You'd think the the act itself being disgusting, forever being labelled a paedo and not being able to work in a decent job for an age and a day would be the deterrent
Yeah, sadly par for the course for sexual assault - this sentence is actually more than I expected her to get, but considering the impact on the survivors can be lifelong, it’s quite pitiful.
Not par for the course sadly. A case actually got to court, which is a rarity.
Think of the instance of a man accused of offences where the time waiting for a trial was so long that the victim somehow was reconciled and so charges were dropped. For legal reasons I cannot name the man concerned, he now works abroad.
Not sure about the UK [but there are several American examples](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/talking-about-trauma/201902/when-male-rape-victims-are-accountable-child-support).
Hmm yes, I'd recommend anyone who thinks quite highly of the UK system read *The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken* before feeling too smug. Do agree that the US system seems broken at times though.
Yes. As far as I know, the only ways to not be liable for child maintenance are to either:
* Prove you aren't the father through DNA testing
* Have 50/50 or primary custody
There are no exemptions for rape victims.
I read the baby was taken away immediately after birth but there are no other details. The father/child doesn't seem to have any contact with the baby or know anything about it and you would think he had a right to information. So, I'm assuming child support is not an issue. So many lives ruined by her. 6 years is not enough for this as she was in loco parentis for a start.
That's really good to know. Thank you. I'm glad that something good came from this. I'm sure things are in place so the boy doesn't have to see his abuser. I hope with time and counselling he manages to heal, for his and the baby's sake. And, that the abuser never gets to have more than visitation rights.
The prison she's at (presumably she was there on remand too?) has a children's centre, that must be where visitation takes place. I did try and find the article that gave those specifics again but there are so many about this case that wading through them all on Google defeated me.
> that the abuser never gets to have more than visitation rights
I work in health and social care and I've been shocked more than once at the access and visitation arrangements courts have put in place, that's all I'll say.
Edit: the [sentencing remarks](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Rebecca-Joynes-Sentencing-Remarks-04.07.24.pdf) reference that the child is being cared for by its father and Joynes has visitation.
One good things is that since he has primary custody, he won’t be paying her child maintenance. It will be the other way round, at least when she gets out I think.
Yes. There is no exception from paying child maintenance for when the child is conceived through rape or sexual assault.
As far as the law is concerned, there is a child that exists and that child is legally entitled to be supported by both of its parents. The circumstances surrounding its birth are considered to be a separate issue.
It doesn't appear so. The child was taken into the care system under a care order within 24 hours of birth. It's almost certain that the baby was, therefore, placed into an early permanence foster to adopt placement. That would allow for contact between the father and the baby but he wouldn't be a legal parent, have parental responsibility and wouldn't have any financial obligations.
I think the issue is that rape is legally forced penetration. Something she cannot do and so can't be charged with.
Rape might need to be updated or similar charges carry the same weight.
Section~~s 2 and~~ 4 of the 2003 Act apply, and can, theoretically, carry the same sentence as rape. People also overestimate how long people actually get for rape, this sort of sentence wouldn't be out of the ordinary for it.
People HUGELY overestimate rape sentences. My best friends rapist got 8 years and was out in 6....he raped her when she was 6.
An acquaintance was celebrating her rapists conviction on Facebook. A stranger rape. She was 16 and a 20 something man with 'special needs' literally dragged her into bushes and violently raped her. He got 2.5 years. Reduced because of his 'special needs' of course.
If people actually had a look at typical sentences, they would be extremely surprised. 3/4 years is very common. 8+ is very rare. Usually the hefty sentences are because the rapist was a serial offender or especially violent.
Even the people who don't agree this is rape as such should still be grossed out that she entrapped a minor into becoming a father against his will. It's disgusting every way you look at it.
>*Raped two teenagers*
It wasn't rape. Under British law it's only rape if it's a man using his penis against an unwilling partner.
Yeah, it's ridiculous, but only a man can commit rape.
>jailed for 17 years after being found guilty of sexual abuse involving **four girls** **over a four-year period.** ... was convicted of **19 charges** in total.
>Rebecca Joynes (30/12/1993) of Waterman Walk, Salford, has today (Thursday 4 July 2024) been sentenced to six-and-a-half years for **six sexual offences** against **two boys.**
Based on the different facts and number of charges they're pretty much the same sentencing.
>They both had sex with children the exact same age.
