Boy, 11, is left with horrific G-force injuries suffered by ASTRONAUNTS after 'bullies' recreated 'Roundabout of Death' YouTube playground stunt

An 11-year-old boy has been left seriously ill with a horrific injury only seen in fighter pilots after being forced to recreate a YouTube stunt known as the 'Roundabout of Death.'

Tyler Broome was left with possible damage to his brain and vision and with bulging eyes after being found unconscious near a playground roundabout.

The young boy had been told to sit in the middle of the roundabout as it was spun at high speed using the rear wheel of a motorcycle by a group of youths.

It is believed he was seriously injured after being subjected to extreme levels of gravitational force - or g-force - normally only experienced by pilots and astronauts.

It is thought the g-force forced fluid and blood into the youngster's brain causing damage to his vision and giving him bulging eyes.

In shocking footage circulating online, Tyler appears to have passed out during the ride but the teens around him do not appear to realise, and continued to rev the engine.

Tyler was at a local park with his friend when the pair were approached by a group of older teenagers - one with a motorcycle, according to mum Dawn Hollingworth.

Dawn, 51, says the group tried to recreate the YouTube stunt in which the rear wheel of a motorbike is placed against the roundabout to spin it at high speed on Wednesday.

She says Tyler was encouraged to sit in the middle of the roundabout while it was sent spinning, subjecting the boy to enormous g-forces.

Dawn is now waiting by his bedside and hoping that the swelling on his brain will subside.

Dawn, of Tuxford, Nottinghamshire, said: "I don't recognise my child - he is on the verge of having a stoke.

"Tyler sat on the roundabout, and the boy who came over was about 17. Tyler doesn't know him, they are not friends.

"He puts his motorbike on the floor, gets the roundabout spinning at such a speed.

"When they all stopped, the group just cleared off - it is bullying."

Tyler had to be immediately rushed to the Queens Medical Centre, in Nottingham for treatment for severe injuries.

Dawn claims his injuries were so rare hospital staff had never witnessed this before and had to research it before they could treat him.

Dawn adds: "The injuries were so extreme he just looked like elephant man.

"They have never seen it before, they are going to make a medical report from it.

"His head has completely swelled up, his blood vessels have burst, his eyes look alien.

"His vision is blurry.

"You can manage a broken arm but this?

"He doesn't remember it, he doesn't remember the detail."

Tyler's mum said she believed the inspiration behind the prank stemmed from the roundabout of death video on YouTube, which has over seven million views on the website.

The video shows two people getting on a roundabout feature in a park, where another revs a motorbike, causing it to spin at an alarming rate of speed.

Dawn wrote on Facebook : "A decent young lad who I only know as Liam who lives in Tuxford who entered the park and saw my son laying on the ground ran and called an ambulance.

"My son remains in hospital with the threat of a stroke if his head swelling doesn't go down to release the pressure.

"I could of easily lost my son tonight and wouldn't want any parent going through what my family are tonight."

Dawn adds: "The bruises will take four to six weeks but doctors just don't know how long internal symptoms will take.

"We are just taking each day as it comes.

"I feel so frustrated that there is such a site like YouTube where bloggers get paid for putting such ideas and videos into young children's heads.

"There needs to be some discussion about banning these videos after what's happened to my son."

A Nottinghamshire Police spokesman said: "Police are investigating after a boy sustained serious head injuries at a park in Tuxford Wednesday (12 September).

"The boy fell off a roundabout in Ashvale Park after a moped is believed to have been used to spin it around.

"The boy remains at the QMC in a serious but stable condition. If anyone has any video footage of the incident, or was in the area at the time, please call us on 101, quoting incident number 62 of 13 September 2018."

Chinese restaurant staff 'offer to pay for pregnant woman's abortion' after she finds dead rat in soup

Restaurant staff in China offered to pay for a pregnant woman who found a dead rat in her food to have an abortion, her husband has claimed.

