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.
I mean maths does have a tendency to be a bit dry and it’s hard to get kids to engage with but I feel like this is going to be too far.
Joynes was suspended pending a police investigation. But this did not stop her from inviting a second boy to her apartment for a “date night” that involved an Ann Summers scratchcard of sexual activities.
She became pregnant with the boy and gave birth last year, but the child was taken away from her.
This is sickening! The fact that she only got six years is a severe injustice to those two boys and the unfortunate child that was conceived in such a manner. Let’s not “both sides” this: sex abuse is sex abuse. As @MrSulu@lemmy.ml pointed out, this will probably get some attention among far-right chuds for about week and get forgotten. It won’t solve any issues and one more kid will fall into that hateful ideology. I hope the two boys get the help they need and that baby gets a good family that will look after it.
(Also, I had to look up what “Ann Summers” was in the context of this story and now I feel like shooting my laptop)
Usually that would be true, but Farage is keeping his head down at the moment. No doubt 30p will say something incoherent and quite possibly untrue about all of this, but no one listens to anything he says anyway.
Exactly, the right wing fucks are going to derail & corrupt this issue with their brainrot & the left are already misandric enough.
Oh too, late both of those chucklefucks are already here.
Nice.
found a nonce
Would you say the same thing if the genders were reversed (31 year old male teacher with 15 and 16 year old female students)? What’s the difference?
I’m just quoting South Park.
You might want to consider context, or a visual aid in the future - because, yeah, you come off as a nonce.
Oh this is funny to you.
Real smooth, like the cha-cha
Removed by mod
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?
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
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
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
, yet they remain.
But then, beneath the rules here, it does also say:
ll 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.
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?
She got pregnant… So… not “paedophilia” then? Or are we still using an overly crude broad [mere statutory] brush here?
Did I miss mention of their ages in the article?
Sounds like we’d be better served by getting the terms hebephilia and ephebophilia better rooted in the lexicon. Otherwise we’re playing around with a dangerous false equivalence. Not to mention denying human rights to the largest underclass of humans, at the expense of others’ freedom and rights and more too.
Hebephilia specifically denotes attraction to early adolescents (ages 11–14), while ephebophilia refers to attraction to older adolescents (ages 15–19)…
Or maybe I misunderstand the ranges at which young boys can become fathers, and this genuinely was a case of paedophilia? Did they give informed consent? Oh that’s right, if they’re that young, they’re denied that human right, and so we hand them over to the black market to be abused, increasing their allure to rapists and blackmailers alike. >:-| We really need to come up with better ways to protect children.
(And [before anyone tries throw out spurious ugly accusations] no, I’m not saying that to wrangle the legal freedom to have at. I’m a mesophile. … And have been since very young. So it’s more than a little late for that to benefit me.)
[Edit: Seen in another reply:
One kid was 15, the other 16.
She was 30 or 31.
So, ephebophilia then, by the definition above.
Though of course, the power dynamic and grooming details make this worse.]
Check this guy’s hard drive
Check the hard drives of those who downvoted that post about the need to protect children.
Removed by mod
sicko
o_O You’re saying I’m a sicko for wanting to protect children? …?
I guess someone should check mojofrododojo’s hard drive too.
Check my hard drives all you want. A teenager is not exactly the same thing as a child.
Pretending otherwise is counterproductive, and just reads as trying to prove you’re not a pedo very hard.
Removed by mod
I’m glad you want to protect children, and that you’re rightly outraged upon perceiving a threat to them, but, there’s a lot to unpick there.
you’re justifying the rape of underage men and women by creating a false separation of teens, as if they aren’t children too you sick fuck.
This is a strawman argument, and a rather extreme one, built in part on cherry-picking [(not to mention ad-hominem, red-herring, false equivalence, appeal to emotion, slippery slope fallacy, self contradiction)], and on larger part, non-sequitur, apparently. Wanting to have more nuanced terminology for this is not justifying the rape of anyone. Quite the contrary. Facilitating better communication will help reduce harms.
And speaking of reducing harms, do you have any suggestion for the crux of the dilemma I posed? Given that our current system is increasing the child abuse: How are we to better protect children?
Or maybe you still insist on equivalence under law of a 15 year old having sex, and an under 10…? I’d like to hear your reasoning for that, if you’re willing to offer it. You may have a good point I had not thought of… You might be right, and convince me to your way of thinking, ~ though it escapes me how from here, I remain open minded.
Or, if it’s just emotional catharsis you need, you could continue to spit unfounded hate at me, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I say, while the abuse carries on in the background unabated.
Removed by mod
The problem with this arguement is that you can’t explain ephebophelia without sounding like a fucking pedophile
It is a distinction, but without a difference to anyone not using the DSM-5 regularly.