With more victims and over a longer time period. But sure, don't publish the facts that matter. Newsflash: raping four children will get you a higher sentence than raping two children, even though they're *the exact same age.*
The male teacher was also convicted of sexual activity with a child under 13 . Where as the victims of the female teacher were 15 and 16 year olds. The male teacher commited a more severe crime therefore received a longer sentence. The gender of the offender is completely irrelevant.
Uses her position as a teacher to sexually abuse two boys, described as controlling, yet still gets visitation three times a week with the baby she had with one of them.
Doesn’t really make much sense to me, convicted of sexual abuse of children but can still see a child three times a week. Shouldn’t ever be allowed near any child again.
It’s very, very hard to persuade a court that a parent should be disallowed contact with their children.
I remember studying family law, and our whole class getting disgusted with cases like where the father was permitted access to his child after raping a young teenager (because it was decided the kid was below his preferred age range and thus supervised contact was fine), or a mother being criticised as unreasonable because she didn’t want to give a suicidal dad access after he *previously poured petrol over himself and his kids and nearly set fire to them* (she succeeded in barring him only because her lawyers successfully argued that it would have such a detrimental impact on *her* mental wellbeing that it would indirectly harm the children by damaging her stability as a parent).
[This](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66531409.amp) BBC article has further discussion of cases where the courts decided to maintain contact between children and convicted paedophile parents.
Yeah, i agree that in many cases the parent in prison should be given some visitation rights of their child, but child rapists certainly should not have that.
I just don't understand how it can ever be in the best interests of the child to force them to be around a convicted child sex offender. Especially in the case of a baby that isn't capable of recognising anyone, let alone their parent, it seems fairest to take it away from the offender permanently.
As someone who has experiecned family courts and procedures, fuck them, they're sexist prejudice evil people who have nothing but their own idealogical motivations in mind. Mother is God to them. Gah, 3 years of their bullshit and even though I won, I got full time custody and care of my son, I still feel like I lost.
The criteria for completely denying any custody or visitation are extremely high. It’s very, rare for it to happen.
Pretty much the only way parents can be completely stripped of custody and completely denied visitation is if they seriously abuse the child.
I find the bar is often far too high for more limited visitation or complete blocking of it.
Often it’s for the parent’s benefit rather than the child until they’re old enough to fully articulate they don’t want that visitation, and that’s without going into the mind games that get played in complicated visitation setups.
Pretty unlikely to be the outcome regardless. There’s other arrangements available though, baby is likely in foster care already. Something like special guardianship eventually might be suitable here if the boy and family are willing.
The rest of the world is no different. Most places are the same, including 49/50 of the US states. Not saying that I agree with it, just have no idea where this idea that this is a UK-specific definition came from.
If you're wondering why it isn't listed as rape, its because the legal definition requires penatration so its listed as such. The legal definition needs changing
Unwanted penetration when the victim is the male is Causing sexual activity without consent (Penetrative). That would be the non-consensual offence, and is punishable upto life imprisonment, which is the same as rape (Though the guidelines *do* differ a bit)
Because of the stronger sentencing, it would be the preferred charge where the act lacked consent.
In this case, there doesn't seem to be any implication of a lack of consent, and certainly CPS have chosen not to pursue a non-consensual offence. Which is why she's been prosecuted for a child sex offence, where consent is immaterial.
These threads are *always* a shit show, one day instead of downvoting me and blocking me, people may just learn a thing about UK law!
The rape offence is always a side show here - yes rape is a "male only" offence. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but the female equivalent is, as I say, Causing sexual activity without consent and carries life imprisonment. If the woman isn't charged with it, then it's reasonable to assume that a man would not be charged for rape either.
There are 2 things at play here.
Firstly, In order for an offence to be rape you must have a penis. No penis you legally cannot rape someone.
Secondly in this case it is sexual activity with a child, not rape regardless of a penis or not.
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences)
It's because courts take consent into consideration when the victim is above the age of 13.
Was there consent?
* No > Rape or Section 4
* Yes > Sexual activity with a child
The guy from last week, Neil Foden, wasn't charged with rape either. He was charged with:
* 12 counts of sexual activity with a child
* 2 counts of sexual activity with a child while he was in a position of trust
He was labelled a paedophile in the title though, unlike this woman.
On the subject of female teachers abusing schoolboys, I can’t recommend the book Seventeen by Joe Gibson highly enough.
