Bouncer accused of aggression at Warehouse

first_imgBethanie Curry, one of the organisers of Unity week as JCR President at Corpus Christi, commented, “The behaviour of the security staff in this instance was completely unacceptable. There is never a good reason to treat club-goers in this way. I am especially sad since the event was meant to be celebrating the end of a week of solidarity and liberation: it was an event that was meant to be enjoyed by everyone. I am deeply saddened to hear otherwise”. Thames Valley Police declined to comment on the allegations of a “shameless” attempt to win them over, stating, “We regret that Thames Valley Police is unable to respond to complaints and concerns regarding quality of service received by the police through the media.“We take all complaints seriously and require complaints to be made through official channels so that the details and unique circumstances of the individual’s case can be taken into consideration and investigated by our Professional Standards Department.” Warehouse also declined to comment. “It was a shameless and blatant attempt to win over the police so that the report would be marked as a classic incident of drunken youths getting out of hand and being rowdy, rather than an aggressive, unwarranted attack resulting in a serious injury by one of the bouncers.” Bouncers have been accused of using unnecessary force against a student, as well as criticised for their handling of those involved in the incident following the Unity Bop at Warehouse nightclub on Saturday 23rd May. A first year at Pembroke sustained significant facial injuries when he was removed from Warehouse, sparking concern over bouncers’ conduct. Students present were also unhappy with the way the bouncers communicated with them and the police officers on the scene. The Unity Bop ended the joint equalities week across Pembroke, Corpus Christi, Exeter and Trinity colleges. The student told Cherwell, “I was on the dance floor with a friend when I jokingly pushed him. Thinking that I was trying to initiate a fight, the bouncer came from behind and put my hands behind my back to escort me out of the club. Even though my friend and I tried to tell him that he was mistaken, he didn’t listen and proceeded to throw me out in an extremely aggressive man- ner. He didn’t bother to wait for the doorman to fully open the door and rammed my face into the edge of door due to which I got a massive cut on my lip and broke half my front tooth. “This is all extremely frustrating as all of this could’ve been avoided if the bouncer spared ten seconds to hear us out rather [than] chucking me out with unnecessary aggression and causing permanent damage to my face in the process.” After explaining how the pushes exchanged were “obviously a joke”, the other fresher involved in the incident commented, “The bouncers were very unreasonable! The ones that took the student out said nothing and the others were acting as though there was nothing wrong, as- suming the problem was that he was ‘drunk’. Comparatively the police were very good, consulting everyone outside.” center_img The police report from the incident stated, “Enquiries were made and CCTV footage was viewed,” but that eventually “no offence was found to have taken place” and that it appeared the student concerned “had injured himself on a door”.However Yew Loong, also a first-year at Pembroke and eye witness, fervently disagreed with this conclusion.He told Cherwell, “I first saw a bouncer suddenly and violently grab the student by the side, restraining his arms and pulling him away from a group of other Pembroke students. He was not retaliating or protesting and merely asked what he was being pulled out for. The first bouncer did not give any justification for his actions and instead, another bouncer came and again violently grabbed him from the other side. I followed behind him, whilst calling out to the bouncers that he was not violent and that it was a misunderstanding.“The bouncers took no heed and continued dragging him out of the club as quickly as possible whilst restraining him very tightly. Once they reached the door, they did not slow down or loosen their grip on him. He managed to get through the first door without injury, but upon reaching the second door, he was clearly not ready to go to through it. The bouncers’ action would almost certainly cause injury and using force that was not warranted especially considering that the student did not retaliate when the first bouncer grabbed him.”Fresher Niamh Coote commented, “When I questioned one of the bouncers about the CCTV coverage of the area to assess the situation, another bouncer approached me and started asking me lots of quite rude questions such as whether the friend was my boyfriend because he couldn’t understand why I was ‘emotionally down’ about the situation.“He accused me of ‘fabricating’ the situation and accused another friend from College of punching the guy in the face. The bouncer made me feel very uncomfortable with his questioning until eventually we decided to ‘agree to disagree’ and some friends and I walked home. We spoke to another police officer about the situation as we didn’t feel it had been handled well at all and we were not left with much confidence that our friend was being treated fairly.”With regards to the bouncers’ dealings with the Police, Livvy Iller, a first-year Biochemist, told Cherwell, “Two police men walking by saw there had been an incident and walked over. Immediately the ‘head’ bouncer greeted one of them by name, shook his hand, and started chatting away about how they had shared a stint on the force together.last_img read more

Bipartisan bill on sexual harassment signals strong interest by Congress

first_img The new chairperson of and top Republican on the science committee in the U.S. House of Representatives have teamed up to introduce legislation that would require federal research agencies to adopt a common policy on sexual harassment. The bipartisan bill signals that Congress may be ready to address an issue that has roiled the scientific community and generated calls to punish federally funded researchers found guilty of harassment.The legislation (H.R. 36) was introduced last week by Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), the top Democrat on the science panel, and Frank Lucas (OK), the panel’s ranking Republican. It is identical to a bill that Johnson introduced in the fall of 2018. But that proposal was embraced only by Democrats, then in the minority, and it died when the 115th Congress ended.Democrats are now in charge of the House. And although Johnson can set the agenda for her committee, obtaining Lucas’s support suggests she hopes to do more than simply score political points. A bill backed by the panel’s two senior leaders stands a much better chance of moving through the House with the overwhelming support needed to win over the Republican-led Senate and, ultimately, President Donald Trump. By Jeffrey MervisJan. 8, 2019 , 2:40 PM Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Robert Neubecker Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Bipartisan bill on sexual harassment signals strong interest by Congress Johnson calls the bill “an important first step” in making sure women can succeed in science and engineering “without being degraded, harassed, or abused because of their gender.” And she favors taking an approach similar to how the National Science Foundation (NSF) has said it plans to deal with the problem.The NSF policy, announced in 2018, requires grantee institutions to tell the agency whenever they have found an NSF-funded investigator guilty of sexual harassment or put that person on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation. In the past, NSF and other federal agencies have been caught by surprise by media reports that grantees are being investigated for alleged sexual harassment.Johnson’s bill directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to come up with “a uniform set of policy guidelines” that research agencies would follow in monitoring the activities of grantees. And it says those new guidelines “shall include” the two reporting requirements that NSF has adopted.No other federal agency has gone as far as NSF. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, has been under intense pressure from Congress and some outside groups to take a firmer stance against sexual harassment by its grantees. But NIH Director Francis Collins has said the agency faces “legal constraints” on its oversight authority that don’t apply to NSF. Although the science committee doesn’t have jurisdiction over NIH, Johnson sees her bill as a way to remove such hurdles and speed up that process.The legislation is silent on how federal agencies should use the information they receive from institutions. Representative Jackie Speier (D–CA), a leading voice on the issue, plans to reintroduce a bill she wrote in 2016 that would have required agencies to consider any finding of sexual harassment against a researcher in deciding whether to award them a grant. But Speier has also signed on to Johnson’s bill.H.R. 36 would give NSF the authority to spend $17 million on research to investigate “the factors contributing to, and consequences of, sexual harassment” and to support “interventions to reduce the incidence and negative consequences of such harassment.” It suggests one of the possible topics could be “alternatives to the hierarchical and dependent relationships in academia that have been shown to create higher levels of risk for sexual harassment.” The bill also calls for a survey of the impact of the problem in U.S. higher education and suggests that OSTP ask the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to update its guide to responsible conduct in research.last_img read more