Edinburgh law student in massive row with his uni over ‘mocking ISIS’ claim

University of Edinburgh says it’s investigating ‘complaints alleging misconduct’

Robbie Travers

An Edinburgh law student has claimed he’s currently under investigation for “mocking” the so-called Islamic State (ISIS).

Robbie Travers, who is studying law at the top Scottish university, told his 19,000 plus Facebook followers late last week (post embedded below) that someone had made a complaint against him in relation to comments he made about ISIS.

Travers appeared to quote the unnamed complainant when he said his comments had made Muslim and ethnic minority students feel “threatened” and “unsafe”. He told his army of Facebook followers that he has taken “legal advice to dismiss this nonsense.”

Twenty-four hours later and Travers was back on Facebook, and made a post which is again embedded below.

This time the LLB-er claimed he was also being investigated for a blog post he had written criticising female Islamic dress and a further Facebook post praising Prime Minister Theresa May’s decision not to wear a hijab during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

Travers, who writes regularly for right-wing think tank the Gatestone Institute, told Legal Cheek that the post in question appeared in the blogs section of The Times of Israel. Continuing, he revealed to us that the blog, along with several others, has been “temporarily removed” until the investigation concludes.

A spokesperson for the University of Edinburgh — confirming an investigation into Travers’ alleged misconduct had been launched, but denying it was in connection with “mocking ISIS” — told us:

We are committed to providing an environment in which all members of the university community treat each other with dignity and respect and our code of student conduct sets out clear expectations of behaviour. We can confirm that complaints alleging misconduct have been received against Mr Travers and these are being investigated. It is, however, untrue to suggest that Mr Travers is ‘under investigation’ for ‘mocking ISIS’.

Travers insists this is “false” and that a Facebook post cited in the complaint expressly referenced ISIS.

This isn’t the first time Edinburgh’s big name on campus (BNOC) has featured on the pages of Legal Cheek. We reported earlier this year that Travers had claimed to have been Twitter blocked by President of the United States, Donald Trump.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub.

123 Comments

Anonymous

He strikes me as the sort of guy who has waaaaay to much time on his hands. And gets a hard-on from each FB like. FFS get off social media and engage with the REAL world. Stop pretending that your long-winded statuses make a difference in the world.

(16)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

He is a student, of course he has a lot of free time. Social media does make an impact and is a perfectly valid method for communicating with the “real world”, whatever that is. Not only have his posts (and the views that they contain) reached his followers but further exposure have been achieved through sites such as this one. I’m willing to sport a guess that this method is somewhat more effective at reaching a wide audience than the guy talking to whatever small crowd he could muster on campus.

(3)(13)
Reply Report comment
Edinburgh Student

he’s just another rich weirdo with too much time on his hands. He lives for this sort of drama so no wonder he went and said something that might offend someone

(10)(3)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

PC culture gone bonkers.

(Am I allowed to say bonkers still these says? Or will it make those will mental illnesses feel threatened and unsafe?)

(29)(18)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

It’s shit isn’t it? Trying to create an environment where people are treated with dignity and respect. I remember the good old days where arrogant self-entitled pricks were allowed to make other people feel shit about themselves for who they were and not taken to task over it.

(15)(49)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

There is a severe difference between having respect towards others and outright trying to censor/police one’s thoughts and words.

To take the article as an example, the criticizing of ISIS and Islam as a whole has nothing to do with having dignity and respect for others. Just as if someone were to critique the belief system I adhere to, I would not cry about and report it as anyone has the right to freely speak. Facts > feelings.

(39)(2)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The point is that there is a system for addressing grievances and if something is a load of old bollocks it is likely to be proven as such. I would allege our lad here might be embellishing for effect and, heaven forbid, may have even misunderstood the situation himself. Before such things as anti-discrimination legislation and the HRA, people just had to put up with racism and sexism. You can’t honestly say this legislation is to control minds. Re the article we don’t actually know what was said as there are two conflicting accounts of it, that’s why a formal system for addressing the grievance makes it fair rather than a social media mudslinging match. Re dignity and respect, as I said above we don’t know what was said or how it was articulated, but it’s equally possible that the complainant is talking a load of bollocks too. I’d rather the odd wrist-slapping occur than people live in fear because of who they are.

(6)(9)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

“I’d rather the odd wrist-slapping occur than people live in fear because of who they are”

Excuse me???? You’d rather the possibility of innocent people going through the hell of an investigation, being put under threat of being chucked out of university, being publicly slated for being something they are not and losing out on their career path, than people choosing to be offended because someone dared to criticise the Spaghetti Monster?

Step this way, that’s right, the door with Stazi above it.

