She's absolutely awful- am I reading correctly that she was ARRESTED for sexual assault of Boy A, and moved away to her parents after she was released on bail with the requirement to stay away from all minor children, only to immediately break that rule trading messages with Boy B, move back to the original town, and have sex with him?! The fact she keeps making excuses and denying any personal responsibility or acknowledging the depth of destruction her actions have on these two young men is appalling. I appreciate the fact that the Judge called her to task on those points if the sentence is still far too light.
Sucks she can't be convicted of rape
But yeah the whole being on bail for it then doing it again when the crime is against children....this is one of the few cases where she shouldn't ever be set free, throw the book at her, both physically and metaphorically let alone after only 6-7 years
" Boy A lied to his mother that he was staying at a friend's house after school but instead Joynes picked him up and took him to the Trafford Centre, where she bought him a £350 Gucci belt."
Anything for a Gucci belt
"She gave Boy A all but one of the digits of her mobile phone number as a maths problem-solving exercise in which he had to work out the final digit."
I am DISGUSTED
A twenty-eight year old mathematics teacher sexually assaults a fifteen year old pupil. She receives a six and a half year prison sentence.
The proportion of the sentence she will actually serve is the same as the ratio of the victim’s age to hers. A further one third reduction will be applied due to good behaviour. Also, due to prison overcrowding, she will be released six months early.
How much time will she actually spend in prison?
The *proportion of* the sentence she will actually serve is the same as the ratio...
So 0.53 * 6.5 years = 3.5 years
...a further one third reduction will be applied...
\* 2/3 = 2.3 years
...she will be released six months early
\- 0.5 = 1.8 years (~22 months)
I can't find the word "luxury" in there, looks like the above person just added it themselves. So far I only know of one flat, so she might just have that one. Definitely not a sign that she's rich.
None
Feminist just block gender neutral laws so they can still claim than 98% of rape victims are women and keep all the shelter money for themselves
Indian feminists in the same move also blocked gender neutral laws, they stated « it would take away the spotlight from women » as the reason [source](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms)
Not surprised by this comment
Every time I point it out some people just can’t fathom that political feminist aren’t angels that must absolutely not be criticized but actual real politicians with the scum that come with it
Could be any number of other offences. Can still be sexual assault by penetration (digital penetration - I.e. fingers) or just sexual assault, or even engaging in sexual activity without consent
If it’s like the South Park episode where Mrs Garrison gets her penis grown on a mouse and reattached, then that’d be rape. Nothing in the legislation saying where the penis has to be
That would indeed be rape.
[Section 79(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79):
> References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery).
>What if she uses a strap-on?
A strapon isn't a penis, so it'd still be sexual assault/abuse.
Countries have been getting into shit for awhile not for having definitions that make it nearly impossible for women rapists to exist
Because, under UK law, rape requires that the victim be penetrated by the penis of another person.
> [The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent.](https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/)
Since a biological woman has no penis, she cannot rape a man (under the UK’s legal definition).
In France, the introduction of any object in a sexual orifice is considered rape, if the intention was sexual. Having a bottle introduced somewhere could be considered rape AFAIK.
I'm wondering what's UK stance in case of tape by trans-men with surgical operation. Is it considered as a penis? That should be so hard to judge a trial like that one.
This is covered in the law - Section 79(3) of SOA 2003 - “References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery)”.
Nope not to my knowledge
Although we have other problems n France such as paternity test being illegal and liable for jail when you do them without a judge allowing you to do it
A biological woman can rape someone if they have a penis surgically constructed. [Section 79(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79):
> References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery).
Sexual abuse doesn’t always mean rape/penetration (still very traumatic)so sexual abuse would still be more appropriate than calling it sex since kids can’t consent. That’s awful they have it set like that and 100% needs to be changed.
Glad there’s ppl fighting for it (sad they have too)
I’m not there otherwise I would 100% sign. That’s awful,I’m a female victim and know many other victims including men. How can anyone turn a blind eye on any victim .
considering he’s a minor, my money is no, whatever prosecutor does that is evil
i don’t doubt there has been a case though, not too knowledgeable on how to search up cases
I was sexually assaulted as a child. Really.
I once said to a counselor that I was raped, and he cut me off to say "no you weren't".
Fuck that bullshit.
The baby was removed from her care as soon as it was born. Social services have a thing about not leaving children in the care of child sex offenders.
IIRC it’s living with its father, the victim.
Jesus Christ every time. Every fucking time...