The man said he and his family were eating at a branch of Xiabu Xiabu in Weifang when his wife found the rodent in a bowl of hotpot.

Ma has alleged that one of the staff suggested his wife get an abortion if she was concerned for her unborn child’s health, according to local news outlet Kankan News.

He said he was told by a member of staff: “If you are worried about the baby, then we’ll give you 20,000 yuan (£2,238) to abort it."

The restaurant offered Ms Ma compensation of 5,000 yuan (£559) after the wife had been checked in hospital and the baby was confirmed healthy.

Hotpot is a popular dish in China and seen as a social occasion where ingredients are cooked at the table by diners in a boiling broth.

The incident went viral on Chinese social media causing the company’s stock value to plummet by around £145 million.

Local authorities closed down the restaurant while an investigation was launched.

In a statement the company’s representative Catherine Gao, the chain is helping authorities with their investigation.

She said: “We have set up a special investigation team to gain an in-depth understanding of the incident and assist us in clarifying the truth through third-party authorities.”

Google employees quit over controversial China search engine project, report says

Seven Google employees have reportedly quit their jobs over the lack of accountability and transparency at the search giant over its controversial China search engine effort, codenamed Project Dragonfly.

The departures, first reported by BuzzFeed News, have not all been publicly identified. However, it largely consists of software engineers with varying degrees of experience, BuzzFeed reported, citing three sources familiar with the matter. One of the names said to be on the list is Google senior scientist Jack Poulson, who reportedly first learned of Project Dragonfly after The Intercept initially reported the story in August.

“It is our policy to not comment on individual employees," a Google spokesperson told Fox News.

Speaking with BuzzFeed, Poulson said he was "shocked" by the news. “If it was true, I was pretty sure immediately I couldn’t continue working there,” he told the news outlet.

Last month, Google was pressured by a consortium of human rights groups to abandon the search engine, which would be app-based and censored at the behest of the Chinese government. When Poulson saw that the company did not give any credence to the human rights organizations' concerns, he decided to go public with his concerns.

“I’m offended that no weight has been given to the human rights community having a consensus,” he added in the Buzzfeed interview. “If you have coalition letter from 14 human rights organizations, and that can’t even make it into the discussions on the ethics behind a decision, I’d rather stand with the human rights organizations in this dispute.”

News of the purported departures comes just days after the chief scientist of Google's cloud computing unit, Fei-Fei Li, resigned from the company over dustups related to Project Maven, the firm's controversial Pentagon AI program, according to the New York Post.

In June, Fox News reported that Google was set to end the program after it expires in 2019.

Human rights concerns

In August, more than a dozen human rights groups sent a letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai asking him to explain what Google is doing to safeguard users from the Chinese government's censorship and surveillance.

It describes the company's secretive plan to build a search engine that would comply with Chinese censorship as representing "an alarming capitulation by Google on human rights."

"The Chinese government extensively violates the rights to freedom of expression and privacy; by accommodating the Chinese authorities' repression of dissent, Google would be actively participating in those violations for millions of internet users in China," the letter says.

In a statement to Fox News at the time of the letter, Google said it has "been investing for many years to help Chinese users, from developing Android, through mobile apps such as Google Translate and Files Go, and our developer tools. But our work on search has been exploratory, and we are not close to launching a search product in China."

The letter was signed by groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders.

Discontent from Google employees

The letter from the human rights groups came just a few weeks after approximately 1,000 of Google's own employees asked Pichai and senior leadership to explain what it was doing with the search project.

The letter, obtained by BuzzFeed News, stated that the Mountain View, Calif.-based search giant needs to have more transparency about how it operates and relay that to its employees. "Our industry has entered a new era of ethical responsibility: the choices we make matter on a global scale," the letter states, specifically referencing the Chinese search engine project, codenamed Dragonfly.

