Rebecca Joynes is currently serving a six and a half year prison sentence
A teacher who was convicted for having sex with two boys, becoming pregnant by one, has been banned from the profession.
Maths teacher Rebecca Joynes, 31, was jailed for six and a half years in July last year after being found guilty of six counts of sexual activity with a child, after sleeping with one pupil before falling pregnant by a second while on police bail.
The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) convened earlier this month via a virtual hearing, which Joynes did not attend, to consider her professional conduct. A panel recommended she be banned from teaching.
Bad wording that…Struck off is also slang for “masturbation”
Joynes was suspended pending a police investigation. But this did not stop her from inviting a second boy to her apartment for a “date night” that involved an Ann Summers scratchcard of sexual activities.
She became pregnant with the boy and gave birth last year, but the child was taken away from her.
This is sickening! The fact that she only got six years is a severe injustice to those two boys and the unfortunate child that was conceived in such a manner. Let’s not “both sides” this: sex abuse is sex abuse. As @MrSulu@lemmy.ml pointed out, this will probably get some attention among far-right chuds for about week and get forgotten. It won’t solve any issues and one more kid will fall into that hateful ideology. I hope the two boys get the help they need and that baby gets a good family that will look after it.
(Also, I had to look up what “Ann Summers” was in the context of this story and now I feel like shooting my laptop)
Usually that would be true, but Farage is keeping his head down at the moment. No doubt 30p will say something incoherent and quite possibly untrue about all of this, but no one listens to anything he says anyway.
Looked it up to …
A literal scratchcard in other words…
Exactly, the right wing fucks are going to derail & corrupt this issue with their brainrot & the left are already misandric enough.
Oh too, late both of those chucklefucks are already here.
I mean maths does have a tendency to be a bit dry and it’s hard to get kids to engage with but I feel like this is going to be too far.
deleted by creator
Whether we call it rape or not, is less relevant than the real world UK offences and sentencing guide for sex with a minor. She will serve her time, be on a sex offenders register for life, never work in teaching again and an indelible record that will show up on any safeguarding checks.
Here in the UK, our issue is that women and girls are told by the likes of Tommy (shit-for-brains) Robinson to look out for brown, black or Muslim people. Every week, women and girls have drinks spiked andraped by local white men, or are raped by people known and close to them.
This story will get some headline news because she’s an attractive white woman. If it was a brown, black, Muslim male, preferably with a beard, then we would be seeing widespread fear mongering by almost every news site.
Rape. She raped those boys. Use the correct terminology.
Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK at least from what I remember.
Then the UK is wrong.
I dunno. I almost think there should be a different term or word for it. I’m not saying it’s OK at all, I just think bundling so many sexual crimes under one name isn’t great.
For example; I was a horny teen and probably would have been into a teacher like that. It would have been wrong and it likely would have messed up different aspects of my life. I’m not condoning it or trying to downplaying it, but I feel if I had been violently been penetrated against my will by a male teacher the trauma would be a whole different kind.
So yeah, I don’t know if we should call it rape, but I recognize the boys were underage and taken advantage of, and the crime absolutely deserves to be punished. I’m also the person who get’s all worked up by modern loose usage WMD and many others, so I know I can be a handful.
Maybe that young girl wanted to have sex with an older man? Maybe there was no force involved at all?
NOOOOOO!!! RAPE IS RAPE! SIMPLE AS THAT!
I get that you want to separate sex by force from sex by free will but when it comes to kids there can never be consent and it defaults to rape. It should not be minimized just because a female teacher raped young boys.
Edit: If you want a different definition for what happens to someone being forced or not you could call it rape with assault or rape with {whatever}. I don’t think the rape part should be minimized in any way. Just extended in brutality if anything.
I get that you want to separate sex by force from sex by free will but when it comes to kids there can never be consent and it defaults to rape.
The issue with that definition, legally, is if two 12 year olds have sex with each other, they would now both end up in jail.
Things like that have happened in the USA btw because the law is set that way.
The problem isn’t whether they can or can’t consent at that age - humans don’t magically gain some universal phenomena of consent at some arbitrary number.
It’s the lack of foresight and knowledge of consequences, as well as the physical and mental health risks for young girls who get pregnant. That’s why it’s bad.
That’s also why the best defense against pedophilia is education about sex. And why the right wing globally usually is against sex education.
If they know what it is and what it can cause, it’ll be much harder for them to be convinced or tricked by an adult.
I really don’t get what you are trying to say here.
So what does the law in the US say now then? That the boy gets thrown in jail?