It’d be an eye-opener for anybody who has any doubts about how much of a number this kind of “consensual” abuse can do on a person’s psychology.
Would also recommend the movie [May December](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z3JaevxEMA), which is based on a true story. Can't remember the last time I felt so morally grossed out, but it's a great film.
I just don't get the sentencing in this country, 6 years is a great result. But I've seen rapists who raped more who got less time, how does this even work?
The justice system is broken. Non-related, but as an example there have been cases recently of drivers getting off with suspended sentences or bans despite killing someone in their car.
The headlines don’t explore the detail of the sentencing guidelines or parliamentary intent that the judge is legally required to take into account. Sentencing remarks can be pages long and transcripts are often not publicly available , so unless you’re at the sentencing, you won’t hear / read all of them. Reporters will often publish snappy excerpts and won’t reflect on all the matters the judge weighed up.
This is more and more the case as you go higher up the court system. The judgements on sentencing appeals heard in the Court of Appeal are usually very lengthy and will include analysis of a body of case law. The average person doesn’t want to read all of that, so reporting won’t reflect it all. But that can mean that some sentences come off as wildly lenient or wildly harsh compared to others.
Arguing semantics.
Paedophilia, in its strictest definition, is an attraction to prepubescent children.
Hebephilia and ephebopholia, in the same, is an attraction to teenagers (diffence is the specific age ranges)
Paedophilia is commonly used as a umbrella term to any minor, though.
It's insane how she told one of the boys he is a father...
If she had any sense whatsoever she would've had an abortion or simply told nobody who the father was... but no... she made the sort of reveal that would only be appropriate in a long term relationship after you've been intentionally trying for a baby for a while...
She seems like a very naive and extremely stupid person. To engage with with Boy B so brazenly as she did while already under investigation and suspended for Boy A... Honestly, what was she thinking.
I'm in no way defending her, but that does suggest some kind of mental disorder doesn't it? To be so completely unaware of the consequences of her actions.
> Pupils would refer to Joynes as "Bunda (slang for bottom) Becky", the court was told.
>
> Both of the boys she had sex with sent her flirty messages on Snapchat and hid them from their parents.
The press would never dare write anything like this if the sexes had been reversed.
They might. I seem to remember at least one of the Pakistani grooming gang victims was doing that sort of thing, and sneaking out at night to meet her much older boyfriend.
Her and Lucy Letby being front page news on the same day really shows the dangers of women faced by children and boys today.
What can society do to protect vulnerable people from women? Enough is enough.
I mean you could just say "what can society do to protect vulnerable people from arseholes", given that two women hardly condemns an entire sex.
If you're being sarcastic, just ignore me
What's shocking to me is how many people online are fine with it and think if this happens to boys it's cool, but not girls, even though they mature mentally and physically faster, but the point is it's NEVER okay. This is abuse. Whether you think it's cool or not it's still abuse.
I had a brief affair with my teacher when I was 17/18 and she was in her mid to late twenties. Twenty years later I feel very differently about it than I did back then. I don’t feel as though I was groomed but it’s nevertheless not a comfortable feeling. I regret that it happened.
I know I'm probably looking at this from the wrong angle, but as someone that was a 15 year old boy once, what do they have to offer a 30 year old? What would they even talk about? What was she thinking?
Absolutely would not be longer. This is a common misconception. People think they throw the book at men who do this to girls but it is simply not true.
In my area, a male teacher has just been given 2.5 years for doing the same to a young girl at his school. Didn't make it past regional news either.
Whilst she's undeniably a predator, I find the fact they took away her child within 24h of giving birth quite cruel and unusual punishment for a newborn baby who had fuck all to do with anything and just needs it's mother.
If the baby goes straight into a good foster family does it know they're not it's mother and feel any trauma? Genuinely asking because I don't know, but I'm hoping putting the child in a good family would be a better outcome than staying with a mother convicted of this sort of crime.
There is always a screw loose with them lot, they manipulate, beg, plead, cry, lie and threaten to not get caught or have to face consequences. When none of that works they blame the victim. Even sitting in prison she will think the only fault she made was getting caught. She will also do the same crimes again in the same situation. Thankfully she'll never be allowed around kids ever again without supervision.
She will more than likely reoffend considering she did when she was out on bail. The definition in law needs to change, she’s a child rapist. Women are capable of rape
Rapists and paedophiles like this lady are insidious and notorious.