The letter, which was been signed by approximately 1,000 people at the company, according to The New York Times, also asks management to satisfy four conditions regarding ethics and transparency:

1. An ethics review structure that includes rank and file employee representatives

2. The appointment of ombudspeople with meaningful employee input into their selection

3. A clear plan for transparency sufficient to enable Googlers an individual ethical choice about what they work on; and

4. The publication of “ethical test cases”; an ethical assessment of Dragonfly, Maven, and Airgap GCP with respect to the AI principles; and regular, official, internally visible communication and assessments regarding any new areas of substantial ethical concern.

After the letter became public, Google held an internal meeting with its employees, where Pichai expressed the company was "not close" to launching a search product and it was "very unclear" whether it would or could, according to CNBC.

Google's rocky history in China

Rumors of the Chinese-based search engine have circulated over the past several weeks after The Intercept reported that it had seen leaked documents, suggesting the Sundar Pichai-led Google was planning to re-enter China, nearly 8 years after leaving the country.

The search engine, which would be app-based, would remove items that contain certain words or phrases and would apply to image search, suggested search features and automatic spell check. It would also “blacklist sensitive queries” so no results are shown when a person looks for a specific word or phrase, The Intercept added.

The app will also identify topics and websites that are blocked by China's Great Firewall, according to the documents. According to The Intercept, examples that will be censored include British broadcaster BBC and Wikipedia.

In 2010, Google famously announced it was leaving China, specifically mentioning China's censorship tactics as a reason for pulling out of the country.

However, Pichai has said he wants Google to be in China serving its internet users. Pichai became Google's CEO in 2015, taking over from co-founder Larry Page who became CEO of Alphabet, the holding company that owns Google.

'Stunned, shocked': Insurance company stopped pay-outs to woman with cancer

One of Australia’s biggest life insurance companies abruptly stopped insurance pay-outs to a woman with cervical cancer because it discovered she had sought help for mental health years before her diagnosis.

TAL Life Limited began investigating the woman’s medical history because she’d taken out income protection insurance four months before her cancer diagnosis in December 2013, and after finding she’d sought help for mental health between 2007 and 2009, avoided her contract of insurance claiming she had failed to disclose a prior history of depression.

It stopped paying her $5,000 a month, which it had done between January 2014 and May 2014, and told her it wouldn’t have offered her cover if it had known about her alleged depression, even though it was unrelated to her cancer.

The woman, a self-employed health professional, was taken aback by the news, telling a TAL employee she was “stunned, shocked, incredibly sad and distressed”.

She took the matter to the financial ombudsman service in 2014.

The banking royal commission heard on Friday that TAL deliberately delayed its dealings with the ombudsman.

The commission heard that in mid-March 2015, TAL had another look at the woman’s medical history to see if blood tests she had taken for gynaecological issues, which she had disclosed in her application, could be classified as non-disclosure.

When TAL sought a retrospective underwriting opinion, the general manager of claims in TAL told the retail claims manager she couldn’t help feeling that TAL was “trying to make retrospective decisions when the facts at the time were different”.

The commission also heard that a couple of weeks before TAL was due to hold a conciliation meeting with the ombudsman, its claims decision committee said it had found additional medical evidence about the woman showing she had experienced “recent deteriorating weight loss, mood change, and fatigue” and her insurance would have been declined on that information.

But TAL waited for two weeks until the day before the conciliation meeting to tell the ombudsman it would be using that additional information as evidence to support its reason to avoid the woman’s insurance contract.

Senior counsel assisting the royal commission, Rowena Orr QC, asked if TAL had withheld that information until the last moment because it wanted to use the information to its “strategic advantage”.

Loraine van Eeden, from TAL Life Limited, replied: “I don’t know.”

Orr said: “It was part of a broader pattern of delay in the dealings with the ombudsman in this matter, wasn’t it?”

Eeden replied: “Yes.”

TAL eventually settled the matter with the ombudsman. It agreed to waive its right to recover the $25,000 it had already paid the woman, and then paid her another $25,000.

