why they'll return early. That in itself tells me they are lacking in conscience and regret for their actions. Most guilty men would have volunteered to end their time at Warwick I imagine, (or would they?) if they'd been outed as responsible for such repulsive messages.

Jalima - Ooops.

www.coventry.ac.uk/the-university/about-coventry-university/governance/vice-chancellors-office/

That link you gave is about the other University in Coventry. I am sure they don't want to be associated with Warwick's nasty problem. They are both in Coventry though as I have been to the wonderful Art's Centre at Warwick Uni, and it's not in Warwick! Radio Four told me about the event at Warwick Art's Centre and I discovered a Coventry address! Both in Warwickshire.

We have visited our DGD a few times at Warwick university and were surprised that it's not in Warwick.

The second more disturbing and worrying part of the whole sorry saga of today's student life on campus is their need to feel and and desire to feel offended by anything or everything however obscure, there is no such thing as a safe place, free speech is about accepting everyone's right to offend.

I agree katyf and find the whole issue of University students giving a platform only to speakers who share their (mostly left wing) views a very dangerous road to go down. It's worrying, I agree.

However, that is for a different thread.

Whether the vile remarks were made in private or not, the fact remains that they became read by others, including the 'targets' of their repugnant ideas. Now the whole matter is out in the open and I'd like to think that the victim's right to study in peace, free from threat should be the only consideration.

Do Universities have a 'terms and conditions' clause for student behaviour? No idea, but threatening others, whether in word or deed, ought to be a common sense no-no, with consequences.

Purely theoretical, I wanted to experiment with the juxtaposition of free speech (for debating purposes) and this sorry situation regarding the threats. Supposing a uni's debating society had a debate over whether to make rape legal, and one of the students, just to "play along" agreed to play the part of the Yes side, and acted it so well that several of the female students were no longer sure if he was just playing along with the experiment or really meant what he said. For example, to make it authentic he may have said offensive things. What should the uni do then in the situation that the female students no longer felt safe at the uni? Should the uni have foreseen problems and banned the experimental debate, or should they protect the right to experiment and speak freely in the interests of the intellectual exercise and experience?

Supposing a uni's debating society had a debate over whether to make rape legal

But rape isn't legal, so one would hope the female student was aware ideas were being discussed and if she found the content of the debate not to her liking, she could leave. It's not a good analogy.

The named women in the messages were written about as targets for men with repugnant and base instincts. It's makes it very real for the women concerned once they discovered they (not women in general) were being discussed by a large group of slavering men with base instincts.

THAT is frightening.

It has been suggested that these young men should go to a different university and also that they cannot be rehabilitated. Put those together and they end up where what they did is not known so could progress to something worse. At least at Warwick they will be known and watched.

On Any Questions and Any Answers today there was a discussion about knives and 12 year olds. This led to some interesting discussions about rehabilitation and one caller talked about the good work being done in Glasgow with young offenders which is working. They visit them about a year before they will be allowed out and guide them into a better life. All their volunteers are 'ex-convicts'. Seems to me that rehabilitation can work.

If it seemed likely that the presentation could be a bit too realistic, the debating society could always publish a disclaimer along with the report of the debate (and give a verbal one at the time of the debate) to make it clear that the arguments being aired were a part of the theoretical debating process.

Rehabilitation can work, but it is not something that happens over night and intelligent well-educated men like those involved will have been well aware how abhorrent their conversations and attitudes were and punishments like being sent down permanently from the university they are attending seems a reasonable sanction. I can see no way that the university can watch them and stop them doing something similar again. They won't, while they are there, but after they leave. what then?

I suspect that if these were less privileged young men, living in deprived circumstances and saying this about women in their social circle, they may well have ended up in court and in prison. It seems one law for the privileged and another for the loss less fortunate.

I have never made comments based on social position before, nor , as in an earlier message have I ever fund me accusing other GN members of being sexist but my goodness this thread has shown both.

