This is a confusing article. Requiring students to disclose criminal convictions and forcing universities to take the necessary actions to safeguard other students seems entirely reasonable.
But both the examples given in the article are where students were allowed to study while awaiting trial. That feels like a different and more complicated issue, where you need to balance the protection of students with the presumption of innocence.
The GDPR angle is just bizarre and surely doesn’t come into it.
Convicted sex offenders should absolutely have to disclose offences.
People awaiting trial are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Personally if appropriate safeguarding is in place from police/CPS, then disclosure becomes far more problematic and in fact would potentially contravene HR Acts? (Accepting these are qualified rights).
When you’re charged and awaiting trial you’re kinda pre summed innocent. So what’s there to disclose?
I get this is about sex offenders- so I’m expecting downvotes here, but this is dystopian as shit. When someone is charged they are released or held on remand (reserved for particularly dangerous offenders), if someone is bailed- they are held to stricter standards but obviously our legal system believes they are safe enough to “live in the community”
Forcing people to disclose their charges as if they were convicted is something out of “The Trial” by Kafka- the lines between guilty and innocent are blurred and dangerous rapists, innocent people and everyone in between are blurred…
Isn’t the real issue that it takes over 4 years to still not get to a conviction?
Having to disclose charges sounds like more guilty until proven innocent bullshit to me.
My biggest problem with this is what you do about the fact they’re both studying at the same institution? Is that a fair thing to put someone through while an investigation is under way?
Let’s just save time by assuming men are guilty of whatever it is a woman accused them of until they prove themselves innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus ban them from participating in anything at all along with permanent house arrest until any witch hunt…sorry…investigation is concluded.
We are pretty much there in an informal social sense anyway.
This is a matter for the police and judiciary, not the university.
If the accused hasn’t been tried, and is thus presumed innocent, a university shouldn’t be taking measures against them. If the dispute was between two students, they could step in to help e.g. split them between classes, but they shouldn’t be the ones making the judgement.
If the police believe there is a risk of another crime being committed while they await trial, they should arrest the accused, issue a restraining order, or fit a location monitor, etc.
It’s fast become where men are guilty until proven innocent and lives are ruined based on accusations. It needs to stop.
I’m confused. She wanted him kicked out of a DIFFERENT university that she did not attend, where his presence posed no danger to her? I understand the desire to see someone who wronged you punished but that is what criminal justice is for. This is just fucking vindictive and she needs to talk to her therapist about it, not go to the newspapers.
What we really need is a functioning justice system that doesn’t leave people in that “charged but not tried” situation for years at a time. You can’t reasonably have people put their lives on hold for several years whilst they wait to fight the accusations.
Lmao Tomorrow they’ll publish an article about how some tiktoker is radicalizing young men with anti-feminist ideas. Right after the article about how they’re now supposed to be guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Some posters seem to have lost track of the fact that this is a “campaign” to require students to declare that they are being investigated regarding an alleged rape and for other students to be informed of this.
Having particular regard to the very low convictions rates for rape allegations (which itself is a problem), I do not believe it is reasonable to screw up an alleged offenders education based upon an unproven allegation, unless the course is one for which enhanced disclosure is appropriate.
Nevertheless, where the allegation relates to someone on the same course as the victim, the university owes that victim a duty of care should they wish to inform the university of the alleged incident. The university should then do whatever is reasonably practical to protect the complainant from further trauma.
Having done a beauty course, I can’t understand the quote relating to the Bryson case, i.e., we had to take our clothes off in front of them for spray tanning. Spray tanning is often carried out whilst the client is wearing disposable bras and pants. There is no need for students to be completely naked for spray tanning and it should be standard practice to provide facilities which allow for discreet changing. In beauty training facilities, these normally consist of multiple areas around which curtains can be drawn.
It seem unclear if they want to reveal the names of people *convicted* or just *charged*. This is a big difference, I see no problem with naming someone who has been tried and convicted however their is no way that someone who has just been charged should be named like this. Many people have been charged and had the charges dropped or have been tried and proven innocent.
Ohhh lovely another thread for unitedkingdom’s large population of rape fans to vent their spleens about how much they hate rape victims and sympathise the poor oppressed rapists, again.