Eeden conceded to the banking royal commission that it was wrong to avoid the woman’s insurance contract.

She agreed the woman had made an innocent non-disclosure of an unrelated condition when she applied for income protection insurance. She said policies should only be avoided if there is fraudulent non-disclosure of unrelated conditions – such as someone claiming they are working when they are not – but not when there has been innocent non-disclosure of unrelated conditions.

The commission heard that TAL is now in the process of changing its controls and risk management of disputed claims, so disputed claims are not remitted back to original case managers but to separate case managers.

Also on Friday, the corporate regulator began civil proceedings against ANZ Bank over allegations ANZ failed to tell shareholders that the investment banks it hired to sell $2.5bn of its shares in 2015 bought $791m worth of shares themselves.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) has alleged that when ANZ tried to raise $2.5bn in 2015, the share sale did not attract the anticipated level of interest from institutional investors, so the investment banks running the share sale – JP Morgan Australia, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank – had to purchase the leftover shares.

Asic alleges ANZ failed to tell the stock market about the purchase of the leftover shares before the market opened the next day.

It says more than $1.1bn of ANZ shares were traded the next day, and traders may have acted differently if they had all relevant information.

ANZ has said it will defend the allegations, saying it is not aware of any precedent for an ASX-listed company to disclose if shares had been bought by investment banks running a major share sale.

Scotland just became the first country in the world to make sanitary products free for all students

Around the world, lack of access to sanitary products frequently stops students from going to class. Some students miss days of school, and others drop out completely. One UNESCO report estimates that one in 10 girls in sub-Saharan Africa miss 20 percent of the school year because of their period.

Research from children's charity Plan International shows that 45 percent of girls in Scotland have had to use alternatives such as toilet paper, socks and newspaper during their periods because they could not afford to buy sanitary products. One survey from grassroots group Women for Independence found that one in five women in Scotland have experienced "period poverty" — a phenomenon in which people struggle to pay for basic sanitary products on a monthly basis, resulting in a negative impact on their hygiene, health and well-being.

In order to address these issues and "banish the scourge of period poverty," the Scottish government approved a £5.2 million ($6.7 million) initiative that will make sanitary products free at all schools, colleges and universities — making Scotland the first country in the world to do so, according to The Guardian.

"In a country as rich as Scotland, it's unacceptable that anyone should struggle to buy basic sanitary products. I am proud that Scotland is taking this world-leading action to fight period poverty," said Communities Secretary Aileen Campbell in a statement released Friday. "Our £5.2 million investment will mean these essential products will be available to those who need them in a sensitive and dignified way, which will make it easier for students to fully focus on their studies."

According to Councillor Alison Evison, President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the program will have the additional benefit of decreasing the stigma surrounding periods.

"While the primary aim is to ensure no young person misses out on their education through lack of access to sanitary products, it will also contribute to a more open conversation and reducing the unnecessary stigma associated with periods," she said in the aforementioned statement.

Susannah Lane, Head of Public Affairs at Universities Scotland, agreed that this stigma causes undue emotional and economic burden on Scotland's students. "It is unacceptable that anyone should suffer the embarrassment and distress caused by period poverty so we welcome free sanitary provision being made available in universities across Scotland," she explained. "Periods are a part of life but they shouldn't be a point of inequality, compromise someone's quality of life or be a distraction from making the very most of time spent at university, so this is a positive step."

The United States, on the other hand, has a long way to go when it comes to increasing access to menstrual products. As Harper's Bazaar points out, roughly 42 million women live in or close to poverty in the United States, however, programs aimed at helping low-income families such as Medicaid, SNAP and WIC exclude menstrual products. According to NPR, menstrual products are actively taxed in all but nine states.

However, this year, seven states proposed new legislation banning the "tampon tax," and New York City approved free sanitary product initiatives in schools, shelters and jails in 2016.