(20)(3)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Hold on there! If he goes through the investigation and is found not to have been offensive then no harm is done. If it turns out he has said something offensive then he deserves a wrist-slapping. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to offend whomever you wish without consequences. Have a look at his website -https://robbietravers.com/ – clearly exercising his freedom of speech and you might even spot a theme there too. No one’s reporting that and I certainly don’t feel the need to.

(4)(7)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Yes, but responding to numerous claims and investigations can cost a student time and money. It can be a very effective way to shut another student up.

(8)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

You’re completely wrong I’m afraid. Sorry if that offends you. Actually, I’m not sorry. You don’t have a right not to be offended. I am under no obligation to avoid hurting your feelings.

That is freedom of speech. It’s pretty important.

(14)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

I don’t know why you’d be so opposed to a gulag, it instils a great work ethic and respect for authority that you just don’t learn anywhere these days.

(4)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

What exactly do you mean by “treating people with dignity and respect” Anonymous?

What exactly has Robbie Travers done, in your opinion, that does not show such dignity and respect?

(10)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

That dignity and respect comment relates to PC in general not this case. As I stated in my reply, we don’t know what was said as the article reports two conflicting views of the situation. Once the investigation has finished I might be able to tell you, if indeed anything offensive was said.

(3)(5)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

“Once the investigation has finished I might be able to tell you, if indeed anything offensive was said.”

What precise criteria are you using to identify something as being “offensive”?

(2)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Well, the fella on the Clapham omnibus doesn’t find it or a million things offensive.
The woman in the hijab on the Edgware Road finds it and a million other things offensive.

So why isn’t British Law taking the viewpoint of the fella on the Clapham omnibus any more?

(1)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

British law? What jurisdiction is that?! I’m pretty sure it does, lest we forget how the judiciary is comprised, who legislates, and the background of juries.

(0)(0)
Interested observer

Would he have been treated the same way by the Uni if his comments had been concerned with Judaism rather than Islam? I wonder…

(24)(5)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Yes. You just have to look at the comments in the Guardian Online. You will see commentators bend over backwards to defend medieval practices of Muslims while at the same time ridiculing Christian beliefs.

(11)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Someone actually asked above whether he would get the same response if he critiqued Judaism, so Anonymous was simply responding to the suggestion that he might do so.

(1)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Yes, try having these ‘wrong opinions’ at work. You’ll be more toxic than the ground water from underneath Fukushima power plant. They will dispose you with equal emergency.

1984.

(8)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Hi, please refrain from using the word Spaz – it is very offensive to the disabled community. Also, please don’t assume Spaz Muslims’ gender. Thank you.

(7)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

FFS, the trolls on here have the analytical skills of a turnip. If any of them are law students, they should take one hard look at themselves and ask whether they are up to the task.

1. Edinburgh Uni has a duty to investigate complaints of misconduct made. That is the point of a complaints system.
2. If the complaint is meaningless, ill founded or vexatious, it will be dismissed.
3. To determine whether a complaint requires dismissal, it must be investigated.
4. The complaint against this particular slimeball is under investigation. An investigation has not been completed. It may yet be found to be meaningless, ill founded or vexatious by those who have before them (a) the complaint, (b) any materials related to the complaint.
5. To determine a complaint of any nature, it is usually wise to have in front of you: (a) the complaint, (b) any materials relatated to the complaint.
6. As the readers here do not have the above, only the slimeballs’ version of that, it is true to say that they are not in full possession of whatever facts are relevant to this situation.
7. To say that the complaint ought to be dismissed without having all the relevant facts is not very lawyerly behaviour.
8. Because the readers don’t have the facts in front of them, then the reader should not presume that the complaint is without foundation.

(23)(16)
Reply Report comment
Mildly Amused Law Convert

Because the poster is immune to many things, including irony.

“Wait for the facts”
“slimeball”

My hands are about to separate from the rest of my torso. Hang on.

(2)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Are there directly flights from Gatwick to Islamic State?
Has David Davis discussed Brexit with Islamic State?
Can a solicitor sign a passport application for Islamic State?
What is the National Anthem of Islamic State?
Yeah, it’s not a state.

(14)(17)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

False equivalence fallacy.

Islamic State is the name. The further matters you raise are irrelevant.

Just like it’s irrelevant whether or not the Real IRA actually is the real IRA.

(17)(7)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Language is important, as your post proves.
The “real IRA” became the National Army, thereafter the Defence Forces of the Republic of Ireland. Inspected by the President of Ireland, and working with the UN, they are a recognised state army.
The “Real IRA” is a terrorist organisation formed after splits within the Provisional IRA. Not a state army.

(5)(9)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Your lack of desire to understand pretty is a lot like the UK attitude to Northern Ireland and the reason the Troubles persisted for so long. Scundered for you.

