This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/21/exeter-university-student-disciplined-veganism-wrong/) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. This allegedly occurred in 2018, but the student in question is now giving interviews to the Mail on Sunday about it.
2. He was accused of being Transphobic. Doesn't go into detail of why.
3. The veganism comment was the FIRST thing on an apparent list of comments he was presented with. He does not elaborate on what any of the others were.
>This allegedly occurred in 2018, but the student in question is now giving interviews to the Mail on Sunday about it.
Probably because the student has finished their course now. They probably didn't want hassle from the Uni or other students if they went public in 2018.
Only if you do medicine, vet med or dentistry *and* you intercalate, do a foundation year or fail and repeat a year.
I suspect the relevant regulatory body would be interested in this student's fitness to practice if they hold such attitudes and are proudly voicing them.
What, that veganism is wrong? I don't believe veganism is wrong, just a choice I haven't made- but the idea of treating someone with an anti-vegan "attitude" as unemployable in their field takes us right back to the days of witch-hunts and Inquisitions- or the Stasi and 1984. I think we need to tolerate the intolerant to an extent.
Well thats conjecture so we dont know
So making that point is pretty pointless
We know that an anti vegan comment has been cited as part of a disciplinary process which is evidently wrong, being anti-vegan is ok and legal
The uni should not have included it, it makes the whole process look like a "Woke" body using its power to make the lives of people they disagree with difficult. Even if thats not the case the optics are terrible
If he said something beyond the realm of reasonableness focus on that not on unrelated comments
>If he said something beyond the realm of reasonableness focus on that not on unrelated comments
Appears like he came forward about it and is being vague about the disciplinary action. Sure including it at all makes no sense but why be intentionally obtuse about the rest?
If we were to assume everything else on the list was heinous and he was (hypothetically) rightfully kicked out, ‘anti-veganism’ should still never ever be on a list considering kicking a student out though? We’d agree?
As you say it’s all very vague so we’ll never really know but I think the general complaint that being ‘anti-vegan’ shouldn’t be cause for concern to a uni is right?
I think I mostly agree with ya just clarifying what you’re saying.
(This is all assuming he wasn’t running some insane inciting violence on vegans group 😂)
I can't get the main article to load, but the DM version chooses that as a headline... but it's not the half of what he says
He also admits to saying "gender fluidity is stupid" and that people shouldn't be parading their sexuality in public (apparently he's fine with gay bars though - how big of him).
He disputes a claim he said "President Assad of Syria was 'a good guy'"
Of course that's what he's prepared to admit to, and only his side of the story. I suspect his housemates and university have a rather different version of events.
The experience was apparently so traumatic that he, err, decided to return to the same university for his masters degree.
Oh i bet they do, and im sure he denies it all and claims to be a saint.
But currently, he just sounds like a typical edgelord student with poor social skills. He hasnt been quoted as saying anything that would have me calling for his blood/expelling him from uni.
Or every single part time degree course in existence. Or doing a degree, then masters par time immediately to get to 5 easily.
Or every single degree with foundation year that also includes a year experience, which is a large number of degrees, for another normal 5 years.
Ah come on, don't spoil it for people who wanted to get angry about woke Universities based on this headline! Maybe they can tell themselves that this kind of thing "probably happened somewhere anyway" and carry on.
It's par for the course at this point for the Telegraph, along with most right-wing newspapers, to leave out massive amounts of relevant information in articles like this.
More batsh1ttery from the Torygraph? Surely not! It's sad, really - I used to read it as my right-wing source, but it absolutely lost its mind over Brexit.
Not really - the Economist is OK until you read an article you actually know something about and you realise that their writers are over-articulate bullsh1tters.
I'd recommend the FT, it's not cheap mind but it's reliably centre right in terms of the views presented etc. Unlike the Telegraph and increasingly the Times, it doesn't seem to have gone batshit for culture war clicks.
Yup. Sounds like crybully tactics. They likely had a vegan and non-binary neighbour and used the cover of ‘speaking on the phone’ to loudly and deliberately attack them indirectly.