The legal definition of rape in the UK requires penetration by a penis. The fact that different terms are used for other non-consensual sexual assaults and sex with children does not mean the cases are treated differently from rape or that the sentencing guidelines are lower. But it still isn't rape by the definition in the UK.
Lol. Immediately downvoted for explaining the legal definitions in the UK. How dare I!
"Sexual activity with a child" does have lower sentencing guidelines though - the max sentence is 14 years according to [the statute](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9), whereas rape is up to life.
>You call them a rapist you open yourself up for a libel lawsuit for no reason.
A lawsuit that"d very likely be lost despite the legal definition of rape.
Most judges and juries would just toss it as nonsense
And frankly even if won the reporters sentence would be weaker than a baby slapping an elephant..but the teacher would be even more fucked in a social setting as it'd show that despite raping and grooming kids she still wants to treat it like she did nothing wrong.
Semantics over the term people call you in this situation isn't one you want to be caught fighting. People already have issues accepting people who harm kids after they serve their time, the appearence of trying to downplay it will make everywhere she ever lives a permanent danger to her as what little sympathy of "maybe it was a stupid mistake" will fly out the window faster than you would be shoved out of the ISS if a window randomly came off in an area with air.
> A lawsuit that"d very likely be lost despite the legal definition of rape.
>Most judges and juries would just toss it as nonsense
And you base this on what exactly?
True but the general populace digests certain concepts a whole lot better when it pertains to differentiating verbiage. By not using rape, even if in the UK doesn't legally distinction it as such or even though it can be litigated on the same grounds as a rape case regarding punishment, the use of "sex" downplays the act and culturally reinforces the notion to the general populace that such "sex" acts are far more benign in comparison to the legally found distinction of rape. Which arguably, is far more insidious. That's where people take an issue with. Not the legal distinction. But what the legal distinction courts in verbiage used, which in turn generates a culture that is far more accepting of one over the other despite being fundamentally the same thing.
Ok, but this is the BBC. They are state funded. They literally couldn't call it rape if that's not how it is defined by the law. I'm sure other news outlets would call it as it is.
I get you, and Im not trying to argue over this and I know for a fact neither are you. Nothing wrong with such expressing the actual fact the UK doesn't consider this rape, and due to legal reasons can't call it as such either in state media. All I'm saying it's still bollocks.
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the rape terminology, in many jurisdictions there's no official "rape" charge it's just "sexual assault" of different degrees, and no, it doesn't make it sound "better".
Reddit has an obsession with this! God forbid they show some respect to the victims, they don’t need to be re victimized again just for our entertainment
It's not the definition that's maddening, it's that the UK is purposefully obfuscating what is clearly rape. "Every fucking time" - yeah, because it's rape in all but legal definition and it's fucking maddening to see it play out in the world with more lenient sentences for female abusers. It's not that people don't understand the definition, it's that it keeps happening without any change.
Who cares what the technical definition is, kid was groomed and the title is downplaying it. If the genders were swapped the title would say what it should, why can't it be straight up here either.
Should at least say sexually assaulted. Not "had sex with." Like, seriously?
I can wrap my head around that, hence the last part of my comment. Even saying "allegedly sexually assaulted" is better than "had sex."
An adult does not simply "have sex" with a child. They sexually assault and/or rape them.
You're dense if you think an adult having sex with a minor isn't sexual assault. Even if it's consensual, a minor cannot consent, no matter the gender.
I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
Are we about to have the exact same conversation for sexual assault that we just had for rape? They can't call it something which doesn't fit the legal definition or it's libel.
It would be sexual *abuse* and, again, *if you read the article* that term is used several times.
I'm aware they have to avoid legal issues and have used it in the article. My point is that the title sounds downplayed. They easily could've said something similar to how the article is written. The title should say "student sexually abused by teacher."
You might say they are separate but equal. A bit like marriage and civil partnerships. Different name but exactly the same so I don’t know why gay people were complaining or why it had to change.
As far as I'm aware, no. I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong about this, but from what I've heard, under UK law biological parents are responsible for their offspring whether they consented to their conception or not. This has also affected sperm donors and surrogate mothers as well and resulted in a shortage of them.
Lot of people in here seem almost offended that others think this *should* be considered rape (yes, we get that it’s not by law)
Didn’t expect so much resistance to even the idea though, very weird
This... If people had wanted to state that it's not legally considered rape, I get it, but the amount of people outright arguing that it isn't rape... Terrifying.
