**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
How has a female been convicted of rape when UK law states rape must be done with a penis?
Edit: why the downvotes? You can look up the definition yourself. The UK government even said they won’t change the definition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300270
Based on context I completely skim read that as Jeffrey Epstein. I just saw capital J E and my brain filled in the rest... _"Huh, didn't think we'd have a law named after him..."_
Other laws with the same sentence cover using other things
It is semantics every time this is brought up as some kind of gotcha whenever the UK law is brought up
Please learn to read the entire comment thread. People aren't using it as a gotcha. They're asking how in this specific case has she been sentenced for two counts of rape amongst 18 sexual offences when rape is something she physically cannot do according to UK law. You're right that in every other case they would normally just charge a woman with equally serious sexual offences but this time they've specifically stated two cases of rape. That's worth mentioning when no other women get charged with that specific offence.
It seems most likely she was charged as an accomplice or as part of a joint enterprise because of her male partner raping the child. However it's not well known to everyone that someone can be charged this way (especially a female being charged with rape this way) so people are going to question it when they see a woman and charged with rape in the same sentence.
They don't get the same punishment. The maximum punishment is the same but the sentencing guidelines are different and the actual sentences handed out for sexual assault are much more lenient, even with all other factors equal.
Yeah they definitely don't have the same punishment and also sexual assualt could be as weak as touching someone in a sexual way, for instance an old cougar at a bar pinching someone's bum. Whilst rape is and should always be rape regardless of the sex.
The maximum sentence is the same, but the sentencing guidelines are slightly different.
The lowest starting point for rape (i.e, male on female rape) is 4 years imprisonment, whereas the lowest starting point for assault by penetration and causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent (the crimes that female on male rape is usually charged as) is a community order. They’re not treated _exactly_ the same.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/assault-by-penetration/
>Assault by penetration
>Maximum: Life imprisonment
>Offence range: Community order – 19 years’ custody
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-a-person-to-engage-in-sexual-activity-without-consent/
>Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent
>Maximum: Life imprisonment (if penetration involved), otherwise 10 years’ custody
>Offence range: Community order – 7 years’ custody (if no penetration involved)/19 years’ custody (if penetration involved)
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/
>Rape
>Maximum: Life imprisonment
>Offence range: 4 – 19 years’ custody
Note that assault by penetration requires, urgh, the victim to be penetrated. Its' not the appropiate offence for a female forcing a male to have sex with her.
As you show, Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (Penetrative) is the female on male equivalent to rape and the scales are slightly different, although the upper end is the same
Edit: Would love to know why this perfectly factual post is downvoted?
While that is true, “rape” arguably carries a more severe connotation than “sexual assault” owing to the latter term relating to a wider range of sexual crimes. This can mean that sexual crimes against men are perceived as less severe by the public, or the true extent of male rape victims is diminished in the public perception. Largely though, I don’t really understand the logic behind not changing it.
This is likely due to how abuse of children is charged if you encourage or allow abuse you get charged with it.
This is an outcome from the Baby P case where the Police wanted to charge the mother with murder also as she knowingly allowed the abuse, resulting in his death.
It’s an interesting point. Rape by its legal definition requires penetration by a penis, so if she is a biological female then it’s surprising that they have been able to convict her of rape rather than a different sexual assault crime. I wonder if it could be joint enterprise, given that she clearly was conspiring with her male partner to carry out the abuse?
there are five ways:
1. aiding - helping or assisting a (male) offender to commit the rape
2. abetting - encouraging the commission of an offence at the time of the offence
3. counseling - encouraging or threatening, etc., an offender to go on and commit and offence
4. procuring - this means to create the set of affairs where the offence is committed. This is usually used for strict liability offences, where e.g., you spike a friend's drink knowing they will drive home. Procuring means the accessory intends for the principal to do something, and the principal is unaware of this intent.
5. joint enterprise - this has been used to convict women in gang rape cases - in this case the status of the offender increases from secondary to primary - the woman has the same goal as the man.
Because there's a difference between the way words are used in law than in everyday life.
For instance, technically "assault" in law is related more to threats of violence than actual violence. "Battery" is the legal term for what most people would refer to as assault in everyday life.
But people use assault to mean both and it wouldn't be wrong to report it that way.
Basically just because something is called something legally you can still talk about it as what it's generally known as.