Always pops up on these threads though, same way any thread with a pickup truck leads to 900 people showing up to explain why they NEED that pavement princess F-450
You must be fun to be around.
You’re a mesophile?
A mesophile is an organism, often a microorganism, that thrives in moderate temperatures, typically between 20°C and 45°C (68°F to 113°F), with an optimum growth temperature around 37°C (98.6°F). These organisms are commonly found in environments like cheese, yogurt, and during the fermentation processes in beer and wine making.
Or are you trying to say your just a pedophile who is in the middle.
Fun homonym.
Mesophilia, loving the middle, in this context, as wikipedia says:
Mesophilia (derived from the Greek mesos, “intermediate”) is a romantic and/or sexual preference for middle-aged adults (around late 40s and 60s). The term was coined by Michael Seto in 2014
Sorry, I thought that term was better known, and that context would have averted any confusion.
The difference is mostly useful for psychiatry it is useless here.
In every case they had sexual relations with a minor in their care. that is still rape. no matter if they are 8 or 10 or 12 or 16, still rape.
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree that there is no difference. Apart from ages of consent being different among different countries (greetings from a place where you can have sexual relations from 14 years onwards), which already points at a grey zone for an age of maturity, I would ague that the physical and mental damage is different. A 15 or 16 year old might already have had some sexual experiences, or will have at least heard of what sex is, and (more or less) understand what is happening. The younger the child, the greater the damage to the body, and a child that doesn’t even know what sex is yet will carry a different kind of mental trauma from the assault.
I’ll also include the mandatory paragraph about a philia not being a felony in itself. Why it’s important is not just out of respect and support for non offending minor attracted persons who will be less likely to come out and seek help with a witch hunt for people with their orientation, but also to raise the absolutely necessary awareness that a great chunk of minor sexual assault cases are committed not by people with a -philia, but by people with regular (i.e. adult) sexual orientations. So you are not safe just because the person in question is proven not to have an attraction towards minors.
It’s funny how we spent the whole last decade stating that language matters, but somehow when it comes to pedophilia, everyone stops caring about correct language.
the crime is still the same. rape.
you can tell me it’s a red car or a yellow car, and maybe the difference is relevant in some contexts, but not if we’re talking about someone running over minors with that car.
the difference makes sense in psychiatry, not legally. that difference makes no difference to the victim.
is it different raping a toddler than a 16 year old student? yes, is it still rape? yes.
I agree. It is still rape.
And yet we differentiate rapes in the legal system, or don’t we? We look at the circumstances. The whole debate here ensured because we brought the term pedophile into it. Even if you take the word in its wrong sense - as someone who is having [illegal] sex with a minor - you now specified the rape.
As in this case, it was statutory rape. As someone else pointed out, the second boy the teacher had sex with was 16, which is the age of consent in the UK. So if he was a student at another school, and she had had sex with him, she would be legally in the clear - no crime and no pedo. So now her being a pedophile or not depends on the school the boy is going to? Had she been a teacher at a school in Germany she could have legally had sex with both boys, provided they weren’t in her class. Yet what she did was illegal and statutory rape. You’re unnecessarily bringing pathological attraction into a rape case.
I’d also argue that motive matters. Is she attracted to younger boys only? Or does she get off on the fact that they are her subordinates? This matters for prevention.
I don’t know about the way sentencing in the UK works, but I sincerely hope that a person who rapes a 10 year old gets a harsher sentence than someone who committed statutory rape with a 16 year old.
In your car metaphor - she drove the car into people. Does this make every car driver a murderer in the making? And are motorcyclists in the clear because they cannot drive a car into people?
In your car metaphor - she drove the car into people. Does this make every car driver a murderer in the making? And are motorcyclists in the clear because they cannot drive a car into people?
you lost me there, the point of the metaphor is that while some attributes are relevant in some context, it is irrelevant here. That teacher had sex with minors. that is rape and a big no no, if it was his teacher then the age of consent is 18.
and honestly, the walls of text defending the difference between tiers of being a nonce is quite sus. No one spends that much energy defending pedos unless they are one or you are their lawyer,.
Every goddamn one of these threads someone tries to discuss what it means to rape or to be a paedophile, and someone calls them a paedophile. We have criminal law because we, as a society, decided that some things are bad. We have different words for different crimes because, as it turns out, not every crime is the same. Manslaughter isn’t first degree murder. Theft under $5000 isn’t theft over $5000 because one is worse. Rape at knifepoint is not only arguably worse, it’s definitively worse than statutory rape. No one said any of these crimes aren’t “A big no no.”