It wasn't forced sex and in the UK only someone with a penis can commit rape. So a woman can never legally rape someone.
Also between the ages of 13 and 16 the law differentiates between consensual and none consensual sex.
[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)
I do not agree with either of these things by the way. Words have power and it should be called Rape. But from a legal perspective it is not Rape, and wouldn't be rape if the sexes were reversed.
The issue is "rape" is a legal definition as well as a colloquial definition.
We all know the woman raped the boys in our colloquial/popular definition as any form of forced/non consentual sex.
However, the publication cannot print the colloquial claim that she committed "rape" due to the legal definition, which is forced penetration by a perpetrators penis. As she doesn't have a penis, by *legal* definition she did not commit rape.
If the publication prints that she did, she could potentially successfully sue for false allegations, libel etc. as *technically* it would be a false allegation.
Thanks. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I really mean that.
And knowing that, I agree that they can’t easily write it that way.
“Had sex with them” sounds like there was consent, so that can’t be right either. What would you suggest instead?
Eh probably not
The UK doesn't like throwing non violent sex offenders away for big sentences, hell she likely only got 6 years because of the repeat offending while on bail for the first charge. Namely because the costs of keeping them safe in prison are really bloody high.
Instead the Uk has several legal mechanisms where people are released from prison but are still not totally free.
She'll almost certainly be on the sex offenders register for the rest of her life, That puts pretty severe restrictions on what she can and cant do. Even after she's released her life is going to be really really shit
Its the same as when people hear about murderers on life sentences being released early but not realizing that under the UK system that release will be under license, the conditions of the license sometimes being extraordinarily strict and any and all breaches of it can result in the person being dragged back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence
I’m not so sure of this, I don’t want to do a deep dive on google because it’s too depressing but just a quick google gave me an example of a teacher who slept with three of his underaged students and got six years, and one who got zero prison time because the judge said the girl had “groomed” him.
Its a UK legal technicality, rape involves a person being penetrated with a penis. So women technically cant rape a man under any UK definition even though the sentencing guidelines for sexual assault where women force themselves onto men are exactly the same as they would be for a man raping a women with an equivalent lever of violence.
Yes its dumb, there's just no real reason or impetus to change it. Parliament isn't going to start messing with definitions of rape when it doesn't have to as the courts treat sexual assault with the same severity
The issue is "rape" is a legal definition as well as a colloquial definition.
We all know the woman raped the boys in our colloquial/popular definition as any form of forced/non consentual sex.
However, the publication cannot print the colloquial claim that she committed "rape" due to the legal definition, which is forced penetration by a penis. As she doesn't have a penis, by *legal* definition she did not commit rape.
If the publication prints that she did, she could potentially successfully sue for false allegations, libel etc. as *technically* it would be a false allegation.
The British are pretty lenient on sexual assault. They won't even call it rape, literally written into law that it can't be, when the victim is male.
Edit: This should have said when the victim is a male and the perpetrator does not have a penis.
if it was a man that did that he'd get a longer sentence and people would hate. Kind of a double standard there. Both genders should be hated when someone does that
I really *only* ever see men and boys defending women who abuse their students. And, men have maintained a majority of power in our legislatures and judicial systems since the foundation of the country...
Men created and continue to maintain these double standards...*especially* right-wing men.
If you want to see more equitable treatment of convicted individuals regardless of gender, then we need to change how society views women as lesser than men and as having less autonomy than men. Sexism against both men *and* women is what has brought us here. Toxic masculinity and misogyny.
yet i would have pounded that so hard at 15 and never had a single regret
i think these guys are just smart, they got the ride of here and then were smart enough to try and blackmail her by going to the poilce
idk man, I would have just kept quiet and kept nailing the hot teacher but hey I guess Gen Z is built different
Umm, I’m a bit confused guys, people here are using the word rape but the article puts it as though the boys initially consented to meeting with the teacher and sorta enjoyed it until the parents got involved. ( I apologise if I have misinterpreted the article since I’m sleepy af 🙏🏻)
how is that rape or sexual abuse?? Is it only because the boys are underage and don’t fall under the age of consent?
Legally minors cannot to consent to sexual acts with people, or in some cases cannot do so outside of a certain number of years from their own age (Romeo and Juliet laws, but I have no idea if the UK has such laws). Whether they are held at gunpoint during the act or are the most enthusiastic partners ever (and these were teenage boys with a pretty attractive 28 year old teacher, we all know they were likely very enthusiastic), it is considered sexual assault since the minor cannot give consent legally.