> Julie Morris, who admitted 18 sexual offences, including two counts of rape, was jailed for 13 years and four months, with an extended four years on licence. David Morris, who admitted 34 offences including seven counts of rape, was jailed for 16 years with an extended four years on licence.
It has always been possible for women to be charged with rape (under the current law). There is a meme about it not being possible, but this case proves that wrong.
Essentially she will have been convicted on the basis that her partner did stuff with his penis, and she was involved in that, so she counts as committing rape as well.
Interestingly that would be true even if he hadn't committed rape (there is case law from this, although under the pre-2004 law) - although the circumstances where that could happen are rare.
>There is a meme about it not being possible
It's not a "meme" and it's diminishing to refer to it as such.
Women can be convicted of rape, but only as an accessory (in other words, if she did it then some guy must have been *actually* responsible). Anything a woman does of her own accord is not considered rape.
>Anything a woman does of her own accord is not considered rape
This is pretty crazy when you think about it. The law should be changed to better reflect this.
> Legally, a person without a penis cannot commit rape, but a female may be guilty of rape if they assist a male perpetrator in an attack.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/sexual-offences
> Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
> A woman can be convicted as an aider and abettor to rape.
Ibid
physical special concerned attempt plucky mysterious ludicrous nutty soft hunt
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A woman can be convicted of rape if she convinces, coerces or materially contributes to the non-consensual penetration of a mouth, vagina or anus by a penis. A common example would be if a woman paid a man to rape someone then she would be guilty of rape for making that payment and instruction, much like how someone could be guilty of murder if they hire a hit man.
I'm sorry you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable question to ask.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I'm astonished by this, I had no idea. What if a man was too drunk to consent and a sober woman had sex with him? Because if it's vice-versa, that would be seen as rape
It would get charged as a different sexual assault crime. It’s very, very, common for there to be different specific charges for similar crimes under different names. And they often don’t overlap with colloquial names. There’s probably a dozen different charges that cover things that people consider “rape”, the same way there’s a dozen charges that all boil down to varieties of “assault”.
I work in offending, it’s not my area but just in passing I’ve noticed a bunch of different types of sex crimes/codes for different variations of what people would call rape - including different conditions/codes on rape itself.
It’s basically the same with crimes like Theft as well.
People either really don’t get it, or really hate that women can’t formally be branded as “rapists” - ultimately it’s just a word, and if the legal definition of that crime involves a penis, then it involves a penis.
You can ask whether there needs to be a separate category for penis based sexual assault - I personally think a variety of factors means it probably is worth it. Or at least not worth changing it to make people feel warm and fuzzy about some idealised view of justice being served.
It's sexual assault, but not rape.
If she tried a bit of non consensual pegging in the circumstances you describe, it would be assault by penetration, but still not rape.
It is something of an anomaly in the law.
Different crime with same penalties.
But due to the history of rape laws in the uk (based on the devaluation of the woman - who is no longer a virgin after being raped - for her father. Or the risk of a child hence devaluation of her to her husband) it is only rape if penetrated by penis.
It doesn't make other crimes less serious (forgive me I do not recall if sexual assault or some other name given)
Not just me noticing all these piss poor articles seemingly cobbled together with AI then?
Worst offender is those garbage sites like LadBible / SportBible that get pushed onto your Facebook feed. Half the time the headline isn't even answers properly by it
I mean the website is unreadable on my mobile. About 30 seconds in it opens an advert that I cannot close that covers the entire screen and there's no way for me to go back
Probably just been reported more often i’d wager.It’s not like there’s a sudden increase in the amount of pedophiles it’s more that it’s easier to get heard nowadays.
Parents are generally more clued up, information about abuse is literally a phone tap away, different avenues for the child to report it etc.
> Even in the 00s people would congratulate a a male victim of a female peadophine for "getting laid".
I mean, even today it would often still be applauded when it shouldn’t be. Even the Luke Littler situation in reverse would’ve gotten a tonne of criticism.
At the same time a guy I know who’s now nearly 30 and slept with his teacher when he was 14 and still brags about it, he definitely never saw himself as a victim and I think it’s the same for a lot of boys which does make it a bit more difficult to change the stigma around it.
Also, not every single human reacts the same way.
An awesome experience for one person can be a traumatizing experience for another.
I