Why would you not make exceptions for kids under the age of 15 to have sex with kids under 15 and kids over 15 but under 18 to have sex with kids over 15 but under 18? Granted that they both gave consent.
In normal countries a kid can not consent to have sex with adults and it would be defined as rape and general sexual education is not frowned upon.
The US las varies by state, but in some cases only the boy goes to jail. In other both go to jail.
Even your proposal of
Why would you not make exceptions for kids under the age of 15 to have sex with kids under 15 and kids over 15 but under 18 to have sex with kids over 15 but under 18?
Has issues. For example, if two teens were already having sex at 14 but one turns 15, although legal before, it’s suddenly illegal, even if consenting.
Same with 17 to 18.
That’s why your statement of “underage automatically does not equal consent” doesn’t legally work.
What I think would work better than a simple lower limit age ban would be to also include an upper limit age ban as well. I think perhaps of 2 years for 13 and under and 3 years for 14-18.
That way, if say a 17 year old has a partner that turns 18 or 19, there’s no issues. But if an adult that’s 22 (or older) does something with a 17 year old it’s illegal.
This gives room for consent, because teens are able to consent - they should just be able to do so safely with their peers, rather than because they are targeted by older, more experienced/manipulative adults.
I don’t think they were trying to say that it should be minimised. But we should define crimes precisely. After all we make a distinction between murder by intent, murder by negligence, and murder by proxy. They’re all still murder, and they all still result in lifetime sentences, but we make the distinction.
And those crimes are all called murder with additioal context added. Calling a rape something other than rape is minimizing it. We don’t need “another word” for rape.
They define rape as penetration
Good news is she did seem to actually be punished with a sizable prison sentence (by uk standards)
She got pregnant, so I’m pretty sure there was penetration
No only the person who does the penetration can rape under uk law.
The more I hear about that place the less it makes sense
The more I hear about that place the more it makes sense how America got where it is.
In a lot of jurisdictions rape is definited in that narrow way, but there is a crime with equal punishment that catches the rest of sexual crimes that you might call rape in america.
As per usual.
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage, ergo could not give consent, ergo it was rape. Also power dynamics teacher pupil makes it even more rapey
Why is this downvoted?
In the UK, the definition of rape requires penetration from the offending party by their genitalia. So unless the teacher has a monster clit she used to anally penetrate the boys, the definition of rape can’t apply. For that there’s the broader definition of sexual assault.
Journalists, since their purpose is to serve the public with the truth, have to really carefully choose their words as using the wrong legal term can get them in hot water - libel lawsuits and such, not to mention accusations of trying to shape the public’s opinion, and so on.
So yeah, you’ll rarely find directly said out statements in the news as most journos will try to get to as close to the definition as possible without exposing themselves to legal action. That’s why you’ll often see e.g. statements like “the purported killer” even if there’s clear evidence of the person being the murderer, simply because the case hasn’t been judged yet therefore the legal term murderer - which requires a conviction - cannot be applied, and using it before the trial even happens is a big no-no.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree with you that if it was a man with two young girls, the article would be going on the offensive much quicker, and even here they should’ve used the term “sexually assaulted” instead of “had sex with”, but specifically the term rape cannot apply here.
Thank you for the informative reply. As a layman in another country who isn’t worried about specific local laws, I’d like to add that she raped at least two children.
New York had (has?) a similar distinction. It came up in the E Jean Carrol saga; specifically Trump suing for defamation after her lawsuit, because it wasn’t- technically- rape.
IIRC it was dismissed with the judge saying that it fits the modern lay definition of rape and that’s not defamation.
They didn’t call it “sexual assault” either, so I’m inclined to not accept that excuse.
by their genitalia
So the IDF can bring their dogs and iron bars, to the UK, and that’s not rape…
… Gets me wondering wtf law makers in the UK are up to.
The UK’s law is precedent based. The definition of rape thus goes back all the way to the 1800s (like many other restrictive laws that need to be revisited, e.g. classifying any transportation device with any kind of engine, i.e. not human or animal propelled, as a vehicle thus forcing the owners of e.g. low end e-scooters to have licences, registration, insurance etc. without providing the framework for any of these), wherein rape was almost exclusively committed by men, therefore lawmakers found it proper to define it as penetration of the victim using one’s genitalia - in a way to differentiate from “lesser” sexual assaults like flashing someone or forcing their hands on said genitalia.
by their genitalia.
So, like not using an object of some sort?
Journalists, since their purpose is to serve the public with the truth, have to really carefully choose their words as using the wrong legal term
Still seems like a more generic term such as “sexual assault” would be applicable here.