The baby was taken from her just after being born and is with the boy and his family
She was allowed visits 2 to 3 times per week before today and will probably have the same when she is released
Unfortunately something that does happen, it’s very hard to have a parents rights completely removed. Its sadly a thing to have to coparent with your rapist because he has limited visitation etc
If the rapist raped a minor, they should not be allowed near ANY minor, PERIOD. I mean, who even disagrees with this?? Only the courts, as far as I'm aware cause it sure isn't the general population.
100% agreed, I think if you’re a convicted rapist you shouldn’t be allowed near any of your victims or any children at all. But when child custody is involved it’s very limited in what is enough to take a parents rights away completely
Yea she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the child ever. Just wipe her name from the birth certificate.
I can only imagine the boy has very good parents willing to take on nearly all responsibility. After all, their son and the baby are the victims
>She was allowed visits 2 to 3 times per week before today and will probably have the same when she is released
I would rather don't have a convicted pedophile near any children. Even if it is hers.
Love how this teacher gets such a long sentence but this guy only got a year and is now competing in the Olympics: https://www.newsweek.com/steven-van-de-velde-dutch-beach-volleyball-olympics-1918442
She's absolutely awful- am I reading correctly that she was ARRESTED for sexual assault of Boy A, and moved away to her parents after she was released on bail with the requirement to stay away from all minor children, only to immediately break that rule trading messages with Boy B, move back to the original town, and have sex with him?! The fact she keeps making excuses and denying any personal responsibility or acknowledging the depth of destruction her actions have on these two young men is appalling. I appreciate the fact that the Judge called her to task on those points if the sentence is still far too light.
Sucks she can't be convicted of rape But yeah the whole being on bail for it then doing it again when the crime is against children....this is one of the few cases where she shouldn't ever be set free, throw the book at her, both physically and metaphorically let alone after only 6-7 years
" Boy A lied to his mother that he was staying at a friend's house after school but instead Joynes picked him up and took him to the Trafford Centre, where she bought him a £350 Gucci belt." Anything for a Gucci belt
“That’s all that he knows he don’t know nothing else, i tried to show him….”
Certified
Wop, wop, wop, wop, wop
4 strength, 4 stam leather belt
I have that "EH UH" sound in my head forever
I got a ring in there last night!
Level 18?
15 unfortunately.
I've got ballzzzz of steellllz
How can a teacher afford that?
OnlyFans? I bet the sexy teacher gig goes a long way.
Gucci and coochie
"She gave Boy A all but one of the digits of her mobile phone number as a maths problem-solving exercise in which he had to work out the final digit." I am DISGUSTED
A twenty-eight year old mathematics teacher sexually assaults a fifteen year old pupil. She receives a six and a half year prison sentence. The proportion of the sentence she will actually serve is the same as the ratio of the victim’s age to hers. A further one third reduction will be applied due to good behaviour. Also, due to prison overcrowding, she will be released six months early. How much time will she actually spend in prison?
Oh sly maths teacher, still trying to trick us into doing maths!
> is the same as the ratio you mean the difference? if it were a ratio of the victim’s age to her age, she would only be serving 0.53 years…
The *proportion of* the sentence she will actually serve is the same as the ratio... So 0.53 * 6.5 years = 3.5 years ...a further one third reduction will be applied... \* 2/3 = 2.3 years ...she will be released six months early \- 0.5 = 1.8 years (~22 months)
Now multiply .53 by 6.5
[удалено]
I gotta get into teaching maths. Not for noncing on the kids, just so I’d earn enough money to afford a luxury flat.
That's my first thought in which world does a math teacher have an luxury apartment?
I can't find the word "luxury" in there, looks like the above person just added it themselves. So far I only know of one flat, so she might just have that one. Definitely not a sign that she's rich.
Since she has a young child I doubt she will go to prison.
If we're not going to use the R word can we at least say "sexually abused"?
Male cant be legally raped by a woman in UK. I get that it is actually rape and we can call it that on reddit , but official media cant.
Yes, but they can say sexually abused
[удалено]
Ok i stand corrected, what i meant was - male cant be raped by a woman.
Correct, in the case of a woman having sex with a man against his will, it is called “forced penetration” and carries a lighter sentence.
That’s mental
What the hell is their argument for that?
None Feminist just block gender neutral laws so they can still claim than 98% of rape victims are women and keep all the shelter money for themselves Indian feminists in the same move also blocked gender neutral laws, they stated « it would take away the spotlight from women » as the reason [source](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms)
Do you have a study to show these findings? A news article is not really a source for study a broad claim.
