Students thrown off course for throwing a party.

[Cotbedy]

Basically, a load of students held a party of around 16/17 people. They got reported, they all got a £400 fine, apart from the host who got a £10,000 fine.

Then their Uni kicked them all off their courses for bringing the Uni into disrepute.

I think this is probably a fair and reasonable punishment, but DP thinks the Uni have gone too far and they're being unfair.

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on the matter! Fair or unreasonable?

What about the students who were fined £10,000 but then the police cancelled the fine because they got it wrong?

I am trying to see which university this was and more about where the party was.

Universities might have charged the government before but now they are charging individuals and need to change their contract accordingly.

I am trying to see which university this was and more about where the party was.

Portsmouth. In the uni halls.

sparkling we’ll police and other prosecution agencies often use discretion and issue cautions etc but where that’s not an option, no, there is criminal responsibility. Obviously if someone Yung does something then age is very powerful mitigation. Youth sentencing is different with different aims. Rehabilitation plays greater part than punishment etc.

Universities might have charged the government before but now they are charging individuals and need to change their contract accordingly.

What, to allow students to break the law on their premises with impunity? Regardless of how other students in halls might feel about that?

Once universities started to charge for their services then they eliminated their power to remove people for things they don’t like or might not be in the spirit of the university.

Sorry, but you're talking out of your arse. Whether you like it or not, universities can and do terminate students' studies for a whole range of reasons. The fact that students pay fees does not change this. They still have to abide by the university regulations that they have agreed to as part of the contract.

I think it’s complete over reaction. These poor kids have had their uni experience and a whole year of their life taken from them and now the rest of their lives is in jeopardy because of a small gathering. It wasn’t a rave of hundreds.

The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed until 25. So they're more at risk of making stupid decisions

That is broadly true - but it doesn't give students carte blanche to do whatever they wish. I would have thought we were past the stage of 'boys will be boys; they're just sowing their wild oats; etc'. Most students do NOT hold parties in pandemics.

If it were ONCE, I might be more ready to excuse it as just impulsiveness and lack of thought. Doing it repeatedly implies deliberate disrespect for the rules; for other university members (including at-risk 50+ lecturers, domestic staff, and mature students, as well as healthy 20-year-olds); and neighbours in the community.

But fish when we have people who haven’t been able to see relatives before they’ve died or gone to funerals or seen family for nearly a year etc etc I’ve got absolutely no sympathy for second party after a warning. It really is grotesque selfishness. Absolutely understand they’re young and it’s not as culpable as older adult but it’s really selfish entitled or isn’t it ?? After one warning for the same thing.

Edge hill uni? www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-lancashire-55916151

@FishWithoutABike

I think it’s complete over reaction. These poor kids have had their uni experience and a whole year of their life taken from them and now the rest of their lives is in jeopardy because of a small gathering. It wasn’t a rave of hundreds.

And many have had their lives taken by the virus. Simply no comparison.

Numbers don’t matter. If the law was broken then people have to be face the consequences, if old enough to live independently then old enough to understand the rules.

@EdgedInBlue

It's completely right - the rule breaking doesn't just affect the students, it has the potential to kill people. I live in a small University town - from March to September last year we had just five cases in total, none of them fatal. Then the students return and within a month we had more than 100 cases. Since then we've also had several deaths. And yet I saw parents on here talking of ways to get round the lockdown rules and moaning about "unfriendly" locals who were understandably annoyed at the rule breaking. It's infuriating quite frankly.

Everytime someone gets in their car they have 'the potential to kill people'

Where is the perspective?

@Sparklingbrook

The rational part of a teen's brain isn't fully developed until 25. So they're more at risk of making stupid decisions

Would that hold up as defence in a court of law? 'My brain is still developing...'

Yes, probably would within reason

@Bythemillpond

I do actually agree that students who are terminated should have their fees refunded on a pro rata basis, ie for the portion of the course that they are no longer permitted to attend. However, the fact that students pay tuition fees doesn't - and shouldn't - give them license to behave however they please

Once universities started to charge for their services then they eliminated their power to remove people for things they don’t like or might not be in the spirit of the university. They became a business and have to adhere to business rules and regulations.
If someone buys something even if that person is the prime suspect in a murder case then the service has to be provided.
I think what people do outside of their on line lectures isn’t relevant.

