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.

Send in the Navy! British fishermen call for military help after French rivals PETROL BOMB them to stop UK vessels 'pillaging' scallops in the Channel

French fishermen have been accused of throwing insults, rocks and smoke bombs at their British rivals in the English Channel in a vicious scrap over scallops.

The clash happened around 12 nautical miles (22km) off the Normandy coast, near the Bay of Seine.

British boats are legally entitled to fish in the scallop-rich area.

But their presence has infuriated the French, who accuse the British of shamelessly depleting shellfish stocks.

Now UK fishermen are demanding government protection, while the French bewail the loss of a "primary resource".

What exactly happened?

Around 40 French boats gathered overnight on Monday in protest against so-called British "pillaging".

"The French went to contact the British to stop them working and they clashed with each other," said Normandy fishing chief Dimitri Rogoff. "Apparently there was stone-throwing, but no injuries."

Some boats were damaged in the skirmish, with three suffering holes, footage from France 3 Normandie showed.

The British couldn't match the local armada for numbers. With about five boats to 35 French vessels, they were ultimately chased away.

Two British boats, Golden Promise and Joanna C, returned to Brixham harbour with damaged windows.

The crews alleged they were surrounded and had rocks and metal shackles thrown at their boats.

A video published by French media appears to show a Scottish scallop dredger, the Honeybourne 3, colliding with nearby vessels.

Why has it all blown up now?

Tension has rumbled for 15 years, but in the past five a deal has prevailed - larger British boats stayed out of the area in exchange for more fishing rights.

British boats can gather scallops year-round, but French law restricts the scallop fishing season to between 1 October and 15 May.

This year, the fed-up French rejected that agreement.

"For the Brits, it's an open bar - they fish when they want, where they want, and as much as they want," Mr Rogoff complained.

"We don't want to stop them from fishing, but they could at least wait until 1 October so that we can share.

"Scallops are a flagship product for Normandy, a primary resource and a highly sensitive issue."

How have the Brits reacted?

Mike Park, chief executive of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, described the clashing incident as "clear piracy".

Speaking about the Scottish boat, he told BBC Scotland: "He's fully entitled to be there. UK vessels can enter that French zone, it's not illegal.

"The Peterhead vessel is going about its business. The French vessels are probably attacking it."

Appeals for calm were issued by Britain's National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, which said some boats had been filmed manoeuvring dangerously.

"We have raised the matter with the British government and asked for protection for our vessels, which are fishing legitimately," its chief executive, Barrie Deas, said.

"The deeper issues behind the clashes should be settled by talking around the table, not on the high seas where people could be hurt."

Two mothers put each other in CHOKE holds before one Jaguar-driving parent bodyslams her rival in spectacular road rage brawl while a child begs: 'Stop it mum'

This is the moment two female drivers strangled each other before the Jaguar owner body-slammed her nemesis to the floor in a dramatic road rage show-down.

Shocking footage obtained exclusively by MailOnline shows the pair brawling in broad daylight as crying children looked on and begged them to stop.

The incident brought one carriageway of the A5123 in Northampton to a standstill yesterday after drivers were forced to witness the violent brawl. 

Witnesses said the heated row broke out between the two after the brunette Audi driver accused the Jaguar owner of 'cutting her up'.

An onlooker told MailOnline the fair-haired driver of the blue saloon slammed on her brakes in the middle of the road and leapt out of the car.  

The driver, described as being in her 40s, reportedly approached the dark-haired motorist of the Audi where they exchanged angry insults. 

Their dispute descended into a shocking display of violence with an onlooker capturing the moment they started slapping one another on film. 

In footage obtained by MailOnline, the clip begins with the pair wrestling in the middle of a carriageway as their cars stop the flow of traffic.  

The women can be seen holding each other in choke-holds until the brunette finally succumbs to the elder woman's strength and goes tumbling to the ground.

Meanwhile cars passing in the opposite lanes beep their horns and call for them to stop but to no avail.  

The brunette, wearing a dress, is then body slammed into the road which has been temporarily blocked by their fight.

The fair-haired mother appears to be held back momentarily by a young boy begging her to stop.

The dark-haired woman then appears to shout: 'I'm f****ing late' before staggering back to her own saloon car, parked just behind. 

