Teacher guilty of sex with two boys
Discussion
Fermit said:
Greendubber said:
Fermit said:
Electro1980 said:
It’s irrelevant and victim blaming. They were groomed and assaulted by a person in a position of power and authority. The awful thing is you are trying to diminish the seriousness by bringing this up. Just the same as talking about what a rape victim was wearing. The fact that victim keeps being put in quotes says everything.
Right, I'm bowing out of the thread on this note. I am certainly not victim blaming, that's utter tosh. The word 'victim' was put in quotes, as none of us know if he were coerced by her, if he pursued he, or if he was a equal willing participant enjoying the action. Yes, she has committed a crime, as I've said numerous times, she's a wrong un.Probably for the best all round that you do bow out now rather than continuing to dig yourself a bigger hole.
Carry on if you wish but you're choosing an odd hill to die on, personally I'd call it quits if I were you.
He’s a victim whether he perceived that he was being abused or not. We have a law concerning the age at which someone is considered competent to consent because we recognise that children may genuinely want to do things which are not in their best interests and which they lack capacity to make decisions upon.
Rufus Stone said:
Definitions matter, or at least they should. The fact that the likes of the Daily Mail will describe anyone having sex with someone under the age of consent as a paedophile does not make it the popular definition.
And definitions change over time. Edited by Rufus Stone on Saturday 18th May 07:59
In 2024, she's a paedophile. And she'll be on the register with all the other paedophiles.
Electro1980 said:
We need to stop this BS that boys can’t be victims. This is why boys are having so many problems at the moment. Always seen as perpetrators and never as victims. They absolutely are victims here, of being manipulated and abused by someone with direct and very real power
There's a good scene in Baby Reindeer about this, when he talks to his parents about his abuse.Evanivitch said:
And definitions change over time.
In 2024, she's a paedophile. And she'll be on the register with all the other paedophiles.
No, the definition hasn't changed and there isn't a paedo register, theres a sex offenders register.In 2024, she's a paedophile. And she'll be on the register with all the other paedophiles.
It is statutory rape -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#:~:te...
Rufus Stone said:
Whatever peoples definition of what she is or isn't, she is clearly going down for the offense. The question is how long?
At least 10 years for at least two offences. But there are a *lot* more than two offences so totality comes into play and whether offences are served concurrently or consecutively. The rules around that are fiendishly complicated woth lots of discretion as far as I can see. But comitting the same offense over and over on different occasions with a starting point of 5 years mounts up very fast. This is one of those situations that leads to 250 year sentences in America.Rufus Stone said:
Whatever peoples definition of what she is or isn't, she is clearly going down for the offense. The question is how long?
That's kind of what I'm getting at, it wont be for as long as a man because even the state view it differently.Maybe a case by case basis within a framework is more effective at sorting out "justice" than a one size fits all set of rules.
BikeBikeBIke said:
At least 10 years for at least two offences. But there are a *lot* more than two offences so totality comes into play and whether offences are served concurrently or consecutively. The rules around that are fiendishly complicated woth lots of discretion as far as I can see. But comitting the same offense over and over on different occasions with a starting point of 5 years mounts up very fast. This is one of those situations that leads to 250 year sentences in America.
Not so sure.This guy only got 3 years 4 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx7djg42q31o
Admittedly Joynes committed further offenses while on remand for the first, so she will likely get longer.
ds" and "they loved every minute of it" and "technically I'm not a pedophile" 
Getragdogleg said:
That's kind of what I'm getting at, it wont be for as long as a man because even the state view it differently.
Maybe a case by case basis within a framework is more effective at sorting out "justice" than a one size fits all set of rules.
The state does not view it differently. Judges are swayed by their own biases, which is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed, for many reasons, but there is no difference in law, and nor should there be.Maybe a case by case basis within a framework is more effective at sorting out "justice" than a one size fits all set of rules.
The difference between boys and girls/men and women here is nothing but social expectations. Ones that need to be broken down. It’s one of the major issues today. We can’t on the one hand tell men they need to be more open, empathetic etc. and on the other have crap like this. This impossible position is one of the reasons why boys are turning to the scum like Tate who offer them a much clearer answer.
Want evidence that it’s social? In the early modern and medieval eras the view of men’s and women’s sex drive was the opposite of recent times, that women were viewed as sexually insatiable and it was men that were the ones resisting sex.
Edited by Electro1980 on Saturday 18th May 16:24
Sentencing ought to be towards the top end of guidelines. There are several aggravating factors:
- position of trust as a teacher
- grooming by buying gifts
- two victims, the second of which she abused while under investigation for the first. Clearly was arrogant enough to not heed the consequences.
- offending over a sustained period, resulting in pregnancy. This will aggravate victim impact.
The apologists need to get their head straight. It's predatory abuse, plain and simple.
- position of trust as a teacher
- grooming by buying gifts
- two victims, the second of which she abused while under investigation for the first. Clearly was arrogant enough to not heed the consequences.
- offending over a sustained period, resulting in pregnancy. This will aggravate victim impact.
The apologists need to get their head straight. It's predatory abuse, plain and simple.
Simbu said:
Sentencing ought to be towards the top end of guidelines. There are several aggravating factors:
- position of trust as a teacher
- grooming by buying gifts
- two victims, the second of which she abused while under investigation for the first. Clearly was arrogant enough to not heed the consequences.
- offending over a sustained period, resulting in pregnancy. This will aggravate victim impact.
The apologists need to get their head straight. It's predatory abuse, plain and simple.
When she became pregnant the boy was 16 and she was no longer a teacher, so I presume no offences were committed, I don't think?- position of trust as a teacher
- grooming by buying gifts
- two victims, the second of which she abused while under investigation for the first. Clearly was arrogant enough to not heed the consequences.
- offending over a sustained period, resulting in pregnancy. This will aggravate victim impact.
The apologists need to get their head straight. It's predatory abuse, plain and simple.
Stick Legs said:
You haven’t met my wife! 
All joking aside even in you ignore age it’s still wrong as the position of trust was abused.
If I were a teacher in my early 20’s and a pupil & I had a chemistry then it would be my responsibility to tell them to wait until they left school.
Anything else is rightly judged harshly by the law.
Similarly I am a ship’s Master, if a female junior officer & I started a relationship it would be incredibly inappropriate and would harm both our credibility among the rest of the crew.
I suspect in this case she enjoyed having the power in the relationship and that her age and position meant she felt in control. The fact she didn’t date men of her own age suggests a psychological issue with trust & control.
Unless you were a chemistry teacher - in which case it would be your responsibility to explain covalent bonds (amongst other things).All joking aside even in you ignore age it’s still wrong as the position of trust was abused.
If I were a teacher in my early 20’s and a pupil & I had a chemistry then it would be my responsibility to tell them to wait until they left school.
Anything else is rightly judged harshly by the law.
Similarly I am a ship’s Master, if a female junior officer & I started a relationship it would be incredibly inappropriate and would harm both our credibility among the rest of the crew.
I suspect in this case she enjoyed having the power in the relationship and that her age and position meant she felt in control. The fact she didn’t date men of her own age suggests a psychological issue with trust & control.
An absolute offence, and a very stupid girl. I notice from reading the news article yesterday that boy 2 didn't freak out until after he'd had consensual sex with her 30 times and then she told him she was carrying 'their' baby. It suits society and the law to pursue a 'grooming' narrative, but if anyone really thinks that was the case with boy 2 I'd suggest they're a bit naive.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff