Locker room type behaviour?

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

If you are smart enough to get into Dental School you should be smart enough to understand that "privacy and facebook" don't really go together... if you post it on facebook you should be willing to accept the fact that anyone may see it And when they do there might be consequences. If these gentlemen want to take legal action against their fellow student who broke the impenetrable privacy they established I will just say... good luck with that.

 

 

 

When I entered into this hobby and hid it from my wife and others I understood that there where risks and serious consequences if I was caught but I continued knowing this. If I am outed now as you suggest I certainly will be mad at the individual who outed me but I somehow doubt my wife or the divorce court judge would give much credence to my argument that my privacy right had been breached and therefore I should not be held accountable for my actions.

 

 

 

You are right we probably all have thought we would not want to publicly declare... that's why we don't declare them publicly... that's why we don't post them to a facebook group... it's call common sense.

 

 

 

See note above about being actually responsible and accountable for our own actions. I don't give a rates a...ss what most people think of my actions but do hold myself fully accountable if my actions hurt others especially the people I love.

 

 

 

My position on this all along has been to let the process that the university has in place proceed... the only question in my opinion is what is the appropriate recourse and to be honest that is hard to know based on the limited info we have.

 

Two words... Personal Accountability

 

Just my Opinion

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

 

So "saying" nasty shit in private is not deserving of compassion or rehabilitation? What a world that is where private words and thoughts somehow become as bad as deeds? Minority Report was just a movie people.

 

I wonder what we should do about those who actually go out and "act" despicably? Say like having sex with another woman and risk devastating their wife and children with their selfish "acts", not posts. Risking health, divorce and all its utter devastation, not to mention any lingering effect it may have on offspring. If the adulterer claims personal accountability does that make it better for their wife somehow? Personal accountability would be not doing it in the first place! What punishment should we meet out to that person, knowing what we know? It's easy judging others as long as we don't look inward, or claim stoicism when we aren't actually facing any adversity yet.

 

It's merely convenient to say one should not expect privacy even if one goes to the bother of creating a private environment. Online or offline! In this world of drones are you suggesting that people cannot expect privacy should they leave a curtain open. Is it OK to breach that privacy expectation?

 

A world without compassion. The future looks scary indeed!

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I hear you ... but I think that's a lame excuse. Here's why.

 

My son did something really stupid in grade nine. Nobody was hurt, but I suppose someone could have been. Regardless, the act was irresponsible, and although not criminal, most certainly not acceptable in a school setting. He was expelled for the remainder of the semester. His academics suffered. He was shamed. He was punished.

 

In grade nine. 13 years old.

 

What excuse?

 

The issue is simply that there are circumstances in this case which warrant consideration: Privacy expectation - Due Process - Rehabilitation as opposed to lynching them.

[CristyCurves 169032]

I've read every comment carefully and thank you for responding.

 

There are a few points I would like to make since I was stupid enough to start this.

 

If you go to the bother of creating a "private" facebook group then you should have some expectation of privacy, otherwise why have private groups? Do you really believe as long as the privacy breach wasn't state sanctioned, then exposure is fair game? Use you head and ask yourself if you would feel the same way should you be "outed" by someone you visited or were found out about your activities by someone grabbing your hobby phone and having a peak. Isn't there a similar expectation of privacy? Any argument at this point would be a distinction without a difference.

You can't compare a hobbyists phone to a facebook page nor the relationship between consenting adults and these nobs that were talking about wanting to rape and harm women that they named. Can you?

Your thoughts are not actions. I've had many "thoughts" that I would not want to publicly declare but that does not mean by any stretch that I actually would plan steps to carry that out. Suggesting otherwise is contemptible. To the people who would quote examples, remember the exception does not make the rule. Where would we be if it did?

