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.
Rape. She raped those boys. Use the correct terminology.
Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK at least from what I remember.
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
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.
Til. So in the UK only men (or those with dicks) can rape?
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.
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.
Why is this downvoted?
Then the UK is wrong.
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
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 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 of terms like 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 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.
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.
As per usual.
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.
Which is fucked up frankly because that’s clearly not true.
that would be to ‘harsh’
You need me to tiktok it to you? it is r*pe
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
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.
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.
I would like to welcome Rebecca Joyner to her future career in the Trump administration.
Dammit, where were all these sexed-up teachers when I was a kid?
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.
I’m gonna watch this episode when I get home. 😁
the age of consent in Germany is 16 IIRC
It’s actually 14, but only if the older one is younger than 21 or they aren’t taking advantage of the younger ones lack of ability to make informed sexual decisions. If the older person has authority over the younger one (e.g. a teacher) the age of consent is 18.
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.
“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?
No one’s disagreeing that it’s wrong and needs to be addressed. The disagreement is on whether pedophiles get to choose who they’re attracted to. This is an important distinction because firstly, the origin of their thoughts/actions determines the course of action necessary to keep it in check. Second, shaming someone for something they can’t control is one of the most effective ways of discouraging treatment. Third, that wasn’t a preface. It was the answer to the question they responded to.
Regarding suicidality: I believe that the approach of stigmatizing and criminalizing was often taken in the past and found to be ineffective. I’ve been seeing a big movement towards more open dialogue and encouraging treatment in the past decades.
And I’m disagreeing that pedophiles can’t help their feelings. This dialogue only occurs because of the recent conflation between sexuality and pedophilia. I’ve always been of the opinion that they need to see a professional, and that needs to be a non-negotiable. I reject any conversation on their feelings being a choice because as evidenced in this thread, people conflate ideas that apply to sexuality to pedophiles. I just responded to someone who accused me of arguing for conversion therapy. It’s pedophilia, it needs to stay stigmatised because of how huge the consequences are if they act on it.
I think you and shalafi might be using different definitions of “gets to choose”. Using a depressed person as an analogy since I think this is better understood: You don’t get to choose to be happy, but you can choose to take steps towards getting help so that you can better manage it. It sounds like they’re talking about the former while you’re talking about the latter.
Similarly with stigmatization. It’s one thing to stigmatize acting on your suicidal ideation. It’s another to stigmatize having suicidal ideation in the first place.
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.
… 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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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
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…
Bad wording that…Struck off is also slang for “masturbation”
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.
paedophile … maths …
too british. i’m out.
Nice.
found a nonce
Real smooth, like the cha-cha
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.
You might want to consider context, or a visual aid in the future - because, yeah, you come off as a nonce.
You might want to consider less virtue signalling.
Ah, so nonce with no taste
? Are you familiar with the point of the South Park episode?
Don’t assign so much meaning to a single word from somebody you don’t know.
If it came out after the South Park movie, then no, cause that’s when they jumped the shark
And when they started getting in bed with the fascy types
The episode came out like 20 years ago.