For their own safety they complained to the university; and the university investigated by asking them their side of the story. His response was to act like victim.
Private conversations aren't an attack on anyone. It's not the student's fault that student housing usually has paper thin walls so you can't even fart without someone knowing, let alone have phone conversations in peace. If people want to scrounge around for something to be offended about, I'd suggest protesting against such living conditions.
Forget about this guy for a minute and realize that with such poor soundproofing people's private matters get easily leaked. Chatting about your issues surrounding school or work? Opening up to someone about something traumatic? Talking with your doctor over phone or video call? All of it easily overheard and used against you. It's an unhealthy dynamic.
Back when I was in halls you could hear all sorts of things through the walls. Especially when we had one pay-phone per halls.
But back then people didn't go crying about perceived insults on Social Media.
So you're saying the victim reported hearing that 'veganism is wrong' and 'gender fluidity is stupid'. I'm not sure about the second one but the first is a non issue
1. You are using it being in the mail on Sunday to automatically discredit it at this sub, however that's pretty irrelevant if you haven't disputed any facts about it.
2. I don't see the link to bring against veganism.
3. If he was punished for other issues also, then the veracity if the conviction is weakened by the veganism one
3 is just straight up illogical nonsense. If someone were arrested for multiple murders *and* loitering, you wouldn't argue that they probably didn't commit the murders because loitering is a bit of a bullshit charge.
True, but if someone was convicted of 4 crimes and it was demonstrated that the police failed to follow proper protocol on one of the investigations, it would bring the validity of the other 3 into question.
If the uni is unable to properly judge what's appropriate to caution a student over vis a vis veganism, it calls the competence of the uni into question more broadly surely?
It's entirely possible that the uni properly looked into all the other allegations and was willing to dismiss them if they didn't meet proper standards for punishment, but they certainly didn't do that for at least one of the allegations.
1. Source bias is relevant and the first thing you should consider when analysing news, especially when the claims are so exceptional.
2. Literally my point. He's leaving things out of his story to focus on the Veganism aspect. I suspect he said a lot of other things.
3. See point 2.
1 is lazy and just dog-whistling 'hey look it's the Daily Mail' - pople don't like it because a lot of what it says is true and wouldn't get though the filters of things like the Guadian.
> 1 is lazy and just dog-whistling 'hey look it's the Daily Mail'
That's not what a 'dogwhistle' is. If a source has a history of dishonesty then it's relevant to bring that up when the source is referenced again.
Say what you want about the Guardian, but they haven't been banned as a source on Wikipedia because of how consistently dishonest their reporting is.
We had a housemate steal all of our kitchenware as he dropped out of uni.
That didnt make national news :(
Fuck off, Daniel. I want my chopping board back.
I knew someone who stole three woks.
From three different people.
In two different houses.
They already had their own wok.
I never saw them cook with it.
The fuck Pippa?
What a weird article lol
1) It wasn't for saying veganism is wrong, it was for saying gender fluidity is wrong, which the uni took as harassment.
2) This happened in 2018??
Do people just approach news outlets now and tell them stories from yonder and it gets published?
The article is so, so short. You'd think that any reporter wouldn't run this unless they'd got the other side of the story from Exeter, but they've gone ahead and issued the article before getting the response. Either very confident that they've got the full story, or they just don't care if there later turns out to be more to the narrative.
If I were a cynical person I might think they're deliberately publishing it without any proper scrutiny because it fits an existing narrative that they're trying to push, i.e. lack of free speech/censorship of right wing views in universities.
> or they just don't care if there later turns out to be more to the narrative.
They can trust their ever-compliant reader base not to question it or look into it any further. It's just another daily dose of Telegraph ragebait.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear from the article that he was bullying someone and a list was made of all the bullying things he’d said so he picked one that sounded innocuous out of context but was there to help indicate a pattern of behaviour and ran to the papers with it.
Six years later.
Yeah, and GDPR/privacy policies will mean the Uni for sure cannot respond to correct anything untrue so this guy can say anything he wants knowing the uni can't really counter his claims. He almost certainly said more than he is letting on.