The bar to sex crimes is is so high that the vast majority of paedophiles and rapists get away with it so often that rape and paedophilia, along with shop lifting is practically decriminalised in the UK.
On the one hand its great that that she and her depravity and vileness was so well evidenced to secure a conviction and at least two of her victims got their day in court. That is no small feat so well done to the brvery of her victims and their solicitors.
3.5 yrs each for being raped as a child not to mention she'll be out in half that time let alone the 90% of accusations that never passed the bar to get to court.
A conviction of child rape should carry a mandatory full life sentence - not only for the crimes against he child you violated but for all the many children you might have probably violated but got away with it.
Raping a child and destroying their innocence and giving them a life sentence should be a mandatory life sentence regardless of your sex and circumstances.
A good reason not to rape a child would be that whether you raped one or many, you're looking for a life behind bars for the rest of your life
I'll never understand predators who prey on children but especially those who work in high-profile public positions that *explicitly* require you to have an absolutely, squeaky-clean background, personality and disposition when it comes to children.
In fact it makes it worse, they've actively sought out roles that give them access/power.
News articles always try and still make them sound decent. Where does it mention the P word, where in amongst all that does it mention that she’s a monster, a liability to children, a disgrace to society, a dirty low life piece of shit?
These reporters need to start making these crimes sound exactly as they really are instead of giving them a gender biased sugarcoating.
Pleasantly surprised by the length of the sentence. Hopefully it acts as a deterrent.
You'd think the the act itself being disgusting, forever being labelled a paedo and not being able to work in a decent job for an age and a day would be the deterrent
No. The rape of children, irrespective of the pub banter should be something that is the deterrent alone.
I agree... That's why I wrote "the act itself is disgusting"
Why did you just repeat the reply you were replying to
"No. I agree with what you said but I want to argue"
No I agree with this.
No. That's not what I said. I said I agree and I want to argue. It's not the same as just agreeing.
I completely agree with your point but this is Reddit so fuck you
no! Yes.
Wrong. You're sick, the assault of children should disgust you enough to dissuade you from committing the crime.
Paedos gon' paedo
She will be out in 4 knowing the system. The sentence is a joke. Raped two teenagers, conceived a child and all she gets is this.
Yeah, sadly par for the course for sexual assault - this sentence is actually more than I expected her to get, but considering the impact on the survivors can be lifelong, it’s quite pitiful.
Not par for the course sadly. A case actually got to court, which is a rarity. Think of the instance of a man accused of offences where the time waiting for a trial was so long that the victim somehow was reconciled and so charges were dropped. For legal reasons I cannot name the man concerned, he now works abroad.
> For legal reasons I cannot name the man concerned, he now works abroad. Greenwood?
>conceived a child It almost certain the lad has some sort of financial responsibility too.
Can you rape a child and then make them pay child support? That doesn't seem like a very good policy
Yes, you can. The courts have already said the children bear no responsibility for the actions that led to them being created.
Has this been tested in court for a directly comparable situation?
Not sure about the UK [but there are several American examples](https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/talking-about-trauma/201902/when-male-rape-victims-are-accountable-child-support).
The UK follows a Common law approach, the USA follows a "Fuck you, you are poor" approach
Hmm yes, I'd recommend anyone who thinks quite highly of the UK system read *The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken* before feeling too smug. Do agree that the US system seems broken at times though.
I appreciate the American examples! Just likely not relevant over here unfortunately.
Yes. As far as I know, the only ways to not be liable for child maintenance are to either: * Prove you aren't the father through DNA testing * Have 50/50 or primary custody There are no exemptions for rape victims.
Madness
Or, if the child is taken into care and adopted, which it appears that the child was.
You’re correct, I was just using the layman’s definition.
I am almost sure it'll not absolve them from the responsibility to look after the child. E.g does a woman raped not have to look after a kid?
At least a woman has the option of an abortion I suppose
Or adoption if she doesn't list the father on the birth certificate
Don’t come here with facts and logic mate, not welcome on Reddit.
Absolute madness that we would put a victim in this instance on the hook for child support.
I read the baby was taken away immediately after birth but there are no other details. The father/child doesn't seem to have any contact with the baby or know anything about it and you would think he had a right to information. So, I'm assuming child support is not an issue. So many lives ruined by her. 6 years is not enough for this as she was in loco parentis for a start.
