Oxford Union president rape allegations - alumni open letter

[FairPhyllis]

The president of the Oxford Union (which is a debating society at Oxford), Ben Sullivan, is currently being investigated over allegations of rape and attempted rape of two undergraduates at the university. He is refusing to resign or suspend his presidency. Speakers are beginning to pull out of events.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10845979/Oxford-Union-boycott-after-president-returns-despite-police-investigation-into-rape-allegations.html

If you are a member of the university or an Oxford alumna/us, and feel strongly about the minimisation of rape and sexual assault "on campus" there is an open letter you can sign here calling for Sullivan to step aside while under investigation. It is organised by the OUSU VP (Women) and other students.

It was a public (student) position - elected by the public (well, the students), so those same students telling them that they felt he should step down does seem appropriate, rather than bullying.

bullying?

really?

basically, he's being asked to do the decent thing

not forced
not harangued
not hung drawn & quartered

he'd be back now in his former position, seeing as how no charges were brought, only now people would see he's a decent guy

for all those saying Mud Sticks - well, it need not. If you could trust the legal system to put rapists in jail, instead of just 2%, there'd be an easy riposte to any mudslinging wouldn't there?

for all those saying Mud Sticks - well, it need not

It does. You cannot get around that.

please, you don't seem particularly to care about the 'mud' flung at women, only at men.

Why is that?

You asked. He refused.
He didnt get charged. Business as normal.

I dont call a petition politely asking.

don't you?

should all the people who signed that petition have written individually to politely ask?
or called to his office door?

that would be way worse

I most certainly do care about mud flung at women. Are you talking about Annabel Karmel/ I have already mentioned her.
I care equally about both. Neither is more important. There is no distinction.

there is a distinction, unfortunately

You cannot get round that, either

Mmm, if you say so, please. Dunno who Annabel Karmel is, but you've been remarkably silent about the insults to women on this thread.

I thought annabel karmel was the baby food maker

So she is, I've just googled. So far as I can see she'd never been mentioned on this thread previously.

My post. Sunday 19.58

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665074/I-just-wanted-curl-never-Celebrity-chef-Annabel-Karmel-reveals-torment-false-claims-pestered-employee-sex.html

I would have thought that you would have heard of what happened to her. Not read much of it tbh, but I care just as much what happened to her. I am surprised you havent referred to it tbh.

Oh. I didn't understand that post, to be honest.

No, never heard of her at all. It sounds pretty unpleasant.

Indeed it does

I must've missed the thread about it on here.

poor thing

In your eyes, she should have stepped aside, shouldnt she.

you can hardly step aside from your own company can you? I don't know how that works. She's not funded by public money either so I suppose the case is less strong

I don't know how it would work either, but yes, in principle.

But I think you are discounting the realities here.

The reasons why he should have stepped aside, in my view, are:

1. It would have shown respect to rape survivors (so, similar to AK).

2. It is a hobby of his, which should be less important than those rape survivors' feelings.

3. He was actively damaging the Union by staying - not only by trying to use their money to pay his legal fees, but because speakers were cancelling. People within the Union felt this wasn't ok.

I don't see why you think it'd be different for AK? Do you mean, because she's a woman and rape/sexual assault is a gendered issue? I know that this is true, but I don't think it should change principles, do you?

larry it isn't disingenuous at all. Merely identifying a problem. What we do need both at a societal and indeed legal level is that any potential victim is credible. If I am assaulted and my nose is broken and I have a black eye, people are under no illusions I have suffered something and will tend to be sympathetic, compassionate and supportive. Also whilst I might accuse someone other than the perpetrator how often does that realistically happen?

Not so with many rapes as there is frequently no outward visible signs. So unlike many other violent crime we often fall at the first hurdle of establishing if a crime has even taken place. I might indeed take your position, but the psychological effects I am afraid are all too real.

If we treated the psychological effects the same as obvious physical ones (which sounds like what happened in the case of your jury duty). Then it is easier to establish that a crime has occurred. Then the Defence has a harder job. This is not the most likely outcome.

Now we can be more generous towards establishing wether a woman is suffering the effects of a rape in terms of treatment and counselling. Why can't we in terms of the law and public opinion?

My point is essentially more weight should be given to the psychological effects of rape, as in cases where the accused admits to sexual contact with the victim, and the victim is suffering the effects of rape it doesn't take King Solomon himself to work out beyond all reasonable doubt what had happened.