Rape culture is alive and well at Warwick University

This is outrageous...and totally unacceptable!

I read that this morning and was horrified. Presumably those allowing them back are all male?

Some of the comments were awful - it was just banter; it was in the course of a private conversation, why should the males be vilified etc. Those commenting fail to have grasped the fact that the girls discussed were actually named, making it extremely personal and frightening for them.

The message being sent to young men by allowing those to return, is so, so wrong.

OMG. Here's how you "enable them to learn from their past unacceptable behaviours," you don't let them back! I hope these women publically call out the men's names and make sure every single woman knows what they're dealing with.

Absolutely unbelievable!!!!

Disgusting and scary.

What the ever loving Fuck!

Those girls know who the boys are. I certainly hope they will be putting those boy's names out there for absolutely everyone to see. I would be sure that when a future employer, or girl that may fancy one of them unknowingly, does a Google search to check them out, that all of this info is right there front and center.

All. the. time. If they're white, that is.

Unfathomable!

I'm not being argumentative here but did you read the whole of this linked Daily Mail article?

They were not four student rugby players and not all four of them were allowed to "walk away" from rape charges.
Only the one student was a rugby player and I'm guessing that they couldn't proceed with his prosecution without the co-operation of the victim who accepted his apology. But prosecutors dropped the case this week after Twigg agreed to apologise to his victim, without admitting any guilt.I personally think she made a mistake if that was what she decided on but she alone is the only one that can make that decision. Without her evidence the prosecution wouldn't have a case.

As for the other three.....

Case 1.    In January 2016, Louis Richardson, the former secretary of the university's prestigious Union Society, was accused of raping a woman when she was 'crazy drunk'.

But he was cleared by a jury after less than three hours of deliberations and later told of the '15 months of absolute hell' he had been put through by the case.

Case 2.In July that year, undergraduate George Worrall was facing three counts of rape, but just weeks before he was due to stand trial, the CPS decided not to proceed.

In that case, the CPS said that, following a review of the case, the prospect of a conviction appeared 'very unlikely' due to 'inconsistencies of the victim's account'.

Case 3. The following year, another Durham student, Alastair Cooke, saw the rape case against him dropped.

Jurors could not agree on a verdict in his trial and prosecutors decided not seek a retrial.
There would have had to have been some reason from the evidence they had why they didn't request a re-trial.

All three were tried in a court of law. I firmly believe that whatever the offence is, we ( general we) cannot pick and choose which verdict we are prepared to accept and which ones we won't. We were not there to hear the evidence nor were we members of the jury and an " innocent until proven guilty" man has as much of a right to a fair trial and the benefit of the eventual verdict as the women who are the possible victims have. Whether we like it or not women do lie and IMO they do untold harm to the real victims and to society's quest to eradicate the culture of rape and sexual assault. That being said, we do have to listen and take every allegation seriously.

Something else that bothers me when it comes to rape and sexual assault prosecutions is that in most, if not all cases, the man is always named and has no right to any anonymity in the same way as the alleged victim has, even if he is found not guilty after a trial. Yet, the woman keeps the anonymity even when, in some cases, it has been proven that she has lied.

Coming back to your original post OP I think the uni has made a very grave error of judgement in allowing the students back in. I can't understand why the police were not involved though. 

Wow, apparently one or more of the potential rapists have connections or parents with connections. 

 Where does it say that ? Who has connections to who ?

That's not strictly true. It wasn't a walk after an apology. Their cases were followed through the justice system. I do not know the in and outs of the cases, or what made the CPS feel that they did not have enough for a conviction.

The original story is very different, and I suspect that no crime was committed so not police action. I wonder what conditions have been placed on their return. I can imagine the girls involved if still at the university would be furious as would be there families. I wonder if the ban was not legal as it was overturned on appeal.

There's nothing in any of the articles that suggests that. Or are you assuming that our justice system is corrupted ? All four of them were prosecuted and three went to trial  and ended up with a different verdict. The fourth accepted an apology before it went to trial. Without her evidence the trial couldn't proceed.

Poverty has nothing to do with it. You get to University here on your academic ability and not on the bank of Mum and Dad. There are only two private universities in the UK.  Warwick or Durham are not.

I wonder why they got different bans to begin with. Must of been on how much they participated or what they said. It was a very big difference in time They have some guts going back. That's the sort of thing that does not stay secret. I can see the rumours flying. Doesn't make Warwick look good at all.

The story is not going away, the students have had a protest march and there is to be an independent external review of the disciplinary process. We'll see if it results in any changes.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47147269