Rebecca Joynes allegedly became pregnant after having sex with one of her victims, known as boy B, Manchester Crown Court heard - she denies the allegations against her.
Rebecca Joynes denies having sex with the two boys but admitted, in Manchester Crown Court, to having broken safeguarding rules by being in contact with them on Snapchat and having them back to her apartment in Salford Quays.
The 30-year-old was already suspended from her job and on bail for alleged sexual activity with boy A, 15, when she allegedly took the virginity of a second boy, known as boy B, 16, who she later became pregnant by.
Joynes denies that any sexual activity took place with boy A - whose semen was recovered from her bedsheets.
deleted by creator
Dude you’re gross
Fucking pedophile
*ephebophile
How can she possibly deny that when the evidence is undeniable?
not a drag queen
Removed by mod
That’s because the victims are children, and there are limitations to what you can publish about children in cases like this.
Removed by mod
Ah, I thought you were referring to the reporting of the article instead of her testimony, my bad.
Removed by mod
Oh no. The consequences of my actions. Woe is me, give me sympathy
- teacher, probably
Removed by mod
Treat paedophiles, execute child molesters seems like a good balance.
Notice how it says “having sex with” instead of “raping” because she is a woman.
Statutory rape does not exist as an offence in English law. The offence is sexual contact with a minor.
The age of consent is 16 but 18 if the older party is in a position of responsibility (like a teacher). So whether or not she had unlawful sexual contact with the second boy would depend on how that law was interpreted, as well as when the first contact took place.
Notice how it says it was consensual and they were at the age of consent?
Age of consent is 18 in the United Kingdom, when the older individual has a duty of care for the younger.
Joynes denies six counts of engaging in sexual activity with a child, including two while being a person in a position of trust.
The defendant, pleading innocence, said that. The case is about sexual activity with children.
Hitman denies being hitman and you believe him, that’s your angle? I know you’re being intentionally obtuse, but it’s clear I was talking about the teenagers, not the woman trying not to be arrested.
Ohh! It’s just your reading comprehension, not that you’re really suggesting that it’s cool for a teacher to fuck their fifteen year old students and former students. If you care about what the children said, there’s this from the older one:
Boy B claims he tried to end the relationship but did not know how to, called her a “paedo” and told her to find someone her own age but claimed emotional pressure came from Joynes to keep their relationship going.
She is an authority to them, they are obviously not adults, she invited them to her home, and there is little doubt she had sex with both because one evidently came at least on her bed and the other inside her.
This is sexual abuse. If the sexes were reversed the guy would be scheduled for a life sentence with high probablility of getting shanked every time he encounters another prisoner.
Yeah as fucked up as it is men cannot be raped by women according to the definition under UK law. That’s what I read anyway someone please correct me though because I would love to be wrong here.
German law is curious (and well-written) in that regard. “rape” is something an offence may be called but it’s not a category of offence in itself. There’s one single section covering sexual assault in various aggravation stages:
(1) Whoever, against a person’s discernible will, performs sexual acts on that person or has that person perform sexual acts on them, or causes that person to perform or acquiesce to sexual acts being performed on or by a third person incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between six months and five years.
[…](6) In especially serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of at least two years. An especially serious case typically occurs where
- the offender has sexual intercourse with the victim or has the victim have sexual intercourse or commits such similar sexual acts on the victim or has the victim commit them on them which are particularly degrading for the victim, especially if they involve penetration of the body (rape), or
- the offence is committed jointly by more than one person.
Note the “at least two years” doesn’t inherit the “up to five years” of the previous section and there’s even higher minimums for carrying weapons, risk of damage to health, etc.
Only acts involving penetration are considered rape but it doesn’t say by who or what, and even if the e.g. forced face-sitting didn’t involve penetration it’s still going to be on the same aggravation level.
OTOH under German law what she did probably doesn’t even begin to be rape it’s sexual abuse of persons in one’s charge.
It’s not the best source obviously, but according to Wikipedia this is incorrect, women can be charged with rape (if I’ve read this correctly):
Under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the use of the phrase “his penis” is a misnomer as all laws were previously written using male pronouns. It does not exclude those who are legally female from being able to be covered from the definition of rape.[12]
The last time I pasted a Wikipedia link on a world news community I was banned, so mods please just delete this comment if I’ve done something wrong. [Edit] note it was a different world news community, I’m just trying to be extra careful.
I honestly think that’s more about ensuring that they can charge trans women with rape (which they obviously should, when relevant). It seems like the thing they’re commenting on is the pronoun, not the noun.
Where I am, penetrating someone with an object counts and they phrase it very differently
It does specify being the penatrator in a different section, I’m no lawmaker though so I’m not sure how the two statements converge.
You might be right about the trans argument.
I cannot officially speak on behalf of any other mods, but I can’t imagine any of us deleting a Wikipedia link. Really, any mainstream source is acceptable. If you posted a link to something like womencantrapemen.co.uk, that might be a different issue.
Thanks. yes this was a different world news community. I wasn’t saying it was this one that banned me, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I was just adding the disclaimer because I didn’t want to get banned from this one too.