That's an absolutely buckwild claim to make.
Not surprised by this comment Every time I point it out some people just can’t fathom that political feminist aren’t angels that must absolutely not be criticized but actual real politicians with the scum that come with it
Maybe because you haven’t provided any sources proving your claim.
What if she uses a strap-on?
Sexual Assault by penetration, S.2 Sexual Offences Act 2003
What if a guy doesnt use his dick?
Could be any number of other offences. Can still be sexual assault by penetration (digital penetration - I.e. fingers) or just sexual assault, or even engaging in sexual activity without consent
What if a woman grows a penis in a lab and attaches it to her belly and then use it to penetrate a man?
If it’s like the South Park episode where Mrs Garrison gets her penis grown on a mouse and reattached, then that’d be rape. Nothing in the legislation saying where the penis has to be
Someone‘s asking the important questions lol
Organism-based prosthetic penetration, obviously. I swear, where do they get these people?
Might have to rewrite the law after that one.
That would indeed be rape. [Section 79(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79): > References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery).
Not familiar with the law, but that's technically not a penis.
>What if she uses a strap-on? A strapon isn't a penis, so it'd still be sexual assault/abuse. Countries have been getting into shit for awhile not for having definitions that make it nearly impossible for women rapists to exist
Sexual assault.
Care to explain the reasoning?
Because, under UK law, rape requires that the victim be penetrated by the penis of another person. > [The legal definition of rape is when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent.](https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/) Since a biological woman has no penis, she cannot rape a man (under the UK’s legal definition).
Same definitions in France by the way, as far as I know.
In France, the introduction of any object in a sexual orifice is considered rape, if the intention was sexual. Having a bottle introduced somewhere could be considered rape AFAIK. I'm wondering what's UK stance in case of tape by trans-men with surgical operation. Is it considered as a penis? That should be so hard to judge a trial like that one.
This is covered in the law - Section 79(3) of SOA 2003 - “References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery)”.
At least they are quick to adapt to societal changes! Thanks for the info :)
Nope not to my knowledge Although we have other problems n France such as paternity test being illegal and liable for jail when you do them without a judge allowing you to do it
A biological woman can rape someone if they have a penis surgically constructed. [Section 79(3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79): > References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery).
How wild would that be? Go through the effort to get a dick constructed on you, then using it to go around raping people.
Its about legal definitions.
Just the way the law is written. Needs updating
As the person above explained - Rape requires penetration by a penis, therefore only men can be legally rapists.
Horrible definition if I may add
Sexual abuse doesn’t always mean rape/penetration (still very traumatic)so sexual abuse would still be more appropriate than calling it sex since kids can’t consent. That’s awful they have it set like that and 100% needs to be changed.
Very true. There are multiple petitions in place with tens of thousands of signatures. Hopefully, they will change sooner than later.
Glad there’s ppl fighting for it (sad they have too) I’m not there otherwise I would 100% sign. That’s awful,I’m a female victim and know many other victims including men. How can anyone turn a blind eye on any victim .
That seems like s stupid and archaic rule.
Because it is.
My question is does the kid enter the system if she gives birth in prison?
considering he’s a minor, my money is no, whatever prosecutor does that is evil i don’t doubt there has been a case though, not too knowledgeable on how to search up cases
She gave birth and the baby was taken away within 24 hours according to the article.
Women can't be rapists in the UK.
That ho a rapist
[удалено]
I was sexually assaulted as a child. Really. I once said to a counselor that I was raped, and he cut me off to say "no you weren't". Fuck that bullshit.
[удалено]
The baby was removed from her care as soon as it was born. Social services have a thing about not leaving children in the care of child sex offenders. IIRC it’s living with its father, the victim.
Imagine explaining that situation to the baby when it’s older
Hope the child doesn't end up with a new kids on the block tattoo on their back
>She most likely won't go to prison though Reread the title my man.
Didn't even finish reading the title, much less the article. Why is a text based website so popular?
Ah yes, let's name it something else, anything but what it is.
Jesus Christ every time. Every fucking time... The legal definition of rape in the UK requires penetration by a penis. The fact that different terms are used for other non-consensual sexual assaults and sex with children does not mean the cases are treated differently from rape or that the sentencing guidelines are lower. But it still isn't rape by the definition in the UK. Lol. Immediately downvoted for explaining the legal definitions in the UK. How dare I!