Online abortion ads: Doctors defend right to inform patients - Two gynecologists in Germany could face jail time for listing abortion as one of the medical services offered at their practice. People outside the court argued that providing information to women shouldn't be a crime.

Dozens of protesters gathered outside a court in the German city of Kassel on Wednesday as the latest trial concerning Germany's ban on abortion "advertising" began.

Gynecologists Natascha Nicklaus and Nora Szasz face charges of posting on their website that they offer abortions. A list detailing the outpatient surgeries the doctors perform includes the legally contentious entry: "Abortion — surgical or medicinal."

According to Paragraph 219a of Germany's criminal code, anyone who publically "offers, announces [or] advertises" abortion services faces up to two years in jail or a fine. The law further states that these constraints particularly apply to those who stand to "financially benefit" from terminating pregnancies.

The doctors in Wednesday's trial said they chose to post the information on their website to accurately depict the services they offer and to also give pregnant women access to information about their options.

"There's no reason to hide the fact that we carry out abortions," Szasz told local public broadcaster Hessenschau.

The doctors want "women who are unintentionally pregnant and in an emergency situation to receive information quickly," she added.

Defense says law unconstitutional

Knuth Pfeiffer, the doctors' lawyer, told the court his clients should be cleared of all charges, arguing that Paragraph 219a is unconstitutional. The law encroaches on a patient's right to freedom of information, freedom of opinion and the right to self-determination, Pfeiffer argued.

Furthermore, Pfeiffer said financial motives were not at play, as the two doctors carry out 10 to 15 abortions per year — which bring in less money than caring for pregnant women who carry to term.

Abortions in Germany are technically against the law, but there are several circumstances where it isn't prosecuted, including medical necessity, if the pregnancy was the result of a rape, or if the woman is less than 12 weeks pregnant and goes to a counseling session beforehand.

Still, publically stating that a clinic carries out an abortion is illegal. Doctors are particularly impacted by the law, which limits them to telling their patients whether they perform the procedure only during face-to-face appointments.

'Information is not a crime'

Numerous supporters gathered outside the court in Kassel on Wednesday to show solidarity with the two gynecologists and to also call for a change in Germany's abortion law.

Organizers estimated that between 200 and 300 people took part in the demonstration, carrying signs that read: "Solidarity with the accused gynecologists" and "information is not a crime."

Ulle Schauws, the women's policy spokesperson for the Greens, described the case against Szasz and Nicklaus as "completely absurd."

"Doctors like Nora Szasz and Natascha Nicklaus are being criminalized because they are committed and responsible in their work, because they ensure good care for women in crisis situations and because they comply with their patients' right to information," she told DW in a statement.

Schauws, who was present at Wednesday's court hearing, added that in order for Paragraph 219ato be struck down, the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) need to allow for a vote on the matter in German parliament "so that trials like the one today will soon be a thing of the past."

Back and forth over law change

The movement to change Germany's "abortion advertising" law has gained political momentum in recent months, with the environmentalist Greens, the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) and the Left party all submitting plans to either scrap or amend the clause.

The SPD, which is in a coalition government with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives, also supports changing the law. Merkel's conservative alliance between the Christian Democrats (CDU) and their Bavarian sister-party the Christian Social Union (CSU) will be harder to convince, however, as they strictly oppose any changes to Paragraph 219a.

Listing abortion services on a doctor's website gives the impression that abortions are "something quite normal," which conservatives said they want to avoid, the CDU/CSU's legal policy spokesperson Elisabeth Winkelmeier-Becker told local public broadcaster SWR.

In December 2017, a petition with over 150,000 signatures was submitted to Germany's Bundestag, urging lawmakers to do away with Paragraph 219a.

The doctor who presented that petition was ordered to pay a €6,000 ($6,998) fine last year for including abortions as part of a list of services on her clinic's website.

