osazsky:
u will be arrested in America if u are caught having sex in the public not because of d sex but because u are constituting a nuisance, sex is private,,she shouldn't have done it in public,its public cus anything that gets to the internet is for d public and its free to download I feel for d girl though,thr girl has no business sueing the sch d girls family should sue d mentally unstable guy family for a big compensation cuz he just destroyed her life

She did not have sex in public. You are confusing the Unilag video with Babcock video. She had sex in her boyfriends private hospital room! Tell me again, why she’s being expelled? Don’t you have sex? Huh?

Sue them...

BlueRayDick:


While you may claim Babcock is trying to make their business afloat with the decision to expel, I must say their risk management technique is not well thought-out and will not serve it's purpose if the girl wants to press charges.

1. The school claims she flouted some rules. I believe the school has student's handbook which contains rules and codes that guide the conduct of students while they are undergraduates. Wouldn't it have made much sense if they quoted the page number, paragraph of the particular quote she flouted.

2. The school while trying to save face from tags created by bloggers and other social media platform handlers should know it has a contract with the student. A contract that involves the student abiding by all the rules of the school till the end of her last semester exams after which the school is expected to award her a degree provided she's passed the required number of courses.

3. Expelling the student without properly establishing her offense all in a bid to manage reputational risk will only lead to legal risk. A good risk manager will not manage a risk only for the management technique to trigger the operation of another risk.

4. The expulsion is synonymous to killing a coackroach by dropping a 40foot container on it. Suspending the student or rusticating her for a semester would've done the job. But then most of these private schools that punish students for not attending religious meetings ; I guess they are so used to taking these kind of decisions

studentofTruth:


What's her crime? Having sex outside of the school when on break?

Her privacy was violated. She's obviously a victim. She didn't release the video and didn't sanction the release.

is it the sch that violated her privacy,d girls family should sue d mentally unstable guy family for good compensation,the sch has nothing to do with this,even if d sch didn't rusticated her if it were u will u go back to the sch, ? If she does she go commit suicide before she spends 2 weeks Inside d sch premises,d proper thing to do here iS to take her to a rehab centre for counselling and sue d sch.leave d sch out of this,they have nothing they can do here they did d needful which is d standard around d whole world even in America

oh

unearthed:


Then the girl should be charging the guy to court n not the school

That's true.

Expelling her for having sex outside the school premises when they're on break is a breach of contract. Or is consexual sex between two adults now a crime?

studentofTruth:


What's her crime? Having sex outside of the school when on break?

Her privacy was violated. She's obviously a victim. She didn't release the video and didn't sanction the release.

DID SHE CONSENT TO THE VIDEO PRODUCTION?

OWNERSIP, IS A MASSIVE AREA OF LAW.

OFTEN COMPLICATED.

WEN WE LOOK AT CONTRACT LAW, IT CAN BE IMPLIED, IN AS MUCH AS IT IS EXPRESSLY WRITTEN.

HER ACTIONS SUGGEST THAT SHE IMPLIEDLY CONSENTED TO VIEWING CONSUMPTION.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SHE HAS RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OF CONTENT.

THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE.

unearthed:


Doesn't matter whether she did it or not. It's her face that's there.

Can you even prove that she didn't do it?

No emotions bro but you are obviously not getting my point

Actually it does.

If she did not deliberately seek to associate Babcock with her sexual activity, then she cannot be seen to be bringing Babcock university into disrepute...ergo she can't be expelled

The person who linked Babcock and a sex video is the person that should be punished.

Babcock need to be able to prove in court that woman posted the video and tagged it as a Babcock video, otherwise an average lawyer would eat this case up.

unearthed:


They obviously know very little about what is at play here.

They are simply been emotional about the matter.

Y'all should learn to be objective.

I don't know what they are on about. These decisions are most times not punitive but deterrent. A standard must be set.

If this girl is forgiven, another student repeats it in future...what happens? They forgive too. Then another again. What happens to the standard the school set? Which by the way, is very religious... and against fuckeen

Mynd44:
But imagine if Babcock came out with a press statement saying they will be taking court actions against people who leaked the video and support the lady in question to justice against those who are using it to shame the lady.

Imagine they say although they hold morals in high regard, they also understand that she did it on holidays and they will make sure they set an example of those who are hiding to cause trouble and shame the woman for something that is not a crime.

