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)
Nice.
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.
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.
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.
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?
… 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.
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.
Dammit, where were all these sexed-up teachers when I was a kid?
Fucking the hot students.
Roasted
Paying child support to your rapist doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.
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.”
Bad wording that…Struck off is also slang for “masturbation”
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.
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.
They define rape as penetration
Good news is she did seem to actually be punished with a sizable prison sentence (by uk standards)
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.
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.
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.