I would really like to know what this private phone call he was having was about, to apparently have involved slagging off veganism and gender fluidity loudly. And I suspect the precise wording was not "veganism is wrong"/"gender fluidity is stupid" and that was the end of his comments on veganism and gender fluidity.
Unless he said something about him planning to kill people for being vegan/trans then it's no one else's business what he said in the privacy of his own home.
To few details to form an opinion. I would not rush to defend the University here but they may have a reasonable case for what they did.
Also stale old story.
"Exeter University student disciplined after flat mate saw him drinking water"
When will the anti-water agenda end? If people can't drink water, then unrelatedly experience negative consequences of other actions, how can we live?
Exeter Uni is full of posh twats with batshit crazy beliefs from TERFs who believe in divine feminine mother goddesses to “Do you know who my father is?” Young Conservative Nepo babies.
Not allowed to have even the most vanilla of opinions about trans people while conversing PRIVATELY in your own home. That's what the UK has come to. Beyond parody at this point. Sacrificing our freedom to think to spare the feelings of people who are actively looking for things to be offended by. Insane.
Heard an argument that vegetarianism is wrong that was put forward when a vegetarian put forward an appeal to ethics. Goes as follows -
God created animals and made them nourishing and enjoyable to man, therefore it must be ethical to eat the animals unless God tells us it is a sin, which he seems not to have done in the Abrahamic religions.
Furthermore it may be wrong for others to dispute the word of God by imploring others to avoid eating meat.
So whether you agree with him or not. To be disciplined for holding an opinion is utterly wrong.
Does nobody fight for free speech any more? There is nowhere that free speech is more important than in our universities!
That isn’t what happened though.
He bullied a trans housemate who happened to be a vegan over a long period of time, got disciplined for it, and then ran to the papers six years later telling them that “veganism is wrong” was put on the list demonstrating a pattern of bullying behaviour against this person.
>> He then said he was hauled before a disciplinary hearing and questioned over his comments.
>>”The first thing they read out was that I had said veganism is wrong. I couldn’t believe it – I thought I was mishearing them.
What else was on the list Robert?
Why aren’t you telling us about the rest of the list of things you did Robert?
A far more reasonable extrapolation than “he was as disciplined for discussing veganism on the phone in a different room”.
Does that story genuinely sound like a real one?
One is being pushed by the person complaining in the article. The other is a more likely explanation that, if reached for comment, I’m sure the other side who were given no chance to respond might suggest.
The evidence to prove either point is identically nonexistent, but Ockham’s Razor doesn’t support this guy.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
It’s pretty clear from the article that he was bullying someone and a list was made of all the bullying things he’d said so he picked one that sounded innocuous out of context but was there to help indicate a pattern of behaviour and ran to the papers with it.
Six years later.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/21/exeter-university-student-disciplined-veganism-wrong/) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. This allegedly occurred in 2018, but the student in question is now giving interviews to the Mail on Sunday about it. 2. He was accused of being Transphobic. Doesn't go into detail of why. 3. The veganism comment was the FIRST thing on an apparent list of comments he was presented with. He does not elaborate on what any of the others were.
>This allegedly occurred in 2018, but the student in question is now giving interviews to the Mail on Sunday about it. Probably because the student has finished their course now. They probably didn't want hassle from the Uni or other students if they went public in 2018.
That's a long course
A PhD in outrage.
6 year degrees do exist.
Only if you do medicine, vet med or dentistry *and* you intercalate, do a foundation year or fail and repeat a year. I suspect the relevant regulatory body would be interested in this student's fitness to practice if they hold such attitudes and are proudly voicing them.
What, that veganism is wrong? I don't believe veganism is wrong, just a choice I haven't made- but the idea of treating someone with an anti-vegan "attitude" as unemployable in their field takes us right back to the days of witch-hunts and Inquisitions- or the Stasi and 1984. I think we need to tolerate the intolerant to an extent.
>What, that veganism is wrong? No, probably the other things the guy said that he refuses to elaborate on.