Not every time try to remove yourself; sometimes shake and break tables. Show support and strength and stand for justice.

Sometimes be remembered for staying on the side of justice instead of triggering your flight emotion

but if they don't, it is still okay. They have a right to protect their name, identity and brand

Why are you running your mouth like a public tap. Why on Earth would the school have to investigate the matter further when this girl voluntarily consented to filming herself having sex? When she was doing it abi she didn't know it could be used against her one day. It's now the video has been released and she's been expelled that she's now suddenly become a victim. At least now the world is able to find out about her hoe nature. Mtchewww.

AfroKnight:


Babcock is not every university. It was established by a religious organisation. If it were a secular/public university, the case would be different.

I don’t know the identity of the actors, you probably don’t know them either but we both know the school which has been trending all day and for an unwholesome reason. We know their school was established not only for secular education, but to promote religious values as well. This video negates the tenets of the religious organisation.

The school authorities did the responsible thing. They must distance themselves from this and be seen to take a firm stand against such conduct. It’s that simple.

Ok.. let's discuss religion for a bit here...

Just like Jesus said in the book of Mark...

He without sin should cast the first stone.

To all ye throwing stones at this students, their action perhaps immoral but not illegal.

Remember Jesus said do not judge!!! Who are we to put on a moral compass when we are sinners.

Again, recall the students are adults, the video was leaked by someone else. The university cannot control the actions of their students.

The CEO of McDonald's recently got fired for having a (consensual) affair with an employee... Poco is total right. An organization reserves the right to terminate anyone that brings them to any form of disrepute in any way.

baby124:

She did not have sex in public. You are confusing the Unilag video with Babcock video. She had sex in her boyfriends private hospital room! Tell me again, why she’s being expelled? Don’t you have sex? Huh?

The thing with ignorance is, it doesn't know how to keep quiet or avoid the spot light, it's always in a rush to live up to its name.

You may need to change your moniker because it shows in your comments.

studentofTruth:


That's true.

Expelling her for having sex outside the school premises when they're on break is a bridge of contract. Or is consexual sex between two adults now a crime?

Your emotional rush is causing a lack of objectivity here.

The school did not expell her for having sex. She was expelled for dragging the name of the school along with it.

If that video had been posted with some other name besides the school name, i bet you no one would have taken notice but now all we know and gossip about is "BABCOCK UNIVERSITY GIRL". That's the image of the school been tarnished bro.

AfroKnight:




Lol. It is not about hypocrisy. Don’t get too emotional. It is about the brand of the school.

I actually wish you’d be able to sue Babcock for breach of contract so we can all have a good laugh, you and the judge included.

If any entity is emotional in this case, it is the school. Expelling a student who you are yet to place Ur hand on the rules he broke in Ur handbook is emotional.

Does it even make sense? So u are saying if the video was tagged "Babcock graduates having sex......", the school will recall their certificates

The school brand is being dragged by bloggers and whoever leaked the video. The video is the girl's private property, not shot with Babcock's camera or on their premises. Na wa ó.

Una Babcock people, una mumu never do?

lahizak:
Where you are wrong is that a school first and foremost supposed to protect the student and either you like it or not the girl is a victim. She may be stupid but she is a victim and as far as we are concerned, she did not break the rules of the school. Sex between adult outside a school is not a crime, is not like she steal or kill someone. A video meant for there eyes that got leaked is a violation of her privacy. And either you like it or not her action have no effect whatsoever on the school.
And how will you compare school institution, a place for teaching and learning to work place that pays you salary. So u saying if you and your guy have sex and stupidly make a video and it got leaked, ur office and any other association you know should disown u. Just 4 making a stupid mistake. Na wa oo

STFU. It's people like you that Even after hearing things like this will still go ahead and make sex tapes.

studentofTruth:


That's true.

Expelling her for having sex outside the school premises when they're on break is a bridge of contract. Or is consexual sex between two adults now a crime?

is not having sex that is d prob,its y did she and her boyfriend release the video to the public,the girl knew she was been recorded,its the image that both of them want to destroy that is d issue,its not easy to build a Good image,,,,no one knows d girl but everyone know backcork, barcork is a human beign she has d power to sue and can be sued too

hammerVJ:


DID SHE CONSENT TO THE VIDEO PRODUCTION?