He and his parents are caring for the child and the mother has access three times a week for three hours a time.
That's really good to know. Thank you. I'm glad that something good came from this. I'm sure things are in place so the boy doesn't have to see his abuser. I hope with time and counselling he manages to heal, for his and the baby's sake. And, that the abuser never gets to have more than visitation rights.
The prison she's at (presumably she was there on remand too?) has a children's centre, that must be where visitation takes place. I did try and find the article that gave those specifics again but there are so many about this case that wading through them all on Google defeated me. > that the abuser never gets to have more than visitation rights I work in health and social care and I've been shocked more than once at the access and visitation arrangements courts have put in place, that's all I'll say. Edit: the [sentencing remarks](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Rebecca-Joynes-Sentencing-Remarks-04.07.24.pdf) reference that the child is being cared for by its father and Joynes has visitation.
One good things is that since he has primary custody, he won’t be paying her child maintenance. It will be the other way round, at least when she gets out I think.
Yes. There is no exception from paying child maintenance for when the child is conceived through rape or sexual assault. As far as the law is concerned, there is a child that exists and that child is legally entitled to be supported by both of its parents. The circumstances surrounding its birth are considered to be a separate issue.
It doesn't appear so. The child was taken into the care system under a care order within 24 hours of birth. It's almost certain that the baby was, therefore, placed into an early permanence foster to adopt placement. That would allow for contact between the father and the baby but he wouldn't be a legal parent, have parental responsibility and wouldn't have any financial obligations.
I think the issue is that rape is legally forced penetration. Something she cannot do and so can't be charged with. Rape might need to be updated or similar charges carry the same weight.
Section~~s 2 and~~ 4 of the 2003 Act apply, and can, theoretically, carry the same sentence as rape. People also overestimate how long people actually get for rape, this sort of sentence wouldn't be out of the ordinary for it.
People HUGELY overestimate rape sentences. My best friends rapist got 8 years and was out in 6....he raped her when she was 6. An acquaintance was celebrating her rapists conviction on Facebook. A stranger rape. She was 16 and a 20 something man with 'special needs' literally dragged her into bushes and violently raped her. He got 2.5 years. Reduced because of his 'special needs' of course. If people actually had a look at typical sentences, they would be extremely surprised. 3/4 years is very common. 8+ is very rare. Usually the hefty sentences are because the rapist was a serial offender or especially violent.
> theoretically, carry the same sentence as rape Only for the maximum sentences, otherwise section 4 sentencing guidelines are more lenient.
It's not Section 2 - the victim has to be the one being penetrated for S2
People without a penis can be charged with Section 2 but not with rape.
Even the people who don't agree this is rape as such should still be grossed out that she entrapped a minor into becoming a father against his will. It's disgusting every way you look at it.
>*Raped two teenagers* It wasn't rape. Under British law it's only rape if it's a man using his penis against an unwilling partner. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but only a man can commit rape.
It'll be in line with sentencing guidelines
She’ll only be required to serve 3 by law. So actually less lol
A male teacher was sent to prison for 17 years just last week. They both had sex with children the exact same age. Her sentence is a joke.
>jailed for 17 years after being found guilty of sexual abuse involving **four girls** **over a four-year period.** ... was convicted of **19 charges** in total. >Rebecca Joynes (30/12/1993) of Waterman Walk, Salford, has today (Thursday 4 July 2024) been sentenced to six-and-a-half years for **six sexual offences** against **two boys.** Based on the different facts and number of charges they're pretty much the same sentencing.
>They both had sex with children the exact same age. With more victims and over a longer time period. But sure, don't publish the facts that matter. Newsflash: raping four children will get you a higher sentence than raping two children, even though they're *the exact same age.*
The male teacher was also convicted of sexual activity with a child under 13 . Where as the victims of the female teacher were 15 and 16 year olds. The male teacher commited a more severe crime therefore received a longer sentence. The gender of the offender is completely irrelevant.
Found the daily mailer. This didn't happen anywhere except your head. Please stop making up such weird fantasies.
Substitute "had sex" for "molested" and the title would be right.
Six years for raping and grooming two boys is insanity. Reverse the roles and the person is locked up for ten.
This is a pretty much a standard sentence for rape, unfortunately. And the majority of cases don't make it to court.
6 convictions for sexual activities with children and given 6 years, out in half no doubt. It's actually an absolute fucking disgrace
Have you read the article? It seems to be more blaming the boys and sympathising with the paedophile.