I’ve edited my original comment to try and make it more clear that I’m not referring to this community.
IDK why people hate on Wikipedia links so much. Most wiki pages provide sources at the bottom of the page and are annotated, the [12] at the end.
Because a lot of Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone, sure some are annotated at the end but lots are not as well. Therefore the trust of Wikipedia is in question.
EDIT: you can downvoted all you want but even Wikipedia itself says that everyone can edit the page.
I think Wikipedia is a fine source for general information. It’s when you want specifics that you move on. The sources list at the bottom is usually helpful for that.
I disagree, it’s a starting point but it is not trustable source at all. We differ in opinions and that’s alright.
This was the other world news community which is much more eastern based. I was questioning what somebody had said about a certain subject. Not saying they were wrong. Just asking if everything on the Wikipedia page was nonsense (I used stronger language which I won’t make the same mistake of doing here).
For some reason this was justification for a ban. I guess I don’t want to be part of a community which is policing itself so much as this will obviously lead to a scewed comment section.
The last time I pasted a Wikipedia link on a world news community I was banned
.ml? The mods there are really ban-happy, especially if you say something counter to tankie orthodoxy and back it up with unassailable logic and/or data lol
Yeah that’s the one. I hadn’t noticed they were so ban-happy and I did enjoy getting some, definitely not all of them, different takes on world events.
What I really don’t like is over policing though as it means you can unintentionally be stuck in a bubble.
Maybe there are stats on the number of bans a community has. That’d be interesting to have an idea of how much a community is policing.
Maybe there are stats on the number of bans a community has. That’d be interesting to have an idea of how much a community is policing.
It’d be up near the top for sure! Of the four times total I’ve been banned on Lemmy,
- one was a legitimate one for breaking the “be excellent to each other” rule in !technology@lemmy.world by getting far too heated while arguing with a pro-cop person
- one was a misunderstanding where making fun of Mitch McConnell got me banned from [!politics@lemmy.world(https://lemmy.world/m/politics) for “celebrating the death” of his sister in law
- the other two was absolutely bullshit !worldnews@lemmy.ml bans for
- supposed “sinophobia” (expressing unease about Chinese cops cooperating with Orban’s fascist government in Hungary) and
- “McCarthyism” for calmly and truthfully explaining that West Germany and later modern day Germany actually DID ever stop with the Nazism
Can confirm. It’s the same in my British former colony.
deleted by creator
Oh no men are calling out sexism, how terrible
Cool now give her the same sentence a male teacher should get
Let’s hope it’s not just her job she ruined but het life too, by going to prison.
Raping two students.
Boy A and Boy B are now the most popular kids in school.
Kid was 2 years older? Totally legal and the top category on every porn site.
Sexual assault can happen to men and boys. Sure, some of them may be “fine” with what happened, but this mentality makes it incredibly difficult for male victims of sexual assault to come forward and get help when they need it. The damage isn’t always apparent right away, either.
Sorry… are you suggesting 16-year-olds doing porn would be acceptable?
The point of having an age of consent (in this case 16 in the UK) is not popularity, and not just parental awareness or protection from people in positions of power.
It’s a decision by society that kids below this age are incapable of grasping the full consequences of their consent.
Of course the limit is going to be somewhat arbitrary, and you can definitely argue that age of consent laws are bad without being a creep, but you’d have to argue that a 15 year old understands the ramifications of consent.
It’s 16
Corrected.
It’s unfair to have a discussion calling names by default. For me, even 18 is not enough to understand the ramifications of consent, but it’s too hard to keep 18 year-olds from having as much sex as they desire (some of them do desire a lot). If you start calling me a prude for this, what should I call you from my POV?
Not sure I understand, who is being called names?
And sure, laws like these are always a compromise, with no objectively true answer.
This is why there’s so much controversy when these cases happen, it’s all down to situation and the persons involved.
15 years old is a freshman in high school. My friends and I had discussed numerous times what hot teachers you’d nail if you had the chance. Sure most of us hadn’t gotten further than 2nd base with a girl, but we were absolutely aware of the ramifications of consent and would absolutely take the opportunity if it ever presented itself.
Can’t grasp the consequences but def grasped dem titties
I really want to downvote this but I can’t bring myself to do it.
Rape is not a stupid mistake. It’s an intentional action that is immoral and illegal and should be punished as such.
And it’s even less of a mistake when you do it again
??!!
Can we face a rule that the country must be in the title if the post?
She raped a child and emotionally manipulated them into continuing it after the child attempted to end it. Not nice. Not even close.
Like the others said, it’s actually a gif from an episode in which this specific double-standard is addressed… through satirical comedy.
The gif is perfect for this post.
Lol I always laugh when people comment on stuff like this with absolutely no idea of the context behind it
WHOOSH
Yeah that’s what that scene from South Park is satirizing if I remember correctly
You need context from the show to get this meme. This episode is a satire on how women who molest minors are treated differently and how some people are inclined to congratulate the molested instead of seeing them as victims.
It’s not nice, and we need to view the attitude of situations like this being “nice” as messed up. Hence the meme.
terfs will claim she technically didn’t sexually assault anyone here.
also jk rowling will not mention this
What.