I didn't state that thoughts were actions, nor did anyone else, if I'm not mistaken. I said a thought can breed an action, and a thought can become an action. Lets not forget what those thoughts were-again- they were about harming and hurting specific women. If you were one of the named would you not be fearful? Or would you just laugh it off, ignore it? Maybe you have to be a woman to get it? But when a group of men, or women for that matter gathers to discuss doing what they said they wanted to do then there should be cause for concern. I really don't care about the privacy factor, as a matter of fact knowing that it was in private and they wanting it to be so, imo, makes it more ominous. How does anyone know that they wouldn't act out those thoughts. No one knows! Maybe they would have had they not been found out. But they were and I'm not sure what the punishment should be but I am sure that there should be some.

 

 

I'm surprised that we are so against people having nasty thoughts and yet many of us engage in deception on here not to mention outright criminal behaviour given the new law. What about all the people who think what we get up to is immoral and would judge us in an instant if found out? To them and us I say remove the f'ing log from your own eye first.

Can you really feel comfortable comparing what CONSENTING adults do to their "thoughts" of rape. Being immoral- rather, consenting adults having fun together, is FAR different then a bunch of guys wanting to rape girls. I don't really care if they were joking, as a matter of fact the "thought" that they were joking angers me even more!

 

It's always been easy to round up several villagers for a good ole burning at the stake. What's always in short supply unfortunately is someone willing to show compassion and have an interest in rehabilitation for those who made mistakes.

No, I don't think so. It's not easy. At least I can say for myself. I usually go for the underdog, the odd man out. But I can't in this case, because the subject is far to serious of one to shrug off. Yes they can be forgiven, after they suffer the consequence of their actions-rather-their thoughts!

 

I say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". We all will make mistakes, some involving actions and some involving words. If you ever find yourself among that group and wonder why the world is so judgemental and cold, maybe some of you just need to look in the mirror.

You are right we all sin and we all judge as you are in your above statement. Some simply do it less, more inconspicuously. Even I know some subjects are just to serious and hurtful to joke about. Even with my foot and mouth disease. I won't state what their punishment should be because I don't have that knowledge or ability. But I have enough sense to know what they did was wrong, very wrong. On a moral and professional level. Should they be punished for life, no, but they should be punished. Then again, ask a rape victim how long it's taken them to heal from their trauma.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I hear you ... but I think that's a lame excuse. Here's why.

 

My son did something really stupid in grade nine. Nobody was hurt, but I suppose someone could have been. Regardless, the act was irresponsible, and although not criminal, most certainly not acceptable in a school setting. He was expelled for the remainder of the semester. His academics suffered. He was shamed. He was punished.

 

In grade nine. 13 years old.

 

With respect Jessica, did something and said something in private are very different and should be. That's where others disagree. They want to merge words with deeds on the punishment scale and I think it's a slippery slope of Orwellian proportions.

[Miss Jessica Lee 43328]

What excuse?

 

The issue is simply that there are circumstances in this case which warrant consideration: Privacy expectation - Due Process - Rehabilitation as opposed to lynching them.

 

mmhmm well maybe ''reason'' would have been better than "excuse". Their age isn't one.

 

There is no expectation of privacy on a facebook group that included in it's name the name of their school. They should have called it the "Stupid Dentist Students Group". But they didn't.

 

My son wasn't lynched. He was punished, shamed and forced to make restitution. As they should be.

 

edit: Steve ... they DID do something .. they typed it on a facebook group named after their school!!

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

This thread is making me cranky and I owe Ice4fun an apology. Same goes for anyone else I've offended. My position stems from a belief in the good of humanity and I don't want to give up on that. I believe in consequences but always with rehabilitation in mind.

 

Take care,

 

Steve

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

mmhmm well maybe ''reason'' would have been better than "excuse". Their age isn't one.

 

No, their age would be a lame excuse actually.

 

There is no expectation of privacy on a facebook group that included in it's name the name of their school. They should have called it the "Stupid Dentist Students Group". But they didn't.