OWNERSIP, IS A MASSIVE AREA OF LAW.

OFTEN COMPLICATED.

WEN WE LOOK AT CONTRACT LAW, IT CAN BE IMPLIED, IN AS MUCH AS IT IS EXPRESSLY WRITTEN.

HER ACTIONS SUGGEST THAT SHE IMPLIEDLY CONSENTED TO VIEWING CONSUMPTION.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER SHE HAS RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OF CONTENT.

THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE.

viewing consumption of she and her boyfriend — not the public!

baby124:

Several times when Davido was acting clearly against the school rules, he was pointed out as being a Babcock student. Not once did Babcock sanction him. Even Chioma who would have been acting against their so called rules by cohabiting with boyfriend. Not once was she sanctioned. This girl had no hand in naming that sex tape. She only partook in it and maybe naively trusted the wrong person! That was all she did. But she’s being expelled for it! She’s the victim here, not Babcock!

it doesn't matter, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. I think what's most people fails to understand is than Babcock is protecting Babcock probably because one of their selling point is that they are a religiously and high morals institution and not accepting sinners institution.
if they have come out to say the act didn't happen on school premises so it's not our business. maybe you and others seeing their current course of action has wrong may send your children to the school but their target audience might be withdrawing their wards or the may be losing more potential clients because of such action.
I believe they weighed both actions (not doing anything or expelling the culprits of such negative news) and they chose what's best for them

DanXplore:


That there is no law does not mean our actions will not have repercussions.

Her offence is neither tort nor criminal based on the nigerian laws, but it is a breach of the binding terms and conditons of schooling in Babcock and as such, she has been appropriately dealt with to the extent to which her breach of conduct as a student in Babcock requires. There is no debate here. I feel sad and sorry for the people affected and I wish there was something I could do but Babcock has a corporate reputation to protect. The BODs are guided and must act in accordance with the specifics in the Articles of Association of the institution.

So your argument;

1) Babcock is responsible for any and all actions , personal conduct of their students

2) the student is being punished , her life shatterd for engaging in a consensual sex??

BlueRayDick:


While you may claim Babcock is trying to make their business afloat with the decision to expel, I must say their risk management technique is not well thought-out and will not serve it's purpose if the girl wants to press charges.

1. The school claims she flouted some rules. I believe the school has student's handbook which contains rules and codes that guide the conduct of students while they are undergraduates. Wouldn't it have made much sense if they quoted the page number, paragraph of the particular quote she flouted.

2. The school while trying to save face from tags created by bloggers and other social media platform handlers should know it has a contract with the student. A contract that involves the student abiding by all the rules of the school till the end of her last semester exams after which the school is expected to award her a degree provided she's passed the required number of courses.

3. Expelling the student without properly establishing her offense all in a bid to manage reputational risk will only lead to legal risk. A good risk manager will not manage a risk only for the management technique to trigger the operation of another risk.

4. The expulsion is synonymous to killing a coackroach by dropping a 40foot container on it. Suspending the student or rusticating her for a semester would've done the job. But then most of these private schools that punish students for not attending religious meetings ; I guess they are so used to taking these kind of decisions

Imagine a private school where someone pays over bloated fees, your children will be expelled anyhow. Them still de carry shoulder. Nonsense. I can’t send my child and pay private school fees and the yeye school will think they can do whatever they like. Private schools are and should be at the mercy of the parents that pay the school fees.

I only blame parents who send their children to such schools when they know that their children are young adults susceptible to a lot of mistakes. They shouldn’t be maimed and victimized for life if their mistakes does not harm anyone but themselves. This school is too high handed and parents should really be careful what kinds of schools they entrust the future of their kids to! This is ridiculous!

nihilistjnr:


Actually it does.

If she did not deliberately seek to associate Babcock with her sexual activity, then she cannot be seen to be bringing Babcock university into disrepute...ergo she can't be expelled

The person who linked Babcock and a sex video is the person that should be punished.

Babcock need to be able to prove in court that woman posted the video and tagged it as a Babcock video, otherwise an average lawyer would eat this case up.

Oya find the person for Babcock na

KingAzubuike:
Someone breached their privacy and leaked their sextape in an ugly attempt to blackmail them and you say they deserved to be expelled? An incident that even occured outside the God forsaken school premises? So it's a crime for couples to have a sextape for their own viewing pleasure right? Sometimes I just wish a Tsar bomb could be dropped on this goddam country make everybody just die at once.