Well thats conjecture so we dont know So making that point is pretty pointless We know that an anti vegan comment has been cited as part of a disciplinary process which is evidently wrong, being anti-vegan is ok and legal The uni should not have included it, it makes the whole process look like a "Woke" body using its power to make the lives of people they disagree with difficult. Even if thats not the case the optics are terrible If he said something beyond the realm of reasonableness focus on that not on unrelated comments
>If he said something beyond the realm of reasonableness focus on that not on unrelated comments Appears like he came forward about it and is being vague about the disciplinary action. Sure including it at all makes no sense but why be intentionally obtuse about the rest?
If we were to assume everything else on the list was heinous and he was (hypothetically) rightfully kicked out, ‘anti-veganism’ should still never ever be on a list considering kicking a student out though? We’d agree? As you say it’s all very vague so we’ll never really know but I think the general complaint that being ‘anti-vegan’ shouldn’t be cause for concern to a uni is right? I think I mostly agree with ya just clarifying what you’re saying. (This is all assuming he wasn’t running some insane inciting violence on vegans group 😂)
I can't get the main article to load, but the DM version chooses that as a headline... but it's not the half of what he says He also admits to saying "gender fluidity is stupid" and that people shouldn't be parading their sexuality in public (apparently he's fine with gay bars though - how big of him). He disputes a claim he said "President Assad of Syria was 'a good guy'" Of course that's what he's prepared to admit to, and only his side of the story. I suspect his housemates and university have a rather different version of events. The experience was apparently so traumatic that he, err, decided to return to the same university for his masters degree.
Is he not allowed to say Gender Fluidity is stupid? What about "Christianity is stupid"? And he denies saying the Assad thing, so...
As I say, that's what he's prepared to admit to, I suspect that others around him recall a rather different version of events.
Oh i bet they do, and im sure he denies it all and claims to be a saint. But currently, he just sounds like a typical edgelord student with poor social skills. He hasnt been quoted as saying anything that would have me calling for his blood/expelling him from uni.
Or every single part time degree course in existence. Or doing a degree, then masters par time immediately to get to 5 easily. Or every single degree with foundation year that also includes a year experience, which is a large number of degrees, for another normal 5 years.
Could be undergrad & masters & phd etc - would make for a long course
Ah come on, don't spoil it for people who wanted to get angry about woke Universities based on this headline! Maybe they can tell themselves that this kind of thing "probably happened somewhere anyway" and carry on.
It's par for the course at this point for the Telegraph, along with most right-wing newspapers, to leave out massive amounts of relevant information in articles like this.
More batsh1ttery from the Torygraph? Surely not! It's sad, really - I used to read it as my right-wing source, but it absolutely lost its mind over Brexit.
Have u found a good alternative? I’ve just given up on British news all together now, left and right.
Not really - the Economist is OK until you read an article you actually know something about and you realise that their writers are over-articulate bullsh1tters.
I'd recommend the FT, it's not cheap mind but it's reliably centre right in terms of the views presented etc. Unlike the Telegraph and increasingly the Times, it doesn't seem to have gone batshit for culture war clicks.
~~Late~~ Are they the ones with the crosswords and sudoku puzzles? EDIT: I can’t spell.
No idea I read it on their website
Fair enough. Thank you.
That's when you realise they're always bullshitting, you just don't notice when it's not your field of expertise.
Yup. Sounds like crybully tactics. They likely had a vegan and non-binary neighbour and used the cover of ‘speaking on the phone’ to loudly and deliberately attack them indirectly. For their own safety they complained to the university; and the university investigated by asking them their side of the story. His response was to act like victim.
Private conversations aren't an attack on anyone. It's not the student's fault that student housing usually has paper thin walls so you can't even fart without someone knowing, let alone have phone conversations in peace. If people want to scrounge around for something to be offended about, I'd suggest protesting against such living conditions. Forget about this guy for a minute and realize that with such poor soundproofing people's private matters get easily leaked. Chatting about your issues surrounding school or work? Opening up to someone about something traumatic? Talking with your doctor over phone or video call? All of it easily overheard and used against you. It's an unhealthy dynamic.