 

I disagree. The university can sue for copy right if they used their product (e.g. class name) but this does not take from the fact that the domain was set as private one.

 

My son wasn't lynched. He was punished, shamed and forced to make restitution. As they should be.

 

A discipline could be utilized if proven concerns existed after due process, but an expulsion is a pure stupidity. The aim should be to get the best out of them, they obviously have the skills.

[Guest *l**e]

personally, I think this thread has gone waaaay off the path. This is not about criminal behavior, privacy rights, or anything like that.

 

It's about simple facts.

1. these men (not kids...4th year dentistry means a 3-4 year science degree prior to DDS...makes them about 26 years old) put in print some very terrifying thoughts about specific people withing their classes.

 

2. these posts became public

 

3. the women named now know of these posts and the entire content

 

4. these women have the right to attend university in a safe environment free or harassment. Threats of rape, chloroform, and violence are clearly harassment.

 

5. the university and virtually every workplace in the country have a code of conduct and these types and these types of communications in any situation clearly violate these codes.

 

Those are the facts...my opinion....talking with your buddies (male or female) about finding people attractive, or wanting to have sex with them, etc. is totally normal and rational. Discussing the things that these men did is totally unreasonable and stupid. The women in that school have worked hard and paid their tuition and deserve to be able to learn in a safe place. I can't imagine any situation where allowing these men to return to the classroom where these women are is suitable or just in any way. Do they deserve criminal charges? probably not...but I'm not a judge. Do they deserve expulsion? ABSOLUTELY.

Anything less would be a direct assault on the rights of the women named on the pages of their disgusting FB group.

[fortunateone 156618]

You are not talking about criminal prosecution because there is no case for criminal prosecution. Simply a group of kids uttering immature jokes behind their computer screens in a private boys' club. If there was a case of criminal prosecution the Crown must step in. So far it doesn't seem to be.

 

If this university expels 13 students whom it selected for a highly competitive field just few years earlier, irrespective of the cause, the dean of the school must be expelled as well because it is a global admission failure.

 

Where is the common sense in all this? Do you want to convince me that 13 students are all unfit because they shared some utter nonsense in a Facebook group in the cyber era.

 

Yes, expulsion is a stupid sanction for even a single one of them. There many ways to get the best out of them and rehabilitate them, if there are proven concerns.

 

 

There wouldn't even be a debate if this groups were talking about violent actions against a particular race. Because it is gender based we are supposed to excuse the content of the matter because it was supposed to be a private group and/or private joke.

 

However, sharing this info undermines the women and other students in this class. Now the 'boyz' are snickering at them behind the scenes, and every time one interacts with a female student, he is reminded of Guy#2's rape jokes or accusations of her using her wiles to get better grades or perks.

 

Whether or not she knows about this stuff is irrelevant, her interactions with these male students is still affected by their socalled private activities.

 

And saying it was supposed to be private, and we'll blame whoever leaked it out? Ok, so someone actually does the right thing after how many months or years, but he's the problem here because he won't stand for it happening. He's ashamed or outraged or bothered or whatever, gives the info outing this hate group, embarassed as well because those creeps decided he was also a creep, based on his gender and nothing else.

 

I don't accept the excuse of a private FB group (an oxymoron at best), because if any of those same guys started email campaign or texting to each other, these interactions between each other would be considered, according to the law. 'private' because they are just between friends. However, that 'assumption of privacy' can still be exposed.

 

No one who exposes wrong doing should be blamed for sharing presumed private info. There are a lot of things that go on in the world that if someone didn't expose the wrong doing would still be happening.

 

Additional Comments:

S

It's merely convenient to say one should not expect privacy even if one goes to the bother of creating a private environment. Online or offline! In this world of drones are you suggesting that people cannot expect privacy should they leave a curtain open. Is it OK to breach that privacy expectation?

 

A world without compassion. The future looks scary indeed!

 

 

It's not so much that a private group should not expect privacy, it is that a private group that is set up to express hate towards a particular group, not to mention a little slander here and there, should not expect protection.