It would, but that’s a very broad term. I expect they were trying to be specific, but only succeeded in being forgiving in the headline.
Til. So in the UK only men (or those with dicks) can rape?
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage,
Blatantly, by the very next words.
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage, ergo could not give consent
Underage is literally a legal definition, so clearly you do care. Calm down.
I agree, but there are libel laws to consider here. It serves no one to open yourself up to a lawsuit, especially one from which the rapist can only benefit.
Thankfully I’m not a citizen of TERF Island. She raped them.
Hi! I’m not worried about being sued. She raped at least two children.
I was more referring to the news outlet. Regular folks like you and I aren’t much at risk of being sued for libel.
deleted by creator
That’s only because uk libel laws are backwards and stupid.
That’s only because uk
libellaws are backwards and stupid.iftfy
I don’t think someone would win the libel case and bad cases SLAP lawsuits aren’t really a meaningful thing here (we have protections against shit lawsuits)
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says?
methinks yes?
if not you, then at least journalistic integrity in the UK does
I agree with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.
Which is fucked up frankly because that’s clearly not true.
I’m going to take a guess that, if they were over the age of consent, it would have been consensual.
That does not matter lmao
Why not? The law is made up, you know.
that would be to ‘harsh’
You need me to tiktok it to you? it is r*pe
Like I just said within my reply to the original post:
Did they give informed consent? Oh that’s right, if they’re that young, they’re denied that human right, and so we hand them over to the black market to be abused, increasing their allure to rapists and blackmailers alike. >:-| We really need to come up with better ways to protect children.
So (unless the thing the other reply to this said [“Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK”] is true), then, that’s “statutory rape” [regardless of their informed consent]. Yup. Though I’m not convinced it’s necessarily “correct”.
I would like to welcome Rebecca Joyner to her future career in the Trump administration.
falling pregnant by a second while on police bail.
She really can’t stop fucking kids, can she?
Maybe she has a future in US government
“This would be hilarious, if it wasn’t so depressing.” - M. Lermontov
US Government? She’s already in the UK, why would she leave a Pro League to go an Amatuer one?
UK got rid of prince andrew so US has the market cornered on kid-diddling govt folk
You think he’s the only one? Not a chance…
You know what though? That is more than the US has ever done with high-ranking politicians.
“Y’all aint got nuthin on Savile.”
Or so we like to think, hoping the world’s not even worse than that. … But it is.
Dang.
They’re all going to learn that society doesn’t give a damn about them.
falling pregnant
I always find this expression incredibly strange.
Obligatory
She forgot to be a billionaire
So now the administration just needs to pardon her and make her Secretary of Education. Causes that’s fucking on brand for this shit show.
They’d struggle to pardon someone in the UK.
you don’t think they’d bomb the convoy in a prisoner transfer and bring her back to the US or something?
because it’s not a non-zero chance nowadays
What convoy? She’s a sexual abuser of little kids, not some hyper dangerous international red room assassin, she doesn’t need an armed escort. They are just going to put her in the back of a police car with the child locks on.
Ya know what…I could see it happening. It wouldn’t do anything. But it’s not the most ridiculous thing this timeline has offered.
I’m willing to bet quite a lot of money that Trump will never even find out about her. It’s not happening in the US and I doubt his supporters care about international news, so there’s no reason for any of his aids even to tell him.
Trump has already tried to pardon people he can’t pardon (due to the crime being state law rather than federal). He would absolutely try to pardon people in other countries.
She is an amateur. She should just say that she didn’t know them and it’s certainly a democrats conspiracy.
Invoke the Jewish space lasers and it’s all suddenly Hilary’s fault via Hunters laptop. Blatant grift has been going on so long it should just be a class in school now
Paedophile teacher who raped two boys is struck off
Edit: at least six rape apologists didn’t appreciate my headline correction.
Well the boys were 15 and 16, past puberty, so it’s not paedophilia. She still belongs behind bars, I’m your friendly neighbourhood language officer.
Well the boys were 15 and 16, past puberty, so it’s not paedophilia. She still belongs behind bars, I’m your friendly neighbourhood language officer.
Fine.
She raped minors.
are we still doing phrasing?
I am. Phrasing!
Why do this? There’s millions of legal age men who would love to start a family with this crazy woman. Why did she rape kids?
One kid was 15, the other 16.
She was 30 or 31.
… the answer is because she’s a groomer, a pedophile, by how those terms are generally used.
She gets off on the power imbalance, she gets off on manipulating and exploiting those who don’t and can’t reasonably be expected to know better.
She either wouldn’t prefer to be or just couldn’t be in a relationship with someone on an equal playing field.