Boyfriend is ordered to pay just £75 in compensation after leaving his girlfriend soaked in blood when he punched, head-butted and threw her about in their home

 Miss Reed 

Robert Jenney

A boyfriend who punched, headbutted and 'threw about' his terrified girlfriend leaving her drenched in blood must pay just £75 in compensation.

Robert Jenney was also handed a 12-month community order after knocking mum-of-one Louise Reed unconscious during the sickening attack.

But he was spared jail - despite Louise, 27, saying she had to flee out of her own kitchen window, with blood "pouring" from her wounds, to get help.

The brave victim has now slammed magistrates' sentence as "disgusting", saying: "He should have been sent to prison. He could have killed me."

Jenney, 30, from Hemlington in Middlesbrough, North Yorkshire, had already assaulted Louise just weeks before the attack, Teesside Live reports.

But in a moving post, the mum says she "gave him the benefit of the doubt and let him worm his way back in" - something she now wishes she hadn't.

In the post, uploaded to Facebook earlier this month, after the second attack, she explains how she thought she could help Jenney "deal with his demons".

However, her efforts ended up being "thrown back in my face...literally".

Louise, who has a toddler daughter, Skyler-Mae, says: "For anyone who knows me knows I’m a fiery person, someone who stands up for themselves but when your faced with the person you thought you had a future with charging towards you with what I can only describe as an unforgettable look of hate and anger on their face, that strong independent woman disappears.

"Being punched, thrown about and head butted in the face and being made to feel like a prisoner in my own home having to climb out of the window whilst pouring with blood to run for help is a memory that will stay with me forever."

She adds that she feels like "such a f***ing idiot and fool" who was "taken in by what I thought was a kind, sweet, romantic boyfriend".

She accompanied the post with shocking pictures of her bloodied face.

Louise and Jenney, who had been childhood friends, bumped into each other by chance at a Middlesbrough FC match and agreed to have a catch-up.

Days later, they went for a drink and their feelings for each other grew.

Before long, a relationship had developed.

“When we first got together he was perfect”, Louise recalled. “He treated me lovely and cooked me meals, I’d known him since I was 13-years-old.”

Louise Reed's emotional Facebook post in full

"Would just like to apologise in advance to my friends/family as well as Robert Jenney’s friends/family as this isn’t an easy thing to read. Would also like to apologise to my neighbours for the disturbance last night.

"If they’ve done it once, the likeliness is, they will do it again. I just wish I hadn’t gave him the benefit of the doubt and let him worm his way back in. I wish I had listened and taken the advice given to me, but no, I thought I could help him deal with his demons in order to make him a better person. I know I’m not perfect, far from it. My depression/anxiety has been the worst it ever has been these last couple of months and I’ve been a very difficult person to be around but I know I didn’t deserve this. Not when all I’ve done is be there for him, support him in any way possible, be there for him if/when he needed to talk to someone, encouraged him to open up and speak about what he felt and actually took time to make an appointment so he was able to get help for his anger, stood by him when everyone was telling me to walk away, falling out with friends, family, because I refused to believe he was this monster they thought he was.
For what? It’s all just been thrown back in my face...literally.

"For anyone who knows me knows I’m a fiery person, someone who stands up for themselves but when your faced with the person you thought you had a future with charging towards you with what I can only describe as an unforgettable look of hate and anger on their face, that strong independent woman disappears. Being punched, thrown about and head butted in the face and being made to feel like a prisoner in my own home having to climb out of the window whilst pouring with blood to run for help is a memory that will stay with me forever.

"Feeling like such a f***ing idiot and fool taken in by what I thought was a kind, sweet, romantic boyfriend who would have done anything for me for then to turn at the slightest argument/disagreement, become controlling, aggressive, unrecognizable. This isn’t the man I met when I was 13 years old. I don’t know this person anymore and I’m starting to question wether I actually did...