 

The slander I refer to the accusations that the (or some) female students were using their gender-specific-qualities to get better grades, additional time, and/or special attention from the instructors.

 

In this case, the contents of that private group were breaking the university code of conduct, as well as common decency, according to whoever gained access and exposed it all. You only have to read the excerpts to realize that they did the right thing.

 

Saying there is something wrong with doing that, is like saying it would be wrong for an actual rape victim to report the rape, cuz the perp had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Or that threats sent via text or email shouldn't be reported because the person sending it thought the conversation was a private one.

 

Additional Comments:

This thread is making me cranky and I owe Ice4fun an apology. Same goes for anyone else I've offended. My position stems from a belief in the good of humanity and I don't want to give up on that. I believe in consequences but always with rehabilitation in mind.

 

Take care,

 

Steve

 

 

In which case, you seem to agree both that the 'private' FB should have been exposed (as in should not have been left private) and that the contents of the FB page were in violation of code of conduct at the very least.

 

In order to have rehabilitation, there is first the fact they did something wrong and it was a good thing they were exposed for it. If that is what you are saying I agree.

 

I think they should bear the consequences of their actions. It is the only way they will learn. Clearly they did not learn anything along the way to their mid 20s manhoods to not have done this in the first place. It is also clear they do not want the women in the class, resent them and are somewhat fearful of their presence. They want to 'knock them down a peg', get them beneath their feet at least in their minds, and diminish them in some way.

 

And that is the heart of this, bitter resentment and lashing out, and if they do this online, it still begs the question, they think this is OK online, it means they will always think it is OK online. But maybe also going further.

 

If they are not faced with real and serious consequences, whatever it may be it isn't just a suspension and not having to deal with their vicitms, then this as a learning lesson will be lost. not just for themselves, but for other uni students, the general public, and the women

[roamingguy 300292]

What excuse?

 

The issue is simply that there are circumstances in this case which warrant consideration: Privacy expectation - Due Process - Rehabilitation as opposed to lynching them.

 

You keep talking about a lynching...what lynching???

The Dalhousie Code Of Student Conduct

http://www.dal.ca/dept/university_secretariat/policies/student-life/code-of-student-conduct.html

Take a look at the PDF document, specifically Offences Against Person.

Clearly what these thirteen men did constitute at a minimum sexual harassment, threats of sexual assaults, harassment based on sex just to name a few.

A lynching, give me a break. From the Merriam Webster Dictionary

"to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction"

What is happening here hardly rises to the level of a lynching. Not even in the same ballpark. In fact using the term is beyond insulting to the memories of those who really were lynched

 

RG

[Frankmc 210]

Much of this discussion may become academic as the hactivist group

"Anonymous" has their names and have declared they will publish them

if the students are not expelled.

 

Should that happen they will be vilified and their career path ended.

 

Apparently the university has kept quiet because they were afraid one

of the students was going to hurt himself. This may become tragic.

[Ice4fun 78396]

This thread is making me cranky and I owe Ice4fun an apology. Same goes for anyone else I've offended. My position stems from a belief in the good of humanity and I don't want to give up on that. I believe in consequences but always with rehabilitation in mind.

 

Take care,

 

Steve

 

Thank You Steve I appreciate the Apology... my comments are not intended as personal and public debate is often good for all involved.

 

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

[FunAdventures 4501]

This is all so sad to read.

 

If someone around me at work, at school, in my circle of friends etc etc, ever explicitly talked about how they would use chloroform to knock me out and then rape me, I certainly hope that someone would speak up and tell me about it. I think a females right to work and learn in a safe environment outweighs a males right to privacy.

 

However, this should not be a women vs men issue. It should be an issue of respect. Clearly their is no respect here.

 

A lot of you also refer to their comments as jokes. That's ridiculous. Condoning the 'hilarity' of such 'jokes' is just as bad as making them yourself. It saddens me.