She’s a sexual predator, the kind you’d stereotypically call Chris Hansen to investigate.
She’s a pedophile, that’s why.
We don’t get to choose who and what we are attracted to. 🤷🏻♂️ However, that does not absolve one of immoral actions.
… Imagine saying this regarding a male teacher aged 30/31 who groomed a 15 year old and 16 year old student, and got the 15 year old student pregnant.
(This woman got pregnant by the 15 yo student she groomed… and she had that child.)
“Oh I dunno, I guess some people are attracted to kids! 🤷 Its a bad thing to do though.”
What the fuck.
No, its a lot more than just a bad thing, merely immoral actions. Its three innocent lives massively damaged, thrown off course, poetentially fucked up for life, because of the manipulative and selfish actions of a person in a position of trust and authority absuing that trust and authority.
And yeah its three lives, not two, because there’s no way this doesn’t massively negatively affect the life of her baby.
… this woman is a serial sexual predator, who pursued the second relationship after being investigated for the first one and more or less getting away with a slap on the wrist.
Thats not just ‘immoral actions’, it’s basically downright evil, which, according to the judge of the most recent trial, was carried out with “breathtaking gall” and “astonishing arrogance.”
Downplaying the magnitude of how fucked up this is, is itself fucked up.
“MAP” type excusatory bullshit, fuck off. Pedophilia is not a sexuality because “child” is not a sex or gender expression.
I don’t understand how that comment was excusing anything. They explicitly said that it was inexcusable.
Yeah, but prefaced it by saying you can’t help who or what you’re attracted to. Right out of the MAP playbook. The thoughts and attraction in itself is a problem and requires counselling because “children” are not a sexuality. You can and should help what you’re attracted to when that what is a child! If you’re having suicidal thoughts, you should see a counsellor. If you’re having thoughts about harming others, you should see a counsellor. If you’re having thoughts about diddling kids, you. should. see. a. counsellor.
Do you accept that people can prefer partners older or younger than them? If so, do you really think that’s something that can be dealt with by some kind of “conversion therapy”?
Bizarre equivalencies here. Firstly, regardless of my personal beliefs on large age gaps, those are consenting adults. You’re equating them to children. Children are not consenting adults, it is a problem if you feel sexual attraction to them. Same thing with animals. They cannot consent. You have some really messed up ideals if you’re equating psychiatry and therapy, especially modern-day versions of them, to conversion therapy forced onto gay people. This is exactly why I called it excusatory MAP bullshit because you go right down this slippery slope. Being sexually attracted to children is not a sexuality.
What does consent have to do with attraction?
Nonononono NO.
Child rape teachers are knowingly taking advantage of social trust in order to exploit kids. Absolutely nothing in the ball park of “pedos can’t help it”. Rape is not a kink, fetish or identity, it’s a selfish, harmful, devastating crime with decades of repurcussions.
Please, I implore you to please never use this type of LGBTQIA acceptance language for pedophila. Child rapists are light-years away from two queer consenting adults and conflating the two only harms the innocent.
Do you have an issue reading entire comments?
No I agree that I don’t want to hear pedophilia talked about as a form of sexual attraction. It is inherently predatory and should not be mentioned as just what some people happen to be attracted to.
*you know, even with an asterisk at the end to say that sure it’s wrong
We don’t get to choose who and what we are attracted to
When discussing attraction to children is the cope of pedophiles. I don’t buy this shit.
You’re trying to make space for pedos by weaponizing queer acceptance. Fucking stop it.
So, they do choose who they’re attracted to?
Question was asked & answered. Not liking the answer doesn’t make it less true. Deal with it.
Removed by mod
Gross. “map” is just pedo apologia.
Removed by mod
No, and no, Fuck you and fuck your pedo friends trying to pretend that your predation on children is anything near the same thing as queer acceptance. You’re sick and actively doing harm to LGBT communities and acceptance by trying to equivocate the two. Having a kink for raping kids isnt a sexuality, quit pretending that it is.
Oh come on mods, there was nothing objectionable in my comments.
Anyway, you’re making a lot of assumptions there. I never said anything like that. I just mentioned that a lot of MAPs are supportive and often part of the queer community, as part of their gender identity, bisexuality or the likes. The equivocation comes from your own interpretation. And I’m not pretending that it is a sexuality, I could call it a “paraphilic disorder” if you like, perfectly fine with me. I could go on about why it’s not simply a kink like that, but I guess that would be too much intellectually honest discourse for .world, so I’ll leave it at that.
Removed by mod
.mentally ill