17 comments
[removed]
This is a confusing article. Requiring students to disclose criminal convictions and forcing universities to take the necessary actions to safeguard other students seems entirely reasonable.
But both the examples given in the article are where students were allowed to study while awaiting trial. That feels like a different and more complicated issue, where you need to balance the protection of students with the presumption of innocence.
The GDPR angle is just bizarre and surely doesn’t come into it.
Convicted sex offenders should absolutely have to disclose offences.
People awaiting trial are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Personally if appropriate safeguarding is in place from police/CPS, then disclosure becomes far more problematic and in fact would potentially contravene HR Acts? (Accepting these are qualified rights).
When you’re charged and awaiting trial you’re kinda pre summed innocent. So what’s there to disclose?
I get this is about sex offenders- so I’m expecting downvotes here, but this is dystopian as shit. When someone is charged they are released or held on remand (reserved for particularly dangerous offenders), if someone is bailed- they are held to stricter standards but obviously our legal system believes they are safe enough to “live in the community”
Forcing people to disclose their charges as if they were convicted is something out of “The Trial” by Kafka- the lines between guilty and innocent are blurred and dangerous rapists, innocent people and everyone in between are blurred…
Isn’t the real issue that it takes over 4 years to still not get to a conviction?
Having to disclose charges sounds like more guilty until proven innocent bullshit to me.
My biggest problem with this is what you do about the fact they’re both studying at the same institution? Is that a fair thing to put someone through while an investigation is under way?
Let’s just save time by assuming men are guilty of whatever it is a woman accused them of until they prove themselves innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Plus ban them from participating in anything at all along with permanent house arrest until any witch hunt…sorry…investigation is concluded.
We are pretty much there in an informal social sense anyway.
This is a matter for the police and judiciary, not the university.
If the accused hasn’t been tried, and is thus presumed innocent, a university shouldn’t be taking measures against them. If the dispute was between two students, they could step in to help e.g. split them between classes, but they shouldn’t be the ones making the judgement.
If the police believe there is a risk of another crime being committed while they await trial, they should arrest the accused, issue a restraining order, or fit a location monitor, etc.
It’s fast become where men are guilty until proven innocent and lives are ruined based on accusations. It needs to stop.
I’m confused. She wanted him kicked out of a DIFFERENT university that she did not attend, where his presence posed no danger to her? I understand the desire to see someone who wronged you punished but that is what criminal justice is for. This is just fucking vindictive and she needs to talk to her therapist about it, not go to the newspapers.
What we really need is a functioning justice system that doesn’t leave people in that “charged but not tried” situation for years at a time. You can’t reasonably have people put their lives on hold for several years whilst they wait to fight the accusations.
Lmao Tomorrow they’ll publish an article about how some tiktoker is radicalizing young men with anti-feminist ideas. Right after the article about how they’re now supposed to be guilty until they can prove their innocence.
Some posters seem to have lost track of the fact that this is a “campaign” to require students to declare that they are being investigated regarding an alleged rape and for other students to be informed of this.
Having particular regard to the very low convictions rates for rape allegations (which itself is a problem), I do not believe it is reasonable to screw up an alleged offenders education based upon an unproven allegation, unless the course is one for which enhanced disclosure is appropriate.
Nevertheless, where the allegation relates to someone on the same course as the victim, the university owes that victim a duty of care should they wish to inform the university of the alleged incident. The university should then do whatever is reasonably practical to protect the complainant from further trauma.
Having done a beauty course, I can’t understand the quote relating to the Bryson case, i.e., we had to take our clothes off in front of them for spray tanning. Spray tanning is often carried out whilst the client is wearing disposable bras and pants. There is no need for students to be completely naked for spray tanning and it should be standard practice to provide facilities which allow for discreet changing. In beauty training facilities, these normally consist of multiple areas around which curtains can be drawn.
It seem unclear if they want to reveal the names of people *convicted* or just *charged*. This is a big difference, I see no problem with naming someone who has been tried and convicted however their is no way that someone who has just been charged should be named like this. Many people have been charged and had the charges dropped or have been tried and proven innocent.
Ohhh lovely another thread for unitedkingdom’s large population of rape fans to vent their spleens about how much they hate rape victims and sympathise the poor oppressed rapists, again.