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.
She got pregnant… So… not “paedophilia” then? Or are we still using an overly crude broad [mere statutory] brush here?
Did I miss mention of their ages in the article?
Sounds like we’d be better served by getting the terms hebephilia and ephebophilia better rooted in the lexicon. Otherwise we’re playing around with a dangerous false equivalence. Not to mention denying human rights to the largest underclass of humans, at the expense of others’ freedom and rights and more too.
Hebephilia specifically denotes attraction to early adolescents (ages 11–14), while ephebophilia refers to attraction to older adolescents (ages 15–19)…
Or maybe I misunderstand the ranges at which young boys can become fathers, and this genuinely was a case of paedophilia? 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.
(And [before anyone tries throw out spurious ugly accusations] no, I’m not saying that to wrangle the legal freedom to have at. I’m a mesophile. … And have been since very young. So it’s more than a little late for that to benefit me.)
Dang.
They’re all going to learn that society doesn’t give a damn about them.
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.
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.
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.
Great, so now France has two more Presidents?
She is an amateur. She should just say that she didn’t know them and it’s certainly a democrats conspiracy.
Rape. She raped those boys. Use the correct terminology.
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”.
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.
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.
They didn’t call it “sexual assault” either, so I’m inclined to not accept that excuse.
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.
Til. So in the UK only men (or those with dicks) can rape?
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.
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.
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
Thankfully I’m not a citizen of TERF Island. She raped them.
That’s only because uk libel laws are backwards and stupid.
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 with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.
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?
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…
are we still doing phrasing?
I am. Phrasing!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.mentally ill
Those poor victims!
I’m sure they’re going to have more issues in adulthood than the males that aren’t having sex.
eww, go fuck yourself
Keep pretending you care about the ‘victims’ when you’re only trying to use them to feel good about yourself.
How exactly would that work?
I’m suddenly reminded of a certain South Park episode
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.
The TRA panel said that they found no evidence that Joynes’ qualities as a teacher outweighed the serious nature of the conviction
Wut? There was a invistgation on this? what evidence would outweigh???
“When she’s not busy raping her students, she’s actually a pretty decent teacher.”
“She tries not to rape any kids on her way to bathroom”