As the brunette makes her way back to the car she followed again by the Jaguar motorist who points in her face. The pair begin slapping each other. 

A desperate young boy appears to plead with the fair-haired lady: 'Mum, please come on let's go.' 

The scenes were described as 'embarrassing' by one witness who said he was appalled. 

Another said the incident was ‘shocking’. A man in the background of the footage can be heard shouting: 'Get back in your car!' in a bid to quell the dispute.

Speaking to MailOnline, the man said: ‘We were over the road when we could suddenly hear screaming and shouting. We went out to see what was going on and the two of them were fighting. The brunette woman was accusing the blonde one of cutting her up.

‘The blonde one apparently slammed on her breaks and got out of the car, raising her voice. She pinned her up against the car and the next thing you know they were fighting. The blonde woman strangled her down to the floor.

‘I couldn’t believe what I was seeing, I was a bit shocked to be quite honest.’

‘One of the women’s children was crying saying, “please stop it mum”.

‘People tried to intervene to get them to stop. A man nearby said he would sort it out.'

The identities of the two women are not yet known. It is not known if the police have been alerted. 

The incident happened on Tuesday afternoon just before 3pm on St Peter's Way in Northampton.  

Northampton Police have been contacted for comment.  

How Trustworthy Does Facebook Think You Are?

With stories about misinformation, data usage, and censorship dominating the news, online platforms are scrambling to re-engineer their policies and algorithms in a way that pleases critics and users alike.

Facebook in particular has been in the hot seat in America following the election of President Donald Trump and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was wheeled into Congress earlier this year to answer for his company's purported peccadilloes. The social media giant has pledged to continue promoting "fact-checking"on its platform to please regulators. But might some of the "cures" for "fake news" end up being worse than the disease?

One new tool in Facebook's bag of anti-"misinformation" tricks definitely ticks the "creep box": Last week, the Washington Post reported that Facebook has been planning to assign a "trustworthiness score" for users on their platform for around a year. Users who are believed to more accurately flag news stories as valid or not will be given a higher score, while users suspected of flagging stories out of revenge or distaste—and thereby throwing off the algorithm—will be given a goose egg. The scale ranges from 0 to 1, and the system is now reportedly coming online.

The new system is framed as a necessary augmentation of Facebook's previous forays into third party-guided media ranking. In addition to partnering with self-deputized "fact-checkers" like PolitiFact and Snopes.com, Facebook created a button for average users to report when a story was "fake news." The idea was that human feedback, provided by both "experts" and the wisdom of the crowds, would supplement the brittle fallibility of algorithms, leading to a better overall curation of what is being shared on Facebook.

But humans are a fickle bunch. Not everyone wants to be a forthright participant in Facebook's tailored marketplace of ideas. The system was thrown off by users who would mob together to report stories as "fake news" because they merely disliked the story or source. Facebook hopes that its new reputation score will help to separate real flags from false ones, and improve its attempted moderation of truth and communications accordingly.

Somewhat surprisingly, the news of this secret scoring seems not to have been the result of an unauthorized leak, but comes courtesy of Facebook's own product manager in charge of fighting fake news. In her interview with the Post, she takes pains to assure the public that these scores are not intended to be an "absolute indicator of a person's credibility" but "one measurement among thousands of new behavioral clues that Facebook now takes into account as it seeks to understand risk."

If you're not exactly reassured by that, I can't blame you.

The abstract concept of the credibility score on its own, in the context of curating what kind of information that people should see, could perform as intended without spillover risk. Whether or not such top-down information management goals are a good idea to pursue in the first place is a separate question, of course.

But when official Facebook representatives start talking about collecting "thousands of behavioral clues" on its users, anxieties are naturally inflamed. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Facebook is seeking to partner up with banks to access our financial data so that it can "offer new services" to users, like in-app payments. Banks, understandably, are hesitant. But let's say some play ball. Might something like one's bank account balance be considered a "behavioral clue" for content trustworthiness? To what other processes might these aggregated behavioral profiles eventually be applied? How secure will these scores be, and with which other parties might they be shared?

Americans are already used to one kind of credit rating: our FICO score. These involve similar privacy and security concerns, and are also run by private companies. Yet most people accept these scores as a fact of life, perhaps because the credit ratings agencies have developed avenues to petition one's score and are considered well-regulated. So what if Facebook decides to try their hand at predictive monitoring?