Yep. And most unfortunately, as my (now mod-removed) original reply alluded to, prohibition does not prevent, making the good things bad and the bad things worse. Worsened further yet by the conflation and false equivocation.
As the key line from my original reply explicitly concludes:
We really need to come up with better ways to protect children.
Glad someone gets it.
Boggles my mind that my post about needing to protect children got downvoted.
Glad yours is getting upvoted.
I’m glad you feel a bit supported, I was also very sad to see how your comment got so many downvotes. But unfortunately that is common on lemmy, I got tons of downvotes last time I argued that round.
Not if 16. UK.
The power differential makes it rape.
Why’s that getting downvoted?
Age of consent is 16 in the UK.
Is just a plain simple factual correction.
Doubt they read it, probably just downvoted all your shit because some people make up their minds by the end of the first sentence. Everything else is just a bingo card to find what lines up with what they already believe.
Ok weird guy.
The article doesn’t mention ages, but another article says she groomed them from age 15.
However, I have to remind you that language is under constant development, and “paedophile” has long lost its original meaning. It now covers a much wider age range, although counting adolescents is a stretch.
However, I have to remind you that language is under constant development, and “paedophile” has long lost its original meaning. It now covers a much wider age range, although counting adolescents is a stretch.
In that case we need a new word for people who have the urge to have romantic and/or sexual relations with prepubescent children. Hopefully one with less of a stigma, so these people have an easier time to come out and seek mental treatment to prevent them from acting on their urges.
You know what, that’s probably the best suggestion I’ve heard on this topic in a while. You’re right, “pedophile” as a word is just completely ruined. You can probably go about and raise awareness as much as you want and demand a correct use of the word, but at the end of the day, the societal connotation is there and you won’t get it off the word anymore. Maybe a new word would really be the easiest way to go.
It is like, people, in their stunted vocabularies, have reached for pederast, but not knowing it, just used paedophile instead.
Even though I know the word pederast, from hearing paedophile so much in context of sexual abuse of children, when I hear paedophile, I think of it more like pederast.
To be honest, I think this is the first time I have even heard the term pederast. I’ll keep that in mind for future discussions, thanks.
A mesophile is an organism, often a microorganism, that thrives in moderate temperatures, typically between 20°C and 45°C (68°F to 113°F), with an optimum growth temperature around 37°C (98.6°F). These organisms are commonly found in environments like cheese, yogurt, and during the fermentation processes in beer and wine making.
I agree with part of your comment, but I think adding a bunch of over nuanced terms that people aren’t likely to know, look up, or care to remember isn’t going to further anything.
Your example makes little sense though. You’re talking about a subsection of microorganisms with specific needs. You won’t talk about an extremophile using the word mesophile and then get annoyed that people are confused or assume that they know what you are talking about.
I am like 30% sure that especially this one was thrown in to underline the ridiculousnes of it all. Like, doesn’t MAGA folk go to these lengths lately?
But I needed both context and to notice over the board approach and I am still not even sure, dammit xD
Dang.
They’re all going to learn that society doesn’t give a damn about them.
Whether we call it rape or not, is less relevant than the real world UK offences and sentencing guide for sex with a minor. She will serve her time, be on a sex offenders register for life, never work in teaching again and an indelible record that will show up on any safeguarding checks.
Here in the UK, our issue is that women and girls are told by the likes of Tommy (shit-for-brains) Robinson to look out for brown, black or Muslim people. Every week, women and girls have drinks spiked andraped by local white men, or are raped by people known and close to them.
This story will get some headline news because she’s an attractive white woman. If it was a brown, black, Muslim male, preferably with a beard, then we would be seeing widespread fear mongering by almost every news site.
I would like to welcome Rebecca Joyner to her future career in the Trump administration.
Trump wants to lit her in charge of the US Department of Education. PS: If you support Trump, you support child rape.
How did this become about Trump?
So now the administration just needs to pardon her and make her Secretary of Education. Causes that’s fucking on brand for this shit show.
They’d struggle to pardon someone in the UK.
you don’t think they’d bomb the convoy in a prisoner transfer and bring her back to the US or something?
because it’s not a non-zero chance nowadays
What convoy? She’s a sexual abuser of little kids, not some hyper dangerous international red room assassin, she doesn’t need an armed escort. They are just going to put her in the back of a police car with the child locks on.
Ya know what…I could see it happening. It wouldn’t do anything. But it’s not the most ridiculous thing this timeline has offered.
I’m willing to bet quite a lot of money that Trump will never even find out about her. It’s not happening in the US and I doubt his supporters care about international news, so there’s no reason for any of his aids even to tell him.
Trump has already tried to pardon people he can’t pardon (due to the crime being state law rather than federal). He would absolutely try to pardon people in other countries.
falling pregnant
I always find this expression incredibly strange.