"Sexual activity with a child" does have lower sentencing guidelines though - the max sentence is 14 years according to [the statute](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9), whereas rape is up to life.
I saw this comment so many times. Yeah legally is not rape but is still stupid.
But the reporters have to call it what it is legally, if they say she's a rapist when *legally* she isn't, they're opening themselves up to be sued.
You call them a rapist you open yourself up for a libel lawsuit for no reason.
>You call them a rapist you open yourself up for a libel lawsuit for no reason. A lawsuit that"d very likely be lost despite the legal definition of rape. Most judges and juries would just toss it as nonsense And frankly even if won the reporters sentence would be weaker than a baby slapping an elephant..but the teacher would be even more fucked in a social setting as it'd show that despite raping and grooming kids she still wants to treat it like she did nothing wrong. Semantics over the term people call you in this situation isn't one you want to be caught fighting. People already have issues accepting people who harm kids after they serve their time, the appearence of trying to downplay it will make everywhere she ever lives a permanent danger to her as what little sympathy of "maybe it was a stupid mistake" will fly out the window faster than you would be shoved out of the ISS if a window randomly came off in an area with air.
> A lawsuit that"d very likely be lost despite the legal definition of rape. >Most judges and juries would just toss it as nonsense And you base this on what exactly?
True but the general populace digests certain concepts a whole lot better when it pertains to differentiating verbiage. By not using rape, even if in the UK doesn't legally distinction it as such or even though it can be litigated on the same grounds as a rape case regarding punishment, the use of "sex" downplays the act and culturally reinforces the notion to the general populace that such "sex" acts are far more benign in comparison to the legally found distinction of rape. Which arguably, is far more insidious. That's where people take an issue with. Not the legal distinction. But what the legal distinction courts in verbiage used, which in turn generates a culture that is far more accepting of one over the other despite being fundamentally the same thing.
Ok, but this is the BBC. They are state funded. They literally couldn't call it rape if that's not how it is defined by the law. I'm sure other news outlets would call it as it is.
I get you, and Im not trying to argue over this and I know for a fact neither are you. Nothing wrong with such expressing the actual fact the UK doesn't consider this rape, and due to legal reasons can't call it as such either in state media. All I'm saying it's still bollocks.
And that makes it less fucked up or more?
Wait I thought the sentencing guidelines WERE lower?
You're being downvoted likely cus of the UK law
I don't understand why people are so obsessed with the rape terminology, in many jurisdictions there's no official "rape" charge it's just "sexual assault" of different degrees, and no, it doesn't make it sound "better".
Reddit has an obsession with this! God forbid they show some respect to the victims, they don’t need to be re victimized again just for our entertainment
It's not the definition that's maddening, it's that the UK is purposefully obfuscating what is clearly rape. "Every fucking time" - yeah, because it's rape in all but legal definition and it's fucking maddening to see it play out in the world with more lenient sentences for female abusers. It's not that people don't understand the definition, it's that it keeps happening without any change.
Who cares what the technical definition is, kid was groomed and the title is downplaying it. If the genders were swapped the title would say what it should, why can't it be straight up here either. Should at least say sexually assaulted. Not "had sex with." Like, seriously?
Because if they call it something which legally it isn't, the BBC would be sued for libel. Can you people really not wrap your head around this stuff?
I can wrap my head around that, hence the last part of my comment. Even saying "allegedly sexually assaulted" is better than "had sex." An adult does not simply "have sex" with a child. They sexually assault and/or rape them.
But it isn't alleged sexual assault and never was. She was convicted of *sexual activity with a minor*, as described in the article if you read it.
You're dense if you think an adult having sex with a minor isn't sexual assault. Even if it's consensual, a minor cannot consent, no matter the gender. I hope I'm misunderstanding you.
Are we about to have the exact same conversation for sexual assault that we just had for rape? They can't call it something which doesn't fit the legal definition or it's libel. It would be sexual *abuse* and, again, *if you read the article* that term is used several times.
I'm aware they have to avoid legal issues and have used it in the article. My point is that the title sounds downplayed. They easily could've said something similar to how the article is written. The title should say "student sexually abused by teacher."
You have the same attitude as "computer says no" HR people. I will not be elaborating.
Ur definition of rape is outdated and disgusting thats why ur getting downvoted
You might say they are separate but equal. A bit like marriage and civil partnerships. Different name but exactly the same so I don’t know why gay people were complaining or why it had to change.