"Thing is with these type of people, they have a certain way of making you believe it’s your fault, that you’ve started the argument, that you’ve pushed them to do what they’ve done. They manipulate you into thinking it’s all in your head and you’re the problem when I’m actual fact, it’s all mind games to break you down.

"I’m sorry if this post has upset/offended anyone because a lot of people haven’t seen this side of him, and if someone told me any of this I don’t think I’d have believed it myself but from what I’ve been told by numerous people - a lot of people have witnessed this side of him and that scares me.

"Before anyone starts saying I’ve put this post on for attention - no, I really haven’t. I’ve put this post on because I don’t want this happening to anyone else. I have a three year old girl who I now have to pluck up the courage to face and try and explain why Mammy’s face is poorly, why I’m covered in bruises, why Mammy isn’t her happy self and is quite sad and why Rob won’t be coming round anymore.

"You don’t do this to someone you love."

But she said cracks started to appear in the relationship.

“We would have the slightest argument but he would overreact and then make me feel like it was my fault," she claimed.

“He would also argue with my best friends, it was like he wanted to leave me with nobody, he didn’t like me going out either.”

The arguments escalated throughout the couple's relationship - but turned to violence on July 21, when Louise was assaulted.

Despite the incident, she gave her boyfriend a chance to redeem himself.

“I actually felt like he needed help and I gave him a second chance," she said.

“We spoke about some form of help but he said it wouldn’t happen again.”

But just over two weeks later, Louise was attacked by Jenney for a second time.

“We were arguing at my home in Eston and then he turned violent”, she said.

“He attacked me and left me unconscious.

“I woke up to see him sitting rolling a cigarette, there was blood everywhere.

“I ran to the back door but the key was missing, it was also missing out of the front door.”

Finally, the mum said she managed to flee out of her kitchen window and sought help from a neighbour, who called the police.

She had to have the bridge of her nose glued after the attack.

In her Facebook post, she writes: "I have a three year old girl who I now have to pluck up the courage to face and try and explain why Mammy’s face is poorly, why I’m covered in bruises, why Mammy isn’t her happy self and is quite sad and why Rob won’t be coming round anymore."

She concludes: "You don’t do this to someone you love."

Jenney was handed the community order at Teesside Magistrates' Court on August 23 for the two assaults - but Louise feels he should be behind bars.

She said: “I think the sentenced he received is disgusting."

She added: “I suffer from nightmares and have trouble sleeping, I need to move out of my house and have a fresh start with my daughter, Skyler-Mae.

“I suffer from depression but he is free to get on with his life.

"It feels like he’s been let off.”

Jenney must also undertake 10 rehabilitation activity days and is subjected to a 12-month restraining order.

He was also ordered to pay £165 court costs, as well as the £75 compensation.

A Black Male Student Says a White Woman Bit, Choked, and Pinned Him While They Were Kissing. Guess Who Got Suspended?

A Brown University student suspended for alleged sexual misconduct has won an important victory: His lawsuit against the university, which makes some of the most eye-popping claims of unfair treatment that I've seen in my years of covering these issues, has survived a motion to dismiss.

Rhode Island District Judge John McConnell, an Obama appointee, ruled that the student, a black male athlete referred to as "John Doe," had presented evidence that Brown officials engaged in an "ongoing, racially discriminatory pattern" of behaviors that violated John's rights, wrecked his freshman and sophomore years, caused his grades to plummet, and may have even contributed to his suicide attempt.

The case should now proceed to a jury trial, according to McConnell.

This case is especially noteworthy because of John's contention that he was essentially presumed guilty because of his race. John is black and his accuser, "Jane Doe," is a white woman. Moreover, Jane was the initiator, at least according to the allegations contained in the judge's decision. John even complained about Jane's behavior—to no avail, he says, because Brown was only interested in Jane's complaint.

