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.
are we still doing 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?
We don’t get to choose who and what we are attracted to. 🤷🏻♂️ However, that does not absolve one of immoral actions.
.mentally ill
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.
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, ergo could not give consent
Underage is literally a legal definition, so clearly you do care. Calm down.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s only because uk libel laws are backwards and stupid.
Hi! I’m not worried about being sued. She raped at least two children.
In the uk facts are not a defense for libel. It’s a backwards country.
I was more referring to the news outlet. Regular folks like you and I aren’t much at risk of being sued for libel.
Thankfully I’m not a citizen of TERF Island. She raped them.
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…
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.
Paedophile teacher who raped two boys is struck off
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.”
Dammit, where were all these sexed-up teachers when I was a kid?
Fucking the hot students.
Roasted
I’d be pissed off if I wasn’t laughing so hard.
Bro… I thought we were friends now you’re telling me I’m ugly.
To be fair, I only said you were ugly as a student.
Wow, you were not who I thought you were.
Paying child support to your rapist doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.
You need to very seriously consider your options when it comes to designing and expressing your personality.
You seem to be under the false impression that what they said isn’t a widely held opinion among men.
Almost everyone who has been a teenage boy knows the fantasies of teenage boys. Yes, there’s good reasons this is considered criminal conduct, and teenagers at that age can’t legally consent for the same reasons, but in a consensual scenario, such an experience does not have to cause any kind of trauma or harm.
PS: The teenage boy in me thinks “nicceeeee”. Pardon.
Agreed. My issue here is the pitchfork mob mentality around it, it’s like, if you don’t scream and froth whenever this subject comes up then you become guilty by association.
From a social psychological standpoint it is functionally equivalent to people spitting and throwing eggs at condemned people at the gallows, or witch processes. It’s deeply disconcerting to me that they can’t seem to control their emotions and whip each other into a fervor not unlike religious fundamentalists. It is how groupthink happens. And genocides.
It has sadly become consensus to try and distance oneself by being part of the pitchfork mob. And I haven’t found an age mentioned in the article - e.g. the age of consent in Germany is 16 IIRC, in which case the legal problem is when the older person has a position of authority / responsibility, not the actual age. And - age of consent or not - a relationship with a big age difference among adults is also creepy.
Anyways, I remember my thoughts as a teenage boy and I would definitely - even in hindsight decades later now - have fantasized about this ^^ Even though I would have probably chickened out g
It’s a fucking South Park quote and you’re over analyzing this shit.