Obligatory
Rape. She raped those boys. Use the correct terminology.
I’m going to take a guess that, if they were over the age of consent, it would have been consensual.
that would be to ‘harsh’
You need me to tiktok it to you? it is r*pe
Like I just said within my reply to the original post:
Did they give informed consent? Oh that’s right, if they’re that young, they’re denied that human right, and so we hand them over to the black market to be abused, increasing their allure to rapists and blackmailers alike. >:-| We really need to come up with better ways to protect children.
So (unless the thing the other reply to this said [“Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK”] is true), then, that’s “statutory rape” [regardless of their informed consent]. Yup. Though I’m not convinced it’s necessarily “correct”.
Legally speaking women cannot be rapists in the UK at least from what I remember.
Then the UK is wrong.
I dunno. I almost think there should be a different term or word for it. I’m not saying it’s OK at all, I just think bundling so many sexual crimes under one name isn’t great.
For example; I was a horny teen and probably would have been into a teacher like that. It would have been wrong and it likely would have messed up different aspects of my life. I’m not condoning it or trying to downplaying it, but I feel if I had been violently been penetrated against my will by a male teacher the trauma would be a whole different kind.
So yeah, I don’t know if we should call it rape, but I recognize the boys were underage and taken advantage of, and the crime absolutely deserves to be punished. I’m also the person who get’s all worked up by modern loose usage WMD and many others, so I know I can be a handful.
Maybe that young girl wanted to have sex with an older man? Maybe there was no force involved at all?
NOOOOOO!!! RAPE IS RAPE! SIMPLE AS THAT!
I get that you want to separate sex by force from sex by free will but when it comes to kids there can never be consent and it defaults to rape. It should not be minimized just because a female teacher raped young boys.
Edit: If you want a different definition for what happens to someone being forced or not you could call it rape with assault or rape with {whatever}. I don’t think the rape part should be minimized in any way. Just extended in brutality if anything.
I don’t think they were trying to say that it should be minimised. But we should define crimes precisely. After all we make a distinction between murder by intent, murder by negligence, and murder by proxy. They’re all still murder, and they all still result in lifetime sentences, but we make the distinction.
And those crimes are all called murder with additioal context added. Calling a rape something other than rape is minimizing it. We don’t need “another word” for rape.
In a lot of jurisdictions rape is definited in that narrow way, but there is a crime with equal punishment that catches the rest of sexual crimes that you might call rape in america.
They define rape as penetration
Good news is she did seem to actually be punished with a sizable prison sentence (by uk standards)
She got pregnant, so I’m pretty sure there was penetration
No only the person who does the penetration can rape under uk law.
As per usual.
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
Why is this downvoted?
Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage,
Blatantly, by the very next words.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They didn’t call it “sexual assault” either, so I’m inclined to not accept that excuse.
Til. So in the UK only men (or those with dicks) can rape?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Thankfully I’m not a citizen of TERF Island. She raped them.
Hi! I’m not worried about being sued. She raped at least two 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.
Regular folks like you and I aren’t much at risk of being sued for libel.
Trump: hold my 12 year old… beer
deleted by creator
That’s only because uk libel laws are backwards and stupid.
That’s only because uk
libellaws are backwards and stupid.iftfy
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)
I agree with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.
Which is fucked up frankly because that’s clearly not true.
She is an amateur. She should just say that she didn’t know them and it’s certainly a democrats conspiracy.
Invoke the Jewish space lasers and it’s all suddenly Hilary’s fault via Hunters laptop. Blatant grift has been going on so long it should just be a class in school now
falling pregnant by a second while on police bail.
She really can’t stop fucking kids, can she?
Maybe she has a future in US government
US Government? She’s already in the UK, why would she leave a Pro League to go an Amatuer one?
“Y’all aint got nuthin on Savile.”
Or so we like to think, hoping the world’s not even worse than that. … But it is.
UK got rid of prince andrew so US has the market cornered on kid-diddling govt folk
You think he’s the only one? Not a chance…
You know what though? That is more than the US has ever done with high-ranking politicians.
She forgot to be a billionaire
She also forgot to be a man
Give some examples of male teachers having sex with students who were caught and walked free.
Bruce Siewerth. Want more? Internet searches are easy.
He got away because the statute of limitations had long run out, not because some idea you have that male pedos aren’t prosecuted.
I thought there were no statute of limitations on stuff like this…
… Jeez!
Oh, can include priests then?
That is the church protecting their own, who are by necessity men. You are insinuating that men, specifically because they are men, are let free when they commit sexual abuse, which is simply not the case, unless they’re billionaires.
Yawn. Keep moving that bar.
are we still doing phrasing?
I am. Phrasing!
