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.
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)
Dang.
They’re all going to learn that society doesn’t give a damn about them.
Nice.
found a nonce
Would you say the same thing if the genders were reversed (31 year old male teacher with 15 and 16 year old female students)? What’s the difference?
I’m just quoting South Park.
Real smooth, like the cha-cha
Trump wants to lit her in charge of the US Department of Education. PS: If you support Trump, you support child rape.
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.
I would like to welcome Rebecca Joyner to her future career in the Trump administration.
falling pregnant
I always find this expression incredibly strange.
Obligatory
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
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.
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.
Rape. She raped those boys. Use the correct terminology.
I’m going to take a guess that, if they were over the age of consent, it would have been consensual.
that would be to ‘harsh’
You need me to tiktok it to you? it is r*pe
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.
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.
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.
As per usual.
Which is fucked up frankly because that’s clearly not true.
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
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage,
Blatantly, by the very next words.
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.
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.
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, 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?
methinks yes?
if not you, then at least journalistic integrity in the UK does
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.
Regular folks like you and I aren’t much at risk of being sued for libel.
Trump: hold my 12 year old… beer
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)
I agree with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.
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”.
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
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
US Government? She’s already in the UK, why would she leave a Pro League to go an Amatuer one?
“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.
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.
She forgot to be a billionaire
She also forgot to be a man
Give some examples of male teachers having sex with students who were caught and walked free.
Bruce Siewerth. Want more? Internet searches are easy.
He got away because the statute of limitations had long run out, not because some idea you have that male pedos aren’t prosecuted.
I thought there were no statute of limitations on stuff like this…
… Jeez!
Oh, can include priests then?
That is the church protecting their own, who are by necessity men. You are insinuating that men, specifically because they are men, are let free when they commit sexual abuse, which is simply not the case, unless they’re billionaires.
Yawn. Keep moving that bar.
are we still doing phrasing?
I am. Phrasing!
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.
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.
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.
It doesn’t matter if you buy this shit, that’s the way it is, and science backs this up. And I can tell you from my own experience that I really didn’t choose this attraction at all, just like people don’t choose other sexualities. Why would it be different for pedophilia? This also isn’t a case of weaponizing queer acceptance. A big part of the MAP community is in fact very much in favor of queer acceptance and often part of the community themselves, with absolutely no intention to cause the queer community any societal harm.
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.
.mentally ill