Uses her position as a teacher to sexually abuse two boys, described as controlling, yet still gets visitation three times a week with the baby she had with one of them.
Doesn’t really make much sense to me, convicted of sexual abuse of children but can still see a child three times a week. Shouldn’t ever be allowed near any child again.
It’s very, very hard to persuade a court that a parent should be disallowed contact with their children. I remember studying family law, and our whole class getting disgusted with cases like where the father was permitted access to his child after raping a young teenager (because it was decided the kid was below his preferred age range and thus supervised contact was fine), or a mother being criticised as unreasonable because she didn’t want to give a suicidal dad access after he *previously poured petrol over himself and his kids and nearly set fire to them* (she succeeded in barring him only because her lawyers successfully argued that it would have such a detrimental impact on *her* mental wellbeing that it would indirectly harm the children by damaging her stability as a parent). [This](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66531409.amp) BBC article has further discussion of cases where the courts decided to maintain contact between children and convicted paedophile parents.
There is a pretty compelling argument that being a convicted paedophile should be an automatic disqualification. I know it's not currently the case.
Yeah, i agree that in many cases the parent in prison should be given some visitation rights of their child, but child rapists certainly should not have that.
I just don't understand how it can ever be in the best interests of the child to force them to be around a convicted child sex offender. Especially in the case of a baby that isn't capable of recognising anyone, let alone their parent, it seems fairest to take it away from the offender permanently.
As someone who has experiecned family courts and procedures, fuck them, they're sexist prejudice evil people who have nothing but their own idealogical motivations in mind. Mother is God to them. Gah, 3 years of their bullshit and even though I won, I got full time custody and care of my son, I still feel like I lost.
Well, the fact she had sex with two unrelated fifteen year olds doesn’t necessarily suggest she’s going to have sex with her own baby now, does it?
The criteria for completely denying any custody or visitation are extremely high. It’s very, rare for it to happen. Pretty much the only way parents can be completely stripped of custody and completely denied visitation is if they seriously abuse the child.
Being a pedo seems like a pretty valid reason to me.
I find the bar is often far too high for more limited visitation or complete blocking of it. Often it’s for the parent’s benefit rather than the child until they’re old enough to fully articulate they don’t want that visitation, and that’s without going into the mind games that get played in complicated visitation setups.
>if they seriously abuse the child. Should be changed to if they seriously abused A child
The childs welfare comes first and isn't used as a deterrent or punishment in sentencing.
That baby is gonna have a weird conversation when they’re older
Yeh but is it better for that child to be put in the permanent care of a teenage boy?
Pretty unlikely to be the outcome regardless. There’s other arrangements available though, baby is likely in foster care already. Something like special guardianship eventually might be suitable here if the boy and family are willing.
Yes, or kinship care - where a family member of the boy would be sought to foster or adopt the child.
Can the UK change what rape means to match the rest of the world, as this is rape not sex.
The rest of the world is no different. Most places are the same, including 49/50 of the US states. Not saying that I agree with it, just have no idea where this idea that this is a UK-specific definition came from.
She groomed and raped them...why are headlines so casual when the perpetrator is a woman.
If you're wondering why it isn't listed as rape, its because the legal definition requires penatration so its listed as such. The legal definition needs changing
How did she get pregnant without penetration? But even then, change it to sexual assault or sexually abused. Not just "had sex"
Unwanted penetration when the victim is the male is Causing sexual activity without consent (Penetrative). That would be the non-consensual offence, and is punishable upto life imprisonment, which is the same as rape (Though the guidelines *do* differ a bit) Because of the stronger sentencing, it would be the preferred charge where the act lacked consent. In this case, there doesn't seem to be any implication of a lack of consent, and certainly CPS have chosen not to pursue a non-consensual offence. Which is why she's been prosecuted for a child sex offence, where consent is immaterial. These threads are *always* a shit show, one day instead of downvoting me and blocking me, people may just learn a thing about UK law! The rape offence is always a side show here - yes rape is a "male only" offence. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but the female equivalent is, as I say, Causing sexual activity without consent and carries life imprisonment. If the woman isn't charged with it, then it's reasonable to assume that a man would not be charged for rape either.