Na only you go die....

studentofTruth:


viewing consumption of she and her boyfriend — not the public!

BOYFRIEND IS NOT HUSBAND AND WIFE.

GET IT RIGHT, IF U WANT FORMALITY.


THIRD PARTY PRIVITY OF CONTRACT MIGHT APPLY HERE.


THE RECORDING WAS FOR THIRD PARTY VIEWING, OTHERWISE, Y RECORD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

LadyGCrueDKilaB:
The CEO of McDonald's recently got fired for having a (consensual) affair with an employee... Poco is total right. An organization reserves the right to terminate anyone that brings them to any form of disrepute in any way.

Today, o found out two things;

1. There are lots of kids here
2. Lots of the older ones haven't worked in a corporate environment, they are not knowledgeable and stupid.

Like, is this even a debate? Ludicrous!!

nihilistjnr:


Was she representing the school while having sex?

Is there anything in the video that ties her to Babcock?

No viewer watching the video without first seeing the title has any reason to associate the participants with Babcock university.

The only thing that links the video with Babcock university is the title of the video, which given the nature of the videos dissemination, neither participant is responsible for.

The person who did reputational damage to the school is the person that leaked the video, and the girl is as much a victim as the school in this instance.

If the girl was dressed head to toe in Babcock branded clothes, and shouting Babcock, Babcock, whilst being penetrated, then the university would have a case.

As it stands, this should be a straight forward civil lawsuit against the school

Easy player... I think we are on the same side here..

The lady is the victim and not the school..

BlueRayDick:


If any entity is emotional in this case, it is the school. Expelling a student who you are yet to place Ur hand on the rules he broke in Ur handbook is emotional.

Does it even make sense? So u are saying if the video was tagged "Babcock graduates having sex......", the school will recall their certificates

The school brand is being dragged by bloggers and whoever leaked the video. The video is the girl's private property, not shot with Babcock's camera or on their premises. Na wa ó.

Una Babcock people, una mumu never do?

Sue the school na.

In a few years time, you'll read this post again and see where you got it wrong.

emae009:


it doesn't matter, ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. I think what's most people fails to understand is than Babcock is protecting Babcock probably because one of their selling point is that they are a religiously and high morals institution and not accepting sinners institution.
if they have come out to say the act didn't happen on school premises so it's not our business. maybe you and others seeing their current course of action has wrong may send your children to the school but their target audience might be withdrawing their wards or the may be losing more potential clients because of such action.
I believe they weighed both actions (not doing anything or expelling the culprits of such negative news) and they chose what's best for them

Well, I will never pay such an amount for my kids future to be destroyed because they act so sanctimonious. Why didn’t they expel Davido? Hypocritical institution.

Badgers14:


Easy player... I think we are on the same side here..

The lady is the victim and not the school..

I know, I was agreeing with you

lahizak:
Where you are wrong is that a school first and foremost supposed to protect the student and either you like it or not the girl is a victim. She may be stupid but she is a victim and as far as we are concerned, she did not break the rules of the school. Sex between adult outside a school is not a crime, is not like she steal or kill someone. A video meant for there eyes that got leaked is a violation of her privacy. And either you like it or not her action have no effect whatsoever on the school.
And how will you compare school institution, a place for teaching and learning to work place that pays you salary. So u saying if you and your guy have sex and stupidly make a video and it got leaked, ur office and any other association you know should disown u. Just 4 making a stupid mistake. Na wa oo

don't make that mistake o,real life is not norlleywood or zeaworld to get a new job is not an easy task especially in dis shithole country

unearthed:


Your emotional rush is causing a lack of objectivity here.

The school did not expell her for having sex. She was expelled for dragging the name of the school along with it.

If that video had been posted with some other name besides the school name, i bet you no one would have taken notice but now all we know and gossip about is "BABCOCK UNIVERSITY GIRL". That's the image of the school been tarnished bro.

Was she the person who released the video? Was she the person who tagged Babcock to the video?
Did she sanction the release of the video?

Her crime was having sex when the school was on break

IF SHE WAS NOT STUPID TO RECORD IT.

SHE WIL STILL BE FORMING VIRGIN FOR HER PARENTS/CHURCH.