Stop worrying about these stupid vile men and think about their victims, they have been betrayed by the university and there has been little enough consideration of what they have gone through and just how degrading the discussion about them was.

It would be interesting if each person who posts could confirm whether they have actually read what was said in these posts (I have given the link several times) and if they haven't what effect reading them then has on them, assuming they do.

you don't get to uni if you are a 17 year old living in on the streets because your parents have chucked you out.

Trisher I think this is an insult to all those coming from deprived backgrounds, including those on the streets at 17. who do get to university.

It's so sad really. Our DGD had offers from a few unis but loved Warwick the minute she visited. She said she has never been so happy and has made some lovely friends (mostly male). I hope all this doesn't spoil her experience.

Day6 oops indeed

I don't know how I did that and will ask for it to be deleted.
Should have known better

MOnica you wrote I suspect that if these were less privileged young men, living in deprived circumstances Do we know they were privileged or is that an assumption? I'm having difficulty with reading all the posts and trying to sort out the facts from the assumptions. So many questions without answers.

KatyK I am sure that most students at Warwick will be horrified by the proposed return of these men and there is a campaign against them going back to resume their studies.

Let's hope the decision is looked at again.
Even if it is upheld everyone will be aware of just who they are.

Yes Jalima at least the students know who they are and give them a wide berth. My DGD and her new friends are so lovely.

Don't know how I missed the incidents but my thoughts are could not the parents of these young women take action? name and shame those responsible ? This sort of behaviour would not have been dealt with so leniently in some countries.

They have been named on social media.

Nonnie. It was quote from Trisher, which I was commenting on.

KatyK that is what some would call 'karma' - they were using social media for these disgusting chats and it has proved to be their nemesis.

They haven’t broken the law( apparently) (jalima)

Actually, I was wondering about that. If the men had actually sent any of this disgusting 'group chat' to any woman, then they would presumably have committed a crime and the polcie would have to be involved.

Was it supposed to be private chat that someone leaked? Revolting though the messages are, if they were never meant to be seen except by the horrible private group members, then it would appear that a crime has not been committed.

Chapter 3 of Jordan Peterson's book, Twelve Rules for Life, which I'm reading, is entitled "Make friends with people who want the best for you". Apart from the horribleness of the messages between these young men, what worries me most about this episode is that, apparently, their cavalier attitude to women was not detectable by the women who had been friends with them.

Nonnie - Re your 16:25:25 post. Absolutely, I thought the successful rehabilitation of young offenders initiative in Glasgow provided a glimmer of hope. If only it could be rolled out in London, Birmingham, and other cities where children are being lured into violence by drugs gangs. But, of course, there won't be funds available.
Those 12 years are in a local shopping centre just after the schools close, they have brief contact with older boys and rush off to deliver, by scooter (not motor scooter) or bus. I asked a security guard outside a shop if I'd drawn the right conclusion from their behaviour, he sighed and said he saw it every day. The young people must think they are untouchable, a sad waste of potential.

Yes indeed Jalima

Baggs - following your logic, about 'private chat' it would seem that paedophiles who meet to 'chat' on the dark web would also be protected by their privacy

You go on to suggest that 'their cavalier attitude to women was not detectable by the women who had been friends with them'. Great bit of victim blaming there. There is over whelming evidence that many victims of domestic abuse, male or female, were seduced into relationships with abusive partners who were very good at hiding their 'dark' side.

There was an interview on Victoria Derbyshire last week with one of the students the threats were made against. She spoke anonymously. She said one of the members of the group chat showed her the chat on his phone. So it doesn't look like it was leaked, he showed her. She said she found his attitude threatening. This interview can still be found online.

Actually, I was wondering about that. If the men had actually sent any of this disgusting 'group chat' to any woman, then they would presumably have committed a crime and the polcie would have to be involved.
Yes, I think that therein lies the difference

But didn't one of the group show the messages to one of the women?