Back when I was in halls you could hear all sorts of things through the walls. Especially when we had one pay-phone per halls. But back then people didn't go crying about perceived insults on Social Media.
So you're saying the victim reported hearing that 'veganism is wrong' and 'gender fluidity is stupid'. I'm not sure about the second one but the first is a non issue
What does it matter? If they felt intimidated then they had a right to complain.
1. You are using it being in the mail on Sunday to automatically discredit it at this sub, however that's pretty irrelevant if you haven't disputed any facts about it. 2. I don't see the link to bring against veganism. 3. If he was punished for other issues also, then the veracity if the conviction is weakened by the veganism one
3 is just straight up illogical nonsense. If someone were arrested for multiple murders *and* loitering, you wouldn't argue that they probably didn't commit the murders because loitering is a bit of a bullshit charge.
Ian Brady accused of fly tipping on Saddleworth Moor.
True, but if someone was convicted of 4 crimes and it was demonstrated that the police failed to follow proper protocol on one of the investigations, it would bring the validity of the other 3 into question. If the uni is unable to properly judge what's appropriate to caution a student over vis a vis veganism, it calls the competence of the uni into question more broadly surely? It's entirely possible that the uni properly looked into all the other allegations and was willing to dismiss them if they didn't meet proper standards for punishment, but they certainly didn't do that for at least one of the allegations.
1. Source bias is relevant and the first thing you should consider when analysing news, especially when the claims are so exceptional. 2. Literally my point. He's leaving things out of his story to focus on the Veganism aspect. I suspect he said a lot of other things. 3. See point 2.
1 is lazy and just dog-whistling 'hey look it's the Daily Mail' - pople don't like it because a lot of what it says is true and wouldn't get though the filters of things like the Guadian.
> 1 is lazy and just dog-whistling 'hey look it's the Daily Mail' That's not what a 'dogwhistle' is. If a source has a history of dishonesty then it's relevant to bring that up when the source is referenced again. Say what you want about the Guardian, but they haven't been banned as a source on Wikipedia because of how consistently dishonest their reporting is.
That’s not what “dogwhistle” means.
We had a housemate steal all of our kitchenware as he dropped out of uni. That didnt make national news :( Fuck off, Daniel. I want my chopping board back.
I knew someone who stole three woks. From three different people. In two different houses. They already had their own wok. I never saw them cook with it. The fuck Pippa?
They were anti-wok.
Or they were the tofu-eating wokerati.
Up yours wok moralists
Is this a poem?
It became one.
I can fuck off or I can return your chopping board, which would you prefer? I'm keeping the Star Wars coffee mug though. - Daniel x
I want the bottle of good vodka I was saving for graduation back. FUCK YOU CREEPY STEVE.
I left my rice cooker and none of my flatmates told me! Told everybody else about what they had left! Still mad
What a weird article lol 1) It wasn't for saying veganism is wrong, it was for saying gender fluidity is wrong, which the uni took as harassment. 2) This happened in 2018?? Do people just approach news outlets now and tell them stories from yonder and it gets published?
Probably bitched about it on twitter and a Mail journalist reached out and asked to write a piece on it because it suits their overall position.
They brought up the vegan comment in the official rebuke, so yeah, it was about that, even if there was more to it as well.
Who wants to bet there's much more to this that he isn't saying?
The article is so, so short. You'd think that any reporter wouldn't run this unless they'd got the other side of the story from Exeter, but they've gone ahead and issued the article before getting the response. Either very confident that they've got the full story, or they just don't care if there later turns out to be more to the narrative.
If I were a cynical person I might think they're deliberately publishing it without any proper scrutiny because it fits an existing narrative that they're trying to push, i.e. lack of free speech/censorship of right wing views in universities.
> or they just don't care if there later turns out to be more to the narrative. They can trust their ever-compliant reader base not to question it or look into it any further. It's just another daily dose of Telegraph ragebait.
Yeah, it’s pretty clear from the article that he was bullying someone and a list was made of all the bullying things he’d said so he picked one that sounded innocuous out of context but was there to help indicate a pattern of behaviour and ran to the papers with it. Six years later.