 

A lot of people also talk about how these "boys" careers shouldn't be ruined. Firstly, do you realize most of them are in their 30's? They are not children. They are supposedly men. Secondly, if these comments had been made by anyone towards anyone in any place of work in any of the 1st world countries, there would be absolutely no question as to the disciplinary action that would take place. It goes by the term 'Respectful Workplace', where harassment of any form is not tolerated. Why does this not exist in the educational setting? Perhaps it does, but I must say that being in graduate school at the same University, I have not been exposed to it. It must be one of those things that they don't actually teach you about.

 

One of the group is a friend of mine. I've known him for years. I remember how hard he struggled to get accepted (the class is very small), but how with his determination and drive he finally got in. I remember talking to him a couple of months ago about how excited he was to finally be done. BUT, although he is a 'friend' (I use that term loosely now), I don't think he should be given the power of being able to anesthetize ladies. And yes 'Assistants' are always present... supposedly... but who's to say both of them do not have these fantasies.... A scary thought as I write this, is now I wonder if even if they are expelled, are they qualified to be these 'assistants'??

 

I'm sorry OldBlueEyes, but your comments have deeply disturbed me. Although I am sure that 95% of guys think about sex with a coworker / friend / whatever... There is, however, a much smaller percentage that fantasize about drugging her and raping her limp body in a violent fashion. And yes... if a classmate or a coworker made those comments about me, I would consider myself a victim. I do not need to live in any more fear than that that is already present for every woman...

 

Having respect for women, children, and everyone around you does not emasculate a man.

[Phaedrus 209521]

I don't have much to say on the rights and wrongs of this that hasn't already been said.

 

However, if you'll permit me a slight digression... this illustrates two things that I find interesting, both of which are a product of the increasingly interconnected world we live in.

 

The first is the permanence of everything. I have no doubt that douchebag guys have been having conversations like this since time immemorial, but until very recently they'd have been just that - conversations. Even if they were overheard and reported to others by someone, they could just be denied and nothing could ever be proven. But now... much social intercourse occurs online, and what happens online tends to be a lot more permanent and provable than many people think. And this means that people can't get away with things that could have escaped unremarked and unpunished even a few years ago.

 

The second is the ever-increasing speed of social change. Look at how long it took for racism to go from the idea that it might not be OK, to the point where it had become socially unacceptable in polite society. Then look at the speed of the same transition for homophobia (quicker, I think), and in more recent years - or even months - the increased awareness of trans folks and the discrimination they face, and the kind of thing we're talking about here. It's becoming ever-easier for those who wish to speak out to do so, to find support, and to get the message out to the world that the assumptions people make and the things that people do without thinking very hard about it actually do real harm to real people.

 

We live in interesting times!

[Guest *l**e]

Miss Jane, I'm not sure if english is your second language (please don't be insulted, I'm trying to help), but I think people are having issue with your misuse of terminology.

Lynching means to publicly hang someone some one to death for no legal reason and and is usually carried out by a mob with ill intent. It was used often by racist groups to kill black men simply for being black. People are simply saying that these men should be expelled for the safetly and well being of the ladies n the class. This is no where near a lynching in any way.

Capitol punishment is to be put to death for a committing a crime. Again, no one is saying these men should be killed.

 

Also, the University's anti-harassment policy and the Charter of Human Rights states that all people have the right to a safe work place safe from harassment, etc. Even simple things like jokes and comments are seen as harassment all the time, and should be. It's bullying and disgusting. Even if you believe these men had a right to privacy on fb, the fact is their comments came out and they are not and can not deny them. These women know of the comments, and by both the policy and the Charter have a right to not be forced to face men who have made these disgusted threats and/or jokes in their place of learning.

You see, their "punishment" has much less to do with their actions than it does with the rights of the women in question.

 

again, this was not intended to offend and if I stepped out of line, I am sorry. I just don't want to see this otherwise very interesting thread get side tracked into a debate of semantics.