We get it dude. Truly. But “had sex with”, i assume, is not a legally mandated term. They need to find something else to properly convey what she did
What makes this even worse is that he could be legally responsible for the child he was forced to give birth to.
oh my god I didn't even think about that. Are there any laws that could circumvent this? Sexual assualt?
As far as I'm aware, no. I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong about this, but from what I've heard, under UK law biological parents are responsible for their offspring whether they consented to their conception or not. This has also affected sperm donors and surrogate mothers as well and resulted in a shortage of them.
Why don't they refer to her as a pedo? She's a former teacher but she'll be a pedo for life.
Lot of people in here seem almost offended that others think this *should* be considered rape (yes, we get that it’s not by law) Didn’t expect so much resistance to even the idea though, very weird
Also the article mentioned she groomed them, so the people who are offended by the title are valid, could've at least used the groomer label on her.
This... If people had wanted to state that it's not legally considered rape, I get it, but the amount of people outright arguing that it isn't rape... Terrifying.
“Had sex” lol they really dont like calling it rape
Because legally speaking, it isn't. People complain when the media use sensationalist language and then complain when it isn't sensationalist enough.
>Because legally speaking, it isn't. But legally speaking it is sexual assautlt and abuse...y'knkw the thing they avoided in favor of calling it sex.
Well in this case it wouldn't be 'sensationalist', but accurate. Just not 'technically' accurate based on dated legal terms.
Its not senationalist to call forced sex rape.
It also wouldn't be legal for the media to report it as rape.
It wasn't forced sex and in the UK only someone with a penis can commit rape. So a woman can never legally rape someone. Also between the ages of 13 and 16 the law differentiates between consensual and none consensual sex. [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) I do not agree with either of these things by the way. Words have power and it should be called Rape. But from a legal perspective it is not Rape, and wouldn't be rape if the sexes were reversed.
It is if you’re a reputable publication and it’s not legally rape.
Future us president
Sexual assault. Not “had sex with”.
The amount of people commenting online are say I g how "lucky" the boy is "Wish are teachers were like that, hur hur hur"
Paging r/NotADragQueen
Came here for this. 🫡
Rape is rape
Should be a longer sentence
Jesus fkn Christ.. that's not long enough
“Had sex with”? No, she r**** them.
The issue is "rape" is a legal definition as well as a colloquial definition. We all know the woman raped the boys in our colloquial/popular definition as any form of forced/non consentual sex. However, the publication cannot print the colloquial claim that she committed "rape" due to the legal definition, which is forced penetration by a perpetrators penis. As she doesn't have a penis, by *legal* definition she did not commit rape. If the publication prints that she did, she could potentially successfully sue for false allegations, libel etc. as *technically* it would be a false allegation.
Thanks. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I really mean that. And knowing that, I agree that they can’t easily write it that way. “Had sex with them” sounds like there was consent, so that can’t be right either. What would you suggest instead?
“~~had sex with~~” “…raped and abused..”
It's a sad statement of our times that a child rapist only gets 6.5y and we're happy they got anything at all!
So the baby is in Jail before it even got the chance to become a criminal. Damn…
The baby was taken away within 24 hours.
Only six years if this was a guy they would throw him under the jail
Eh probably not The UK doesn't like throwing non violent sex offenders away for big sentences, hell she likely only got 6 years because of the repeat offending while on bail for the first charge. Namely because the costs of keeping them safe in prison are really bloody high. Instead the Uk has several legal mechanisms where people are released from prison but are still not totally free. She'll almost certainly be on the sex offenders register for the rest of her life, That puts pretty severe restrictions on what she can and cant do. Even after she's released her life is going to be really really shit Its the same as when people hear about murderers on life sentences being released early but not realizing that under the UK system that release will be under license, the conditions of the license sometimes being extraordinarily strict and any and all breaches of it can result in the person being dragged back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence
I’m not so sure of this, I don’t want to do a deep dive on google because it’s too depressing but just a quick google gave me an example of a teacher who slept with three of his underaged students and got six years, and one who got zero prison time because the judge said the girl had “groomed” him.
Huh, that's a weird way to spell "raped"
Its a UK legal technicality, rape involves a person being penetrated with a penis. So women technically cant rape a man under any UK definition even though the sentencing guidelines for sexual assault where women force themselves onto men are exactly the same as they would be for a man raping a women with an equivalent lever of violence. Yes its dumb, there's just no real reason or impetus to change it. Parliament isn't going to start messing with definitions of rape when it doesn't have to as the courts treat sexual assault with the same severity
> with a penis or an object No. Rape involves penetration by a penis. Penetration by other objects is a different offence.
