Rebecca Joynes allegedly became pregnant after having sex with one of her victims, known as boy B, Manchester Crown Court heard - she denies the allegations against her.
Rebecca Joynes denies having sex with the two boys but admitted, in Manchester Crown Court, to having broken safeguarding rules by being in contact with them on Snapchat and having them back to her apartment in Salford Quays.
The 30-year-old was already suspended from her job and on bail for alleged sexual activity with boy A, 15, when she allegedly took the virginity of a second boy, known as boy B, 16, who she later became pregnant by.
Joynes denies that any sexual activity took place with boy A - whose semen was recovered from her bedsheets.
Yeah as fucked up as it is men cannot be raped by women according to the definition under UK law. That’s what I read anyway someone please correct me though because I would love to be wrong here.
It’s not the best source obviously, but according to Wikipedia this is incorrect, women can be charged with rape (if I’ve read this correctly):
The last time I pasted a Wikipedia link on a world news community I was banned, so mods please just delete this comment if I’ve done something wrong. [Edit] note it was a different world news community, I’m just trying to be extra careful.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_English_law
I honestly think that’s more about ensuring that they can charge trans women with rape (which they obviously should, when relevant). It seems like the thing they’re commenting on is the pronoun, not the noun.
Where I am, penetrating someone with an object counts and they phrase it very differently
It does specify being the penatrator in a different section, I’m no lawmaker though so I’m not sure how the two statements converge.
You might be right about the trans argument.
.ml? The mods there are really ban-happy, especially if you say something counter to tankie orthodoxy and back it up with unassailable logic and/or data lol
Yeah that’s the one. I hadn’t noticed they were so ban-happy and I did enjoy getting some, definitely not all of them, different takes on world events.
What I really don’t like is over policing though as it means you can unintentionally be stuck in a bubble.
Maybe there are stats on the number of bans a community has. That’d be interesting to have an idea of how much a community is policing.
It’d be up near the top for sure! Of the four times total I’ve been banned on Lemmy,
I cannot officially speak on behalf of any other mods, but I can’t imagine any of us deleting a Wikipedia link. Really, any mainstream source is acceptable. If you posted a link to something like womencantrapemen.co.uk, that might be a different issue.
Thanks. yes this was a different world news community. I wasn’t saying it was this one that banned me, sorry if that wasn’t clear.
I was just adding the disclaimer because I didn’t want to get banned from this one too.
I’ve edited my original comment to try and make it more clear that I’m not referring to this community.
IDK why people hate on Wikipedia links so much. Most wiki pages provide sources at the bottom of the page and are annotated, the [12] at the end.
This was the other world news community which is much more eastern based. I was questioning what somebody had said about a certain subject. Not saying they were wrong. Just asking if everything on the Wikipedia page was nonsense (I used stronger language which I won’t make the same mistake of doing here).
For some reason this was justification for a ban. I guess I don’t want to be part of a community which is policing itself so much as this will obviously lead to a scewed comment section.
Because a lot of Wikipedia pages can be edited by anyone, sure some are annotated at the end but lots are not as well. Therefore the trust of Wikipedia is in question.
EDIT: you can downvoted all you want but even Wikipedia itself says that everyone can edit the page.
I think Wikipedia is a fine source for general information. It’s when you want specifics that you move on. The sources list at the bottom is usually helpful for that.
I disagree, it’s a starting point but it is not trustable source at all. We differ in opinions and that’s alright.
German law is curious (and well-written) in that regard. “rape” is something an offence may be called but it’s not a category of offence in itself. There’s one single section covering sexual assault in various aggravation stages:
StGB, Section 177:
Note the “at least two years” doesn’t inherit the “up to five years” of the previous section and there’s even higher minimums for carrying weapons, risk of damage to health, etc.
Only acts involving penetration are considered rape but it doesn’t say by who or what, and even if the e.g. forced face-sitting didn’t involve penetration it’s still going to be on the same aggravation level.
OTOH under German law what she did probably doesn’t even begin to be rape it’s sexual abuse of persons in one’s charge.
Can confirm. It’s the same in my British former colony.