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.
This wasn’t paedophile apologia and it’s fucking ridiculous it was taken down.
The age of consent where I live is 16, with 14-15 year olds able to have sexual relationships with people up to five years older. The teacher is a predator, an abuser, an asshole, and a statutory rapist, but not a paedophile. She may also be a paedophile, but nothing in the article indicates she was. We should reserve that word for people who deserve it.
In order to understand why paedophilia is terrible we need to be able to discuss what it means. Defining a crime isn’t apologia, it’s how we figure out what is a crime in the first place. I don’t want to see “Paedophile” go the way of “Fascist.”
The Independent has no place on a site or community opposed to misinformation unless it’s clearly labelled a tabloid. It’s part owned by a fucking sultan, not independent, and failed multiple fact checks over the last few years. It’s blatant misinformation to call the teacher a paedophile when that word doesn’t even have a legal definition in the UK with regard to criminal law.
Yep. Blows my mind. Would love to know what the hell triggered people to downvote, and what triggered a moderator to delete it [1].
Clearly, either some kind of misunderstanding, [and/]or, they’re complicit in the crime and favouring the conflation that serves children and underage teenagers to them, and wanting to challenge the threat to their Lolita express embedded in this conflationary cultural trope of hate [because this practice is worse than it is in law and statutes ~ which even that needs mending].
Otherwise, what’s the thinking behind downvoting and deleting a post that calls for human rights and protecting children?
I failed to get any cogent argument that appeared outside these two options, misunderstanding and/or plausible complicity.
Which would not surprise, since such deviancy would be attracted to such articles, and therein no surprise that the reply tackling the issue in a manner that may actually lead to protecting children gets attacked.
Or maybe it was just a misunderstanding born of hot heads.
*shrug*
I remain open to other possibilities, and very much welcome suggestions or explanations of what else it could be. Would love to know what, if anything, was really wrong with what I said [in substance or style], or even just what was perceived as wrong, beyond all the completely inverting the point of it, like happened in most replies.
Was it removed because it was perceived as prejudice against paedophiles, and that was perceived, by the mod, as in breach of Rule 4?
I thought the point of my post was to protect children.
Curious how some of the replies to my reply blatantly and repeatedly break Rule 5
, yet they remain.
But then, beneath the rules here, it does also say:
Would be good if mods offered reasons why. Otherwise, how are we to know? Without reason offered, to those who don’t know why, it appears arbitrary, and that has several negative effects on the communication atmosphere.
I do hope I figure out what it was. I do hope it’s not the vilest of answers to the situation (~ as hypothesised as a possibility: the complicity gang, attacking a threat to their supply (~ unfortunately, as it would most appear to be, in absence of reason). I’m going to be thinking about this for a while. … How rife is the problem? Is that why it’s not being mended? The entire system captured by the complicit? Or just too daunting a conceptual leap, to face the horror, that we’re all complicit, by our hate, by our love, in handing our children over to the worst, increasing the value of our children to them… it’s not pleasant. Don’t kill the messenger ffs, or it’ll keep happening. This is no time for head-in-the-sand.
[1:(annoyingly disallowing subsequent readers to make up their own mind, lending spurious weight behind all the replies that completely misunderstood/misrepresented it, cherry-picking, quoting out of context, strawmanning, etc)]
was it how it was worded? too challenging?
Too many words. People aren’t reading it and just assume you’re defending paedophiles. The same reason people are downvoting me as soon as they see “age of consent” and not reading the rest.
I have three news communities. Almost every active comment section has someone who argues based on the headline and nothing else. Some folks don’t like to read.