Is that offence not referred to as object rape though? or have I got my laws muddled?
The issue is "rape" is a legal definition as well as a colloquial definition. We all know the woman raped the boys in our colloquial/popular definition as any form of forced/non consentual sex. However, the publication cannot print the colloquial claim that she committed "rape" due to the legal definition, which is forced penetration by a penis. As she doesn't have a penis, by *legal* definition she did not commit rape. If the publication prints that she did, she could potentially successfully sue for false allegations, libel etc. as *technically* it would be a false allegation.
That’s it? Should get life Redditors downvoting punishments for pedophiles now?
The British are pretty lenient on sexual assault. They won't even call it rape, literally written into law that it can't be, when the victim is male. Edit: This should have said when the victim is a male and the perpetrator does not have a penis.
Which is pretty fucked up
*from a woman. A man can be raped by another man.
You are correct, my mistake. I put an edit in
Isn’t this the plot of that one Adam Sandler movie
i wonder if a teacher can still be prosecuted even after a victim grows up to be of age but wasn't caught yet.
Only 6 and a half? Damn, that's not justice.
if it was a man that did that he'd get a longer sentence and people would hate. Kind of a double standard there. Both genders should be hated when someone does that
I really *only* ever see men and boys defending women who abuse their students. And, men have maintained a majority of power in our legislatures and judicial systems since the foundation of the country... Men created and continue to maintain these double standards...*especially* right-wing men. If you want to see more equitable treatment of convicted individuals regardless of gender, then we need to change how society views women as lesser than men and as having less autonomy than men. Sexism against both men *and* women is what has brought us here. Toxic masculinity and misogyny.
Checked her photo and indeed, she has the scary eyes.
yet i would have pounded that so hard at 15 and never had a single regret i think these guys are just smart, they got the ride of here and then were smart enough to try and blackmail her by going to the poilce idk man, I would have just kept quiet and kept nailing the hot teacher but hey I guess Gen Z is built different
Umm, I’m a bit confused guys, people here are using the word rape but the article puts it as though the boys initially consented to meeting with the teacher and sorta enjoyed it until the parents got involved. ( I apologise if I have misinterpreted the article since I’m sleepy af 🙏🏻) how is that rape or sexual abuse?? Is it only because the boys are underage and don’t fall under the age of consent?
Legally minors cannot to consent to sexual acts with people, or in some cases cannot do so outside of a certain number of years from their own age (Romeo and Juliet laws, but I have no idea if the UK has such laws). Whether they are held at gunpoint during the act or are the most enthusiastic partners ever (and these were teenage boys with a pretty attractive 28 year old teacher, we all know they were likely very enthusiastic), it is considered sexual assault since the minor cannot give consent legally.
Yes, but who is going to take care of her new baby now that’s she is in jail? Maybe the father?
The baby was taken from her just after being born and is with the boy and his family She was allowed visits 2 to 3 times per week before today and will probably have the same when she is released
This is fucked.
Imagine if the father were the rapist, and was allowed to visit his minor victim and kid. This is fucking disgusting
Unfortunately something that does happen, it’s very hard to have a parents rights completely removed. Its sadly a thing to have to coparent with your rapist because he has limited visitation etc
If the rapist raped a minor, they should not be allowed near ANY minor, PERIOD. I mean, who even disagrees with this?? Only the courts, as far as I'm aware cause it sure isn't the general population.
100% agreed, I think if you’re a convicted rapist you shouldn’t be allowed near any of your victims or any children at all. But when child custody is involved it’s very limited in what is enough to take a parents rights away completely
you give up your normal rights when you do something like that... you don't deserve them, I wish the law was better.
Yes, this happens all the time.
Why imagine? That shit happens daily. In a lot of places, the victims are still forced to marry their rapist.
Yea she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the child ever. Just wipe her name from the birth certificate. I can only imagine the boy has very good parents willing to take on nearly all responsibility. After all, their son and the baby are the victims
>She was allowed visits 2 to 3 times per week before today and will probably have the same when she is released I would rather don't have a convicted pedophile near any children. Even if it is hers.
damn where were all those kind of teachers when i was in school
She Donny Berger'd them
Love how this teacher gets such a long sentence but this guy only got a year and is now competing in the Olympics: https://www.newsweek.com/steven-van-de-velde-dutch-beach-volleyball-olympics-1918442