(7)(12)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The simple point, which you clearly can’t refute, is this:

The name of this terrorist cult is the Islamic State.

Not “the so-called Islamic State.”

I’m sorry if reality is too triggering for you.

(21)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Triggered? No.
Bemused at someone who can’t tell the difference between an army and a proscribed organisation? Yes
You have a good day now.

(0)(16)
Anonymous

Err, no. My entire point was that they are different: the Real IRA is not the real IRA, but that fact does not prevent us using the former’s name!

So a historical diatribe on how the two are different doesn’t get you anywhere!

So I end with the simple point you cannot refute:

The name of this terrorist cult is “the Islamic State,” not “the so-called Islamic State.”

(16)(1)
Man in the FCO

Daesh (also known as ISIL, Islamic State, or ISIS) is a terrorist group. It claims to represent Islam but uses the banner of religion to carry out barbaric atrocities, including beheadings, crucifixions and the slaughter of children.

Islamic State is a bit DailyMailesque.

(0)(9)
Anonymous

Man in the FCO: in the same vein as society demands we call people by whatever they identify as, and not what it says on their passport or what anyone else defines them as, surely we should follow this logic and refer to Islamic State by the name they choose to be known as. All this “so-called” nonsense is utterly ridiculous.

All this “it claims to represent Islam but uses the banner of religion” blah is a bit DailyMirroresque.

(4)(0)
Someone with a brain

Actually, the reason Daesh or ISIL is also known as the ‘so called Islamic State’ is because that’s how they wish to be known. In referring to them as the Islamic State it validates their claims. Further naming it the Islamic State suggests a link to Islam which as anyone who’s done GCSE RS would realise is as close to Islam as to the KKK is to Christianity

(1)(3)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

“It’s how they wish to be known – it validates their claims”. I am not sure which claim you are referring to, perhaps the wish to be known by something isn’t a claim, it’s a wish to be known by something. Since they have a name, why not just call them by it?

Further, of course it suggests a link to Islam. Which anyone who has got past a few GCSEs would realise is absolutely spot on.

(3)(0)
Reply Report comment
Belinda

I can tell from the look in his eyes that he means well. I have a certain affinity with creatures on this planet (including humans) that allows me to judge these kind of things. He is kind of handsome too, just look at those delicious locks. I wonder if he needs an older lady in his life to act as a mentor, possibly with a bit of romance on the side. Macaw.

(3)(0)
Reply Report comment
I smell BS

“A spokesperson for the University of Edinburgh — confirming an investigation into Travers’ alleged misconduct had been launched, but denying it was in connection with “mocking ISIS” ”

What is Walter Mitty/ Robbie Travers being investigated for then? Someone is lying and I don’t think it’s Edinburgh University.

(8)(0)
Reply Report comment
Wtf I just read

Regrettably, I clicked on his Facebook. Reading two statuses has given me full -blown AIDS. The amount of bullshyte, narcissism, pity and attention seeking is phenomenal.

(13)(2)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The posts were not on any Edinburgh University website, so on what grounds does the University assert jurisdiction over this matter?

In any case, the way to deal with this nonsense is to turn the bed-wetters’ logic against themselves. When David Cameron was PM, every time someone ran amok screaming Allah Akhbar and ISIS claimed credit for the attack, he would solemnly intone that “this has nothing to do with Islam”. Thus a post criticising ISIS cannot possibly amount to “Islamophobia”.

(4)(2)
Reply Report comment
Logic

Don’t compare lefties to Muslims, you roach.

To have a fair, equal and liberal society the left political way is the only way.

A religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism or otherwise) is an archaic and old-fashioned idea used to control people… much like policies of the right wing political parties.

(2)(5)
Reply Report comment
Jean Cook

Good on you Robbie!
Dont let the Politically Correct brigade stop you from speaking out.
If sharia law takes over in UK, which is the intention of Islam, then no freedom of speech, religion, the media or women will be allowed.
Quran commands all muslims to carry out Jihad by “killing all unbelievers until Islam dominates the world” (Quran 48:28 and Q61:9).
Oh yes, thats their aim.
The first way this will be done will be to stop all criticism of Islam.
So wake up UK to the advance of Islam and the end of all freedom of speech.
Well done, Robbie!!!!!!

(3)(4)
Reply Report comment
Logic

Christianity is just as bad. Likewise Judaism. Even Hinduism, Sikhism. Religion should have NO place in law, politics or mainstream society.

(2)(6)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

No offers…?

Jesus also placed the responsibility on the man to control himself, rather than blaming the woman and forcing her to cover up (Matthew 5:28).

(5)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Actually, British Law is based on Judaism and Christianity, the 10 Commandments in particular.
That is the basis for our compass for morality, for what is considered to be right and wrong.
So, Judeo-Chriatian beliefs are inherent in our laws, politics and throughout society, whether you realise it or not.