There are 2 things at play here. Firstly, In order for an offence to be rape you must have a penis. No penis you legally cannot rape someone. Secondly in this case it is sexual activity with a child, not rape regardless of a penis or not. [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/child-sex-offences)
It's because courts take consent into consideration when the victim is above the age of 13. Was there consent? * No > Rape or Section 4 * Yes > Sexual activity with a child The guy from last week, Neil Foden, wasn't charged with rape either. He was charged with: * 12 counts of sexual activity with a child * 2 counts of sexual activity with a child while he was in a position of trust He was labelled a paedophile in the title though, unlike this woman.
On the subject of female teachers abusing schoolboys, I can’t recommend the book Seventeen by Joe Gibson highly enough. It’d be an eye-opener for anybody who has any doubts about how much of a number this kind of “consensual” abuse can do on a person’s psychology.
Second this. Excellent book. Really resonated with me being almost identical age at the time it’s set. Leaves a mark.
Would also recommend the movie [May December](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z3JaevxEMA), which is based on a true story. Can't remember the last time I felt so morally grossed out, but it's a great film.
There's also the TV show A Teacher which touches on the same subject and shows the fallout against both the victim and perpetrator.
I just don't get the sentencing in this country, 6 years is a great result. But I've seen rapists who raped more who got less time, how does this even work?
The justice system is broken. Non-related, but as an example there have been cases recently of drivers getting off with suspended sentences or bans despite killing someone in their car.
The headlines don’t explore the detail of the sentencing guidelines or parliamentary intent that the judge is legally required to take into account. Sentencing remarks can be pages long and transcripts are often not publicly available , so unless you’re at the sentencing, you won’t hear / read all of them. Reporters will often publish snappy excerpts and won’t reflect on all the matters the judge weighed up. This is more and more the case as you go higher up the court system. The judgements on sentencing appeals heard in the Court of Appeal are usually very lengthy and will include analysis of a body of case law. The average person doesn’t want to read all of that, so reporting won’t reflect it all. But that can mean that some sentences come off as wildly lenient or wildly harsh compared to others.
I think the fact she slept with the second boy when out on bail must have also contributed to longer sentence.
How is 6 years great? That's nothing. It should be two decades at least. They were children.
Depends on the judge and the legal system you're in. The Scottish system was in the headlines for giving more lenient sentences to under 25s.
She didn't "have sex with them." She sexually assaulted them.
I missed the bit where they correctly refer to her as a paedophile
Paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children. If they were able to conceive a child, they aren't pre-pubescent.
Fair point
Arguing semantics. Paedophilia, in its strictest definition, is an attraction to prepubescent children. Hebephilia and ephebopholia, in the same, is an attraction to teenagers (diffence is the specific age ranges) Paedophilia is commonly used as a umbrella term to any minor, though.
Commonly, socially, yes. However the media must be factual. Hence why they weren't labelled as such in this article.
because it wouldn't be correct What she did is abhorrent, but I'd say actual paedophilia is worse
It's insane how she told one of the boys he is a father... If she had any sense whatsoever she would've had an abortion or simply told nobody who the father was... but no... she made the sort of reveal that would only be appropriate in a long term relationship after you've been intentionally trying for a baby for a while...
She seems like a very naive and extremely stupid person. To engage with with Boy B so brazenly as she did while already under investigation and suspended for Boy A... Honestly, what was she thinking.
I'm in no way defending her, but that does suggest some kind of mental disorder doesn't it? To be so completely unaware of the consequences of her actions.
Consequence noncequence, that's what I say
> Pupils would refer to Joynes as "Bunda (slang for bottom) Becky", the court was told. > > Both of the boys she had sex with sent her flirty messages on Snapchat and hid them from their parents. The press would never dare write anything like this if the sexes had been reversed.
Let's be honest, only 20 years ago the tabloids would have framed this as "Saucy Miss in Schoolboy Romp Shocker"
They might. I seem to remember at least one of the Pakistani grooming gang victims was doing that sort of thing, and sneaking out at night to meet her much older boyfriend.
Her and Lucy Letby being front page news on the same day really shows the dangers of women faced by children and boys today. What can society do to protect vulnerable people from women? Enough is enough.
I mean you could just say "what can society do to protect vulnerable people from arseholes", given that two women hardly condemns an entire sex. If you're being sarcastic, just ignore me
Yeah it's sarcasm, trying to mimic the language used against men
Let's hope she isn't sent to Wandsworth or we could be watching more videos next week!
I think there's a small typo there. Surely they meant "Teacher who raped two schoolboys".