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

Miss Jane, I'm not sure if english is your second language (please don't be insulted, I'm trying to help), but I think people are having issue with your misuse of terminology.

Lynching means to publicly hang someone some one to death for no legal reason and and is usually carried out by a mob with ill intent. It was used often by racist groups to kill black men simply for being black. People are simply saying that these men should be expelled for the safetly and well being of the ladies n the class. This is no where near a lynching in any way.

Capitol punishment is to be put to death for a committing a crime. Again, no one is saying these men should be killed.

 

No insult, but please take what I am going to say with the same level of acceptance and tolerance. I am fully aware of the terminology used, but what you might not be really aware of is that people have the right to express their ideas using analogy models.

 

A decision to terminate someone's career is a capital punishment by all means. The body might be still be alive but the soul and autonomy of an individual are dead.

 

Lynching has a historical background, but that doesn't limit its usage which can be extrapolated on similar models if "similar" (i.e. not identical) principles are established.

 

Also, the University's anti-harassment policy and the Charter of Human Rights states that all people have the right to a safe work place safe from harassment, etc. Even simple things like jokes and comments are seen as harassment all the time, and should be. It's bullying and disgusting. Even if you believe these men had a right to privacy on fb, the fact is their comments came out and they are not and can not deny them. These women know of the comments, and by both the policy and the Charter have a right to not be forced to face men who have made these disgusted threats and/or jokes in their place of learning.

You see, their "punishment" has much less to do with their actions than it does with the rights of the women in question.

 

That's your opinion, which I completely disagree with but won't necessarily censor by questioning your background in law. If I decided in my private home to hate a certain group of people, the state cannot invade my privacy to lynch me before a human rights tribunal. If an outsider hacked my privacy, s/he is a thief by law, if one of my own family leaked the info, still there was a reasonable expectation of privacy which if not to set me free, would undoubtedly mitigate the circumstances to a great extent.

[cinelli 22184]

the Charter of Human Rights states that all people have the right to a safe work place safe from harassment.

 

Absolutely! There is clear legal obligation and liability regarding harrassment.

If these students had been employees at my workplace they would have been fired already.

 

As an employer the potential for a sexual harrassment suit is too serious. These students have no idea how harshly they would be dealt with in the real world. Someone joking about drugging and raping a coworker...and putting it in writing on the Internet? That is someone I don't want to be responsible for!

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

The Ontario College Of Dentists has requested the name of those 13 members of that Face Book Group that has been in the news, If they graduate they they may not be allowed to practice in the Province of Ontario because of the Code Of Ethics which they may have breached.

[cinelli 22184]

And anybody who thinks they would actually

drug and rape is an idiot.

 

A few months ago a dentist in Winnipeg was convicted of numerous sexual assaults of unconscious boys.

 

It happens. How can you deny it?

[FunAdventures 4501]

Why do people keep referring to the comments as jokes? Did you read it? Do you know the context? Did it clearly state,

 

"So this is a joke... don't take it the wrong way... but you would need to absorb about 20 mL of chloroform in a rag, and cover Suzies mouth and nose for approximately 2-5 minutes (she might try to hold her breath). Make sure there's nothing around where she will hit her head, that b*ch will fall hard. She should be out for approximately 15-20 minutes..... What a laugh!"

 

How is this funny? You do know they described how to do it right? You do know that chloroform is a very accessible chemical? This scenario is easily accomplished.

 

You only assume that it was said in a joking manner because the 'shock value' of the comments is so great, that surely the person could not have been serious?!

 

What if they were serious?

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

FunAdventures, you asked me two questions:

 

Yes, our access to the facts is very limited. Under those circumstances, the two main possibilities are either a punch of guys joking in their locker room or a punch of criminals contemplating serious crimes. If there were reasonable grounds for the latter, the police must step in, this is beyond a school's manual of conduct. So far, no criminal investigation was triggered, so the presumption of innocence prevails uncontested.