(9)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

In the same way that painting my bathroom green will make it smell like nature (because after all nature is green) rather than the dump I just took in there?

(0)(3)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

All still a sound basis for a moral code, non?

Even the unmarried don’t like people who cheat on them, hence even “do not commit adultery” has its modern equivalent…

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Christianity can produce a George Bush, Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. But it can also produce Martin Luther King. Can Islam produce a Martin Luther King vis a vis Sharia law and a separate state or caliphate ?
I thought that the wish of Gandhi for a united India was bound to fail because Muslim doctrine would wish for a Pakistan to be created. I may be mistaken, which is why I ask.

Kind regards

(1)(2)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The Catholic churches all had swastikas in. This was approved, so i understand, by pope pius 12th. He is known as Hitler’s Pope.

Do you have anything to offer on the Pakistan point that is useful ?

(0)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The lie that Pope Pius XII was ‘Hitler’s pope’ has, belatedly, been exposed fully for the lie that it is. Do some research.

And the idea that all Catholic churches contained swastikas is in your head.

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

He signed a treaty in 1933 which restricted the political activities of the Catholic clergy. The Nazis were a counterparty to the treaty and a restriction of the clergy was yheir agenda. He did this while cardinal, if I am not mistaken. Soon after he became pope. To sign such a treaty rather than condemn Nazis and approve political activity , while getting promotion justifies the charge. I was not around in the 1930s but I understood that the swastika was integrated into the church. The clergy swore allegiance to the head of the Reich, to boot.

Still nothing from you on the Pakistan point.

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment
Robbie Travers

I call to order a meeting to debate the matter at Teviot House this evening at 7.30pm.

Attendance: free

Refreshments optional.

(0)(7)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

The irony here is that he is barely a “student” considering he HAS NOT made it into any courses, despite claiming to get a “first in honours compontents”. He failed to make it in to honours last year and was not in a single honours class. When asked which honours classes he was in, he completely ignores it. He was however spotted taking second year re-sits, again. 🙂

(12)(2)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Yes, he claimed he got first class in his honours components publically on Facebook. The rest of the status was Robbie slating his fellow peers.

He’s also claimed the law school lost one of his exam papers months after the exam. Odd. Something smells fishy.

(6)(0)
Reply Report comment
The Real McCoy

I’d (unfortunately for myself) seen him at multiple resit exams in the past so it isn’t surprising he never made it into honours. Big on ego, not so big on actually working.

(6)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

It’s insulting to all of the actual students at Edinburgh law, that he is still pretending to do better than us, when, in reality he has rarely passed an exam first time. Perhaps we’d have more sympathy if he didn’t look down on the rest of us with his “first class grades”.

(8)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

It’s weird that he (allegedly) publically lies about his grades, going so far as to post FB posts about gaining first class marks, when (allegedly) other students report not seeing him in any honours classes and spotting him taking 2nd year resits. It’s weird that he told someone on Facebook at one point that the law school was incompetent for losing one of his papers months after the marking period, and that therefore he was forced to resit. Likely seems to me like BS.

You’re right. People would have more sympathy for Robbie if he wasn’t so unduly arrogant, condescending and delusional. He makes himself out to be a victim, and thinks everyone is out to get him.

(7)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

“…makes himself out to be a victim, and thinks everyone is out to get him.”

The irony of this statement on an issue of offence-taking and Islam is not lost on most of us.

(2)(2)
Reply Report comment
Bob the Architect.

Please stop giving this numpty the oxygen of publicity.
He’s a self promoting fabulist and has been caught out time and time again making this stuff up.

He wasn’t blocked by Donald Trump. He wasn’t involved in a terrorist incident at the British Museum. He isn’t the director of a think tank.

It’s all bull he’s made up to get attention.

(6)(2)
Reply Report comment
Robbie the Jobbie

It is all true!!!!!

You’re all really nasty!!!!!

I’m going to set my close personal friend Lord Harley of Counsel on all of
you!!!

(0)(0)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

Bob – that may all be true. If so, or if not, is separate to this issue.

Is it true that posting on FB on one’s views of women wearing the hijab etc, and supporting May’s refusal to do so on a visit to Saudi, results in Edinburgh University investigating one for “misconduct” amid accusations of making female students feeling “threatened” and “unsafe”.

I don’t want to know at this stage anything else about this individual. I just want to know if any of this is true and I want Edinburgh University/Travers to publish the results of the investigation in full.

(1)(1)
Reply Report comment
Anonymous

That’s completely correct. He was not blocked by Trump. That was debunked in the comments on that LC article. He is certainly not the director of a think tank, never has been. And spread around crap about the museum incident.

(3)(0)
Reply Report comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.