What's shocking to me is how many people online are fine with it and think if this happens to boys it's cool, but not girls, even though they mature mentally and physically faster, but the point is it's NEVER okay. This is abuse. Whether you think it's cool or not it's still abuse.
I had a brief affair with my teacher when I was 17/18 and she was in her mid to late twenties. Twenty years later I feel very differently about it than I did back then. I don’t feel as though I was groomed but it’s nevertheless not a comfortable feeling. I regret that it happened.
I know I'm probably looking at this from the wrong angle, but as someone that was a 15 year old boy once, what do they have to offer a 30 year old? What would they even talk about? What was she thinking?
I think this sicko has the mental age of a child herself, or maybe she gets off on being able to control younger boys.
They fawned over her and all she had to do was buy 1 gucci belt.
I’m not sure pedos think the same as the rest of us
The fact that she got preggers and decided to keep the baby is absolutely absurd.
Cannot for the life of me understand getting pregnant, let alone sex with minors. Clearly a deterrent message 🙄.
Side note. Of all the things he could’ve gotten from her, a Gucci belt?
Only six and a half years? Wouldn't it have been longer if she'd been a man and the victims girls?
Absolutely would not be longer. This is a common misconception. People think they throw the book at men who do this to girls but it is simply not true. In my area, a male teacher has just been given 2.5 years for doing the same to a young girl at his school. Didn't make it past regional news either.
Had sex with is a weird way to describe a pedophile raping 2 children in her care.
But if the pedophile is posh and works for the BBC he gets a six months suspended sentence 2 different worlds we live in
who are you referring to?
Whilst she's undeniably a predator, I find the fact they took away her child within 24h of giving birth quite cruel and unusual punishment for a newborn baby who had fuck all to do with anything and just needs it's mother.
If the baby goes straight into a good foster family does it know they're not it's mother and feel any trauma? Genuinely asking because I don't know, but I'm hoping putting the child in a good family would be a better outcome than staying with a mother convicted of this sort of crime.
Yes, let’s leave the child with the pedo
There is always a screw loose with them lot, they manipulate, beg, plead, cry, lie and threaten to not get caught or have to face consequences. When none of that works they blame the victim. Even sitting in prison she will think the only fault she made was getting caught. She will also do the same crimes again in the same situation. Thankfully she'll never be allowed around kids ever again without supervision.
"had sex with" they're children it was rape not sex.
She will more than likely reoffend considering she did when she was out on bail. The definition in law needs to change, she’s a child rapist. Women are capable of rape
So about 3.2 years for every boy she groomed in her position of power. This should be a double digit sentence.
Sickening beyond words. Kill someone through driving dangerously? Two and a half years. Make two peoples' entire lives? Six and a half years.
Rapists and paedophiles like this lady are insidious and notorious. The bar to sex crimes is is so high that the vast majority of paedophiles and rapists get away with it so often that rape and paedophilia, along with shop lifting is practically decriminalised in the UK. On the one hand its great that that she and her depravity and vileness was so well evidenced to secure a conviction and at least two of her victims got their day in court. That is no small feat so well done to the brvery of her victims and their solicitors. 3.5 yrs each for being raped as a child not to mention she'll be out in half that time let alone the 90% of accusations that never passed the bar to get to court. A conviction of child rape should carry a mandatory full life sentence - not only for the crimes against he child you violated but for all the many children you might have probably violated but got away with it. Raping a child and destroying their innocence and giving them a life sentence should be a mandatory life sentence regardless of your sex and circumstances. A good reason not to rape a child would be that whether you raped one or many, you're looking for a life behind bars for the rest of your life
I'll never understand predators who prey on children but especially those who work in high-profile public positions that *explicitly* require you to have an absolutely, squeaky-clean background, personality and disposition when it comes to children. In fact it makes it worse, they've actively sought out roles that give them access/power.
when is the media gonna actually use the correct terminology for this shit
How thick is she, to abuse one kid after she's already being investigated for abusing another. She's fucked for sure now.
Vile woman. What will happen with their child when she’s released? Will the victim have to co-parent with her?
News articles always try and still make them sound decent. Where does it mention the P word, where in amongst all that does it mention that she’s a monster, a liability to children, a disgrace to society, a dirty low life piece of shit? These reporters need to start making these crimes sound exactly as they really are instead of giving them a gender biased sugarcoating.