Despite Facebook's assurances that these scores will not be used for other purposes, people have an understandable aversion to the mere idea of unaccountable ratings of "social credit" that can silently make or break one's opportunities in life with little recourse—particularly when they are managed by a single uncontested firm.

This dystopic vision was creatively illustrated in an episode of Netflix's popular science fiction program, Black Mirror. In "Nose Dive," a socially-striving character named Lacie navigates a pastel-hued world that is quietly coordinated by a comprehensive system of social credit. Every observable action that a person takes is meticulously judged and graded by social peers. Post something good online? Get some points. Make a social faux pas in front of a colleague? Lose points. Points are tied to access to different tiers of housing and social circles. A series of escalating mishaps causes Lucie to progressively lose her credit—and her mind. Negative inertia begets negative responses, and poor Lucie's digitally-directed life circles the drain.

This is just television. But it is unfortunately not as far-fetched as we might hope. The MIT Technology Review recently published an in depth look at the Chinese government's system of digital behavioral monitoring and control. In 2014, the state began what is called the "Social Credit System," and the program is expected to be fully operational by 2020. Citizens are expected to contribute to the "construction of sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, and judicial credibility"—if they do, they get more credit, and more access to financial mechanisms, travel, and luxury options. If they don't, well, they will find it much harder to find a bank willing to lend them money.

This system strikes many Americans as a totalitarian nightmare, although the same publication ran an article arguing that this system might be an improvement over the largely ad-hoc and ephemeral system of social monitoring that it replaced. (I doubt China's Uighur minority would agree.)

Thankfully, Facebook is not the Chinese government. It is a private company that can one day go out of business, not a state with an internationally-recognized monopoly on violence. It is much easier for us to simply delete our Facebook accounts than it is for Chinese dissidents to reform the government's massive behavioral infrastructure or escape to a more hospitable locale. (It may be harder, however, for a non-user to delete their so-called "shadow profile.") And let's not be dramatic. The risks that Facebook's social credit system will be anywhere near as big of an influence on our daily activities as the Chinese social credit system is for Chinese citizens are pretty tiny.

Not everything has to be a conspiracy. Perhaps we should take Facebook at its word when it says that it will only use its social credit system for shuffling through which content it would like to allow to proliferate on its platform. If one is primarily concerned about stopping the scourge of "fake news," maybe trusting while scrutinizing is the best course of action.

But for those who just can't shake the heebie-jeebies about Facebook's social credit score, a reevaluation of priorities may be in order. Which is worse: Allowing user-directed viral content to freely proliferate, or trusting an opaque social credit algorithm to separate whose feedback is more trustworthy than others? Your answer is probably a function of your personal values.

Female teaching assistant jailed for SIXTY years for having sex with 11-year-old boy over four months

A perverted female teaching assistant who had sex with an 11-year-old boy over four months has been jailed for SIXTY years.

Jessica-Jewel Corin Benton will spend over half a century behind bars for the sustained sexual abuse.

The court in Texas also decided she would have no chance of parole, CW33 reports.

Benton was arrested in September 2016 after another student witnessed the behaviour and told his mother about it.

In turn, the mother informed the authorities, said the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

Benton was arrested and charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault, a first-degree felony, hence the heavy jail sentence.

The court was told the sickening abuse happened from May 2016 to September 2016.

Once saving grace was that none of the sexual incidents happened on school property.

The victim was not one of Benton's students, the station said.

But Benton was employed at the time as a teacher’s aide at Mesquite ISD’s Ben F. Tisinger Elementary School, and her victim went to another school.

After hearing the evidence, a just took under 30 minutes to convict her and decide how to punish her.

Initially, Benton was facing a jail term of 25 years to life in prison for the offences.

But the jury listened to her family members and Benton’s therapist and, feeling no sympathy for her at all, returned a sentence of 60 years with no possibility of parole.

District attorney Faith Johnson the station: “Even though we have a dedicated Crimes Against Children unit within the District Attorney’s Office and we work with Children’s Advocacy Center and other law enforcement officials across the county, it took a small child with true courage to speak up on behalf of another child to get this investigation started.

“This verdict should send a strong message, especially with students returning back to school this week that crimes against children will be prosecuted by the DAs Office to the fullest extinct of the law.”