this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
333 points (97.7% liked)

World News

51446 readers
2785 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rebecca Joynes is currently serving a six and a half year prison sentence

A teacher who was convicted for having sex with two boys, becoming pregnant by one, has been banned from the profession.

Maths teacher Rebecca Joynes, 31, was jailed for six and a half years in July last year after being found guilty of six counts of sexual activity with a child, after sleeping with one pupil before falling pregnant by a second while on police bail.

The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) convened earlier this month via a virtual hearing, which Joynes did not attend, to consider her professional conduct. A panel recommended she be banned from teaching.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage, ergo could not give consent, ergo it was rape. Also power dynamics teacher pupil makes it even more rapey

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 2 points 3 hours ago

Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage,

Blatantly, by the very next words.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says?

methinks yes?

if not you, then at least journalistic integrity in the UK does

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 85 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

In the UK, the definition of rape requires penetration from the offending party by their genitalia. So unless the teacher has a monster clit she used to anally penetrate the boys, the definition of rape can't apply. For that there's the broader definition of sexual assault.

Journalists, since their purpose is to serve the public with the truth, have to really carefully choose their words as using the wrong legal term can get them in hot water - libel lawsuits and such, not to mention accusations of trying to shape the public's opinion, and so on.

So yeah, you'll rarely find directly said out statements in the news as most journos will try to get to as close to the definition as possible without exposing themselves to legal action. That's why you'll often see e.g. statements like "the purported killer" even if there's clear evidence of the person being the murderer, simply because the case hasn't been judged yet therefore the legal term murderer - which requires a conviction - cannot be applied, and using it before the trial even happens is a big no-no.

Don't get me wrong, I fully agree with you that if it was a man with two young girls, the article would be going on the offensive much quicker, and even here they should've used the term "sexually assaulted" instead of "had sex with", but specifically the term rape cannot apply here.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

by their genitalia

So the IDF can bring their dogs and iron bars, to the UK, and that's not rape...

... Gets me wondering wtf law makers in the UK are up to.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 1 hour ago

The UK's law is precedent based. The definition of rape thus goes back all the way to the 1800s (like many other restrictive laws that need to be revisited, e.g. classifying any transportation device with any kind of engine, i.e. not human or animal propelled, as a vehicle thus forcing the owners of e.g. low end e-scooters to have licences, registration, insurance etc. without providing the framework for any of these), wherein rape was almost exclusively committed by men, therefore lawmakers found it proper to define it as penetration of the victim using one's genitalia - in a way to differentiate from "lesser" sexual assaults like flashing someone or forcing their hands on said genitalia.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 34 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Thank you for the informative reply. As a layman in another country who isn't worried about specific local laws, I'd like to add that she raped at least two children.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago

New York had (has?) a similar distinction. It came up in the E Jean Carrol saga; specifically Trump suing for defamation after her lawsuit, because it wasn’t- technically- rape.

IIRC it was dismissed with the judge saying that it fits the modern lay definition of rape and that’s not defamation.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 12 points 19 hours ago

They didn’t call it “sexual assault” either, so I’m inclined to not accept that excuse.

[–] icelimit@lemmy.ml 3 points 16 hours ago

Til. So in the UK only men (or those with dicks) can rape?

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 8 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

by their genitalia.

So, like not using an object of some sort?

Journalists, since their purpose is to serve the public with the truth, have to really carefully choose their words as using the wrong legal term

Still seems like a more generic term such as "sexual assault" would be applicable here.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 11 hours ago

It would, but that's a very broad term. I expect they were trying to be specific, but only succeeded in being forgiving in the headline.

[–] tomiant@piefed.social 15 points 21 hours ago

Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage, ergo could not give consent

Underage is literally a legal definition, so clearly you do care. Calm down.

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I agree, but there are libel laws to consider here. It serves no one to open yourself up to a lawsuit, especially one from which the rapist can only benefit.

[–] Deathray5@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 12 hours ago

I don't think someone would win the libel case and bad cases SLAP lawsuits aren't really a meaningful thing here (we have protections against shit lawsuits)

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 15 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Hi! I'm not worried about being sued. She raped at least two children.

[–] PoastRotato@lemmy.world 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I was more referring to the news outlet. Regular folks like you and I aren't much at risk of being sued for libel.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Regular folks like you and I aren't much at risk of being sued for libel.

Trump: hold my 12 year old… beer

[–] butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social 17 points 23 hours ago

Thankfully I'm not a citizen of TERF Island. She raped them.

[–] uncouple9831@lemmy.zip 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

That's only because uk libel laws are backwards and stupid.

[–] Digit@lemmy.wtf 2 points 3 hours ago

That’s only because uk ~~libel~~ laws are backwards and stupid.

iftfy

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

I agree with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.