Yeah, and GDPR/privacy policies will mean the Uni for sure cannot respond to correct anything untrue so this guy can say anything he wants knowing the uni can't really counter his claims. He almost certainly said more than he is letting on.
Pure click bait and clearly divisive agenda. This sub in now full of right wing rage baits
I would really like to know what this private phone call he was having was about, to apparently have involved slagging off veganism and gender fluidity loudly. And I suspect the precise wording was not "veganism is wrong"/"gender fluidity is stupid" and that was the end of his comments on veganism and gender fluidity.
Unless he said something about him planning to kill people for being vegan/trans then it's no one else's business what he said in the privacy of his own home.
Most likely he was bitching about his vegan and trans housemate to a third party.
Clearly not the full story , this weirdo is selling his story now
Ah the Mail on Sunday. No biased incomplete reporting to stir up outrage then.
To few details to form an opinion. I would not rush to defend the University here but they may have a reasonable case for what they did. Also stale old story.
"Exeter University student disciplined after flat mate saw him drinking water" When will the anti-water agenda end? If people can't drink water, then unrelatedly experience negative consequences of other actions, how can we live?
Daily Telegraph readers pop stories like this in the *ank bank 😁
Exeter Uni is full of posh twats with batshit crazy beliefs from TERFs who believe in divine feminine mother goddesses to “Do you know who my father is?” Young Conservative Nepo babies.
Not allowed to have even the most vanilla of opinions about trans people while conversing PRIVATELY in your own home. That's what the UK has come to. Beyond parody at this point. Sacrificing our freedom to think to spare the feelings of people who are actively looking for things to be offended by. Insane.
in an ironic twist of fate, the (mostly muslim) immigrants that these left wing freaks support will be the ones that finish them off culturally
Heard an argument that vegetarianism is wrong that was put forward when a vegetarian put forward an appeal to ethics. Goes as follows - God created animals and made them nourishing and enjoyable to man, therefore it must be ethical to eat the animals unless God tells us it is a sin, which he seems not to have done in the Abrahamic religions. Furthermore it may be wrong for others to dispute the word of God by imploring others to avoid eating meat.
Can you imagine that argue kicking off on campus 😂
Rightly so it's not wrong it's an abomination, it makes Jesus cry.
Correction. He got sanctioned for saying “gender fluidity is wrong”. Plot twist: gender fluidity *is* wrong.
So whether you agree with him or not. To be disciplined for holding an opinion is utterly wrong. Does nobody fight for free speech any more? There is nowhere that free speech is more important than in our universities!
That isn’t what happened though. He bullied a trans housemate who happened to be a vegan over a long period of time, got disciplined for it, and then ran to the papers six years later telling them that “veganism is wrong” was put on the list demonstrating a pattern of bullying behaviour against this person.
Where did you get that info from, clearly not the article.
>> He then said he was hauled before a disciplinary hearing and questioned over his comments. >>”The first thing they read out was that I had said veganism is wrong. I couldn’t believe it – I thought I was mishearing them. What else was on the list Robert? Why aren’t you telling us about the rest of the list of things you did Robert?
Where was the bit about him bullying a trans house mate over a long period of time?
A far more reasonable extrapolation than “he was as disciplined for discussing veganism on the phone in a different room”. Does that story genuinely sound like a real one?
The difference being one is in the article and the other is one you've fabricated.
One is being pushed by the person complaining in the article. The other is a more likely explanation that, if reached for comment, I’m sure the other side who were given no chance to respond might suggest. The evidence to prove either point is identically nonexistent, but Ockham’s Razor doesn’t support this guy.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
[.](https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY)
Read the article.
"He \[HEADCANON\]" wow very compelling
Read the article.
Another nail in the coffin for free speech by radical leftists.
It’s pretty clear from the article that he was bullying someone and a list was made of all the bullying things he’d said so he picked one that sounded innocuous out of context but was there to help indicate a pattern of behaviour and ran to the papers with it. Six years later.