I have reviewed both the judge's decision and John's amended complaint. They represent just one side of the story—the side most favorable to John. McConnell has only ruled on the defense's motion to dismiss, which means that his task was merely to consider whether an impartial jury could conceivably side with John. That said, this case has already been "governed by three separate complaints and been subjected to two motions to dismiss," in the judge's words, which means Brown has not made good use of the opportunity to cast doubt on John's rather striking claims, including direct quotes from Brown officials that provide evidence of bias.

John claims that in 2013, he went to a bar where he met Jane. Both consumed alcohol, though both were underage. Outside the bar, they flirted with each other and eventually started kissing. According to the allegations outlined in the judge's decision:

In the back alley, they engaged in some "kinky" behavior. Jane bit John's lip and choked him. She pushed him against the wall and held him there. John had to defend himself against Jane's advances. Jane restrained John and tried to keep him from leaving. She was the more aggressive one and at one point told John, "I make the rules."

Jane initiated a sexual misconduct complaint under Title IX, the federal statute that obligates universities to adjudicate such disputes, in December 2013. Brown discriminated in favor of Jane in a number of ways, according to John: Officials did not take his counter-accusation seriously, and they permitted Jane to amend her complaint the day before the hearing took place, without giving John any chance to prepare his defense. Brown eventually found John responsible for nonconsensual contact and underage drinking and gave him a one-year deferred suspension. Jane appealed the decision because she wanted John expelled, but she lost.

John and Jane were ordered to have no contact with each other and not to talk about the case—conditions that Jane repeatedly violated, according to John. John is an athlete, and Jane attended parties for his team that he was certain to attend; when his mother complained about this to a dean, she was told "it is normally expected that the guy would leave the area."

Months later, just before the end of the school year, Brown informed John that he had to leave campus immediately due to a second sexual misconduct accusation against him. According to John, this accuser, "Sally Roe," would later tell him that Jane had motivated her to make her complaint after discovering that they had both kissed him. (Jane and Sally were in the same sorority.) Sally later apologized to John "for the grief she had caused him," he claimed.

Administrators saw Sally as a way to resume their case against John. One dean, Maria Suarez, called John's coach and said, "We got your boy now, he is out of here," according to the allegations of fact.

John claims he failed two exams because of the added stress. Brown informed him in August 2014 that the investigation had concluded and he could come back to school for his sophomore year.

John became "plagued with self-doubt," according to his lawsuit, and threw himself in front of a moving car after a sexual encounter in October. According to the alleged facts:

John was discharged four days later; that day, Dean Suarez "summoned John and his mother to an 'urgent' meeting'' and informed John that if he did not leave the University, he could expect to face hearings on "several matters," including for damage to the vehicle sustained by his attempt at self-harm, which would be brought up as a vandalism charge. She also told him that there was an allegation that he had violated his no contact order with Jane, and that the University could revive the allegations involving Sally. Within the week, John left campus.

John eventually returned to school. He initiated his suit in 2017 after learning from Sally that both Jane and the administration had urged her to make a complaint against him. His suit alleges that Brown engaged in racial discrimination, created a hostile educational environment, and violate his rights in myriad other ways.

Again, that's all according to the information provided by John. It's possible that Brown will refute these claims at trial, or provide evidence that officials had stronger grounds to investigate John—and deem him responsible for nonconsensual contact—than is alluded to here. As best I can tell from the judge's decision, Brown's legal strategy so far has been to argue that John's claims fall outside the statute of limitations. (McConnell did indeed dismiss some aspects of John's lawsuit for this reason.)

Even so, this decision raises very important questions about fundamental fairness for accused students at Brown. It also forces us to confront a particularly vexing matter: whether Title IX is disproportionately enforced in a racist manner against black male students who have sexual encounters with white women. Reporting by The Atlantic's Emily Yoffe has turned up some evidence this is indeed the case.

At the very least, this lawsuit should prompt fourth-wave feminists who cling to a believe-the-victims-at-all-cost mindset to consider why Jane and Sally were entitled to this preferential treatment but John was not.