 

Yes, I expect my privacy rights to be protected in accordance with the law, and not to be deprived from them except under the narrow circumstances permissible. It is my contract with the state. Are you aware that many crimes are thrown in the garbage because the police fails to respect the privacy rights of individuals. Might sound unfair at the first glance, but it is fair if one is to consider the big picture.

[newboy 4919]

I wonder if aliens on other planets carry on in this manner?

 

If they have found a way to live in harmony, perhaps they could pass it on to the human race.

 

We have been trying for thousands of years, and cannot get it right yet.

[Guest *l**e]

Jane,

I understand you have the right to use any analogy you want, I was stating that I think the use of those particular terms in this case might be why several people are disagreeing with your choice of words. The way you are employing them could be construed as a vast exaggeration of the original meanings by some and therefore give people cause to disagree.

 

As for my experience in law, I was formerly a executive member of a very large union and a grievance officer. I have courses in Human Rights Legislation and have been involved deeply in a great many Human Rights arbitrations. You can disagree all you like, but the Legislation and jurisprudence is clear.

 

As for privacy rights, that is also clear. You are half right. If a member of law enforcement or something equitable were to have seeked out this information via hack, bug, or any other covert means without warrant, this would be a clear breach. It would mean no legal action could be taken against them. That said, they could still be suspended by the University, and the College of Physicians could still refuse to license them.

 

In this case it was one of the insiders (a snitch as you called him) freely gave up the info. You have absolutely no expectation of privacy from a person you have freely spoken in front of, no matter the situation. For instance, if you tell me you're going to commit a crime and I tell the cops, there has been no breach of your privacy. The same holds true of these men. They said terrible things, and one of the involved individuals "snitched". They have no expectation of privacy in this case because this individual is knowingly telling of something of which he has first hand knowledge.

 

Once the inflammatory statements are out there, the targets have the right to protection from the perpetrators. There is no question here at all. There likely will be no legal action because they have not done anything that is actually illegal. Cops/lawyers will sort that out. But even without legal action, the University and College of Physicians (a self regulating body) may decide these guys have breached code and decide not to let them back.

[roamingguy 300292]

Again to reiterate, no one I believe is talking about criminal sanctions. The sanctions are administrative in nature (ie The Code Of Student Conduct)

And this is not a lynching, no one is dragging these thirteen students out to a tree, and hanging them. If you want to call this a lynching be very clear then, students are to read the Code Of Student Conduct. They would know

this sort of behaviour is not acceptable. If one wants to argue that terminating a person's career is akin to a lynching (I don't agree with this btw) then these students would be the cause (their careers haven't been terminated yet) of their careers being terminated.

They knew of the Code Of Student Conduct yet chose to form a FB group to discus hate sex (rape) of some female students, a clear violation of the Code Of Student Conduct. So if one wants to argue they were lynched, didn't they really lynch themselves, or career suicide. They chose to put a hateful FB group membership ahead of becoming professionals. And as such they were the makers of their own demise

 

RG

[Guest Miss Jane TG]

I am a prostitute, a member of the trans folks community, barely understand English as a language, with a questionable IQ, but with all of the above disqualification, I can simply refute most of what is beings said by the logic of a simple lay person, because in all honesty there doesn't appear to be any glimpse of sophisticated faculties on the other side of the argument:

 

If the information leaked amounts to a crime on a reasonable ground, and the police until this stage is sitting and wondering, they are simply condoning the whole situation. So please, who ever scream the word crime, either refer us the basis of this position or at least tag as science fiction, at least until some stage where the probabilities shift to that side.

 

The Code of Conduct, are you even serious? you want to substitute an allegedly criminal behavior by a discipline before a punch of wimpy professors in a school where their maximum fart is to expel a student.

 

It is illogical to claim criminal acts and then settle for a discipline by a school!