A contract that has things that might be construed as subjective in there isn’t a great contract and I think could be ripped apart in a court of law

This is such nonsense. A company providing a service is perfectly entitled to place conditions on the recipients of that service. In particular, compliance with laws is usually a fairly basic requirement. The university is perfectly entitled to expect the residents of its halls to comply with the law, and to enforce consequences it they do not.

To give a totally different example - if you pay to go to a strip club, pay for a lap dance, and then start assaulting the dancer, you can (and should) be unceremoniously evicted with no refund. The fact that you have paid for a service does not mean the dancer has to carry on while you assault her. Actions have consequences.

I'm actually shocked at the number of people who think this is unfair, or that grown adults should somehow be immune from suffering the consequences of their actions simply because they're young, and privileged enough to be at university.

I doubt the MN demographic would be quite so forgiving of a law breaking 19 year old in other circumstances...... I imagine "little scrotes" would be the more likely reaction.

They broke the law. They'd been warned. And this wasn't irrelevant to the university, given that the university owns the halls and employs the support staff who look after the halls. Why should ancillary staff be expected to put themselves at risk of Covid by having to come into contact with entitled middle class kids who can't obey the law?

@ReceptacleForTheRespectable

They broke the law. They'd been warned. And this wasn't irrelevant to the university, given that the university owns the halls and employs the support staff who look after the halls. Why should ancillary staff be expected to put themselves at risk of Covid by having to come into contact with entitled middle class kids who can't obey the law?

This is very silly.

Since when have all students been "entitled middle class kids"? I think there are plenty of "entitled' people who have never set foot in a university.

I just don't believe that students should be penalised more than anyone else who breaks the stupid, arbitrary rules.

They will have entered into a contract, which they broke the terms of. Tough.

A PP upthread referred to kids without a safety net not doing the sort of thing that would get them a criminal record, and I agree with that. I went to uni from a background where I had no safety net, amd no fucking way would I have jeopardized my place there. So yes, I've assumed that these particular students are entitled middle class kids who know they have a safety net. They were warned and chose to repeat the behaviour. They knew it was illegal, and they knew they were contrvening the terms of their contract with the uni.

I think a fine was enough if this is the first time they have attended a party, if they attended any more afterwards then they should be kicked of their course.
Unfortunately the parties are not just affecting this uni and are happening most nights of the week at lots of universities across the country. Not everybody living in shared residences are friends and why should the actions of some put those students who are following the rules at risk when they then have to share living spaces with them.
University staff are also put at risk dealing with breaking these parties up. As frustrating as the rules can be, they are old enough to face the consequences if they choose to break the rules.

The fact that MNers are so keen to minimise the lawbreaking of students says more about the MN demographic that anything else, I think.

Students who do this aren't living in a vacuum. They are putting at risk all the staff (cleaners etc) who are forced into contact with them. The university employs and owes a duty of care to those staff - why do they matter less than some students who thought they were above the law?

yup

@ReceptacleForTheRespectable

The fact that MNers are so keen to minimise the lawbreaking of students says more about the MN demographic that anything else, I think.

Students who do this aren't living in a vacuum. They are putting at risk all the staff (cleaners etc) who are forced into contact with them. The university employs and owes a duty of care to those staff - why do they matter less than some students who thought they were above the law?

It's quite weird because usually on MN teenagers (especially boys) can't do a thing right, and are all up to no good 24/7. All this they are young/babies haven't got developed brains doesn't generally apply to other situations of possible wrong doing.

Good, they deserve it, selfish people.

Pity unis aren't as concerned about the 'reputational damage' occasioned by many completely failing to provide anything like 'an education' to their fee-paying students....

@Stirmecrazy

This does make me wonder wether Unis would enforce such punishments on their own. If a lecturer was found to be in breach of covid rules would they be out of a job. I wonder I am continually amazed how we talk about students being adults with responsibilities for their actions and yet we have spent the last year controlling all their actions , where they can live, what they can do , when they can leave campus when they can go , the quality or lack of quality of their education. While dictating that they should still pay full price in tuition fees and in some cases accommodation fees. There is no sympathy and if anything this sector of population is continually vilified We have all had restrictions made on our life this last year but I think students are a sector which has been hit most hard with least sympathy.

I entirely agree.

'Adults' when it suits, 'children' when it doesn't.

My fervent hope is that every one of them will remember which political party did this to them, and bear in mind their own parents' attitude....

Remind me whether Dominic Cummings lost his job over his Covid rules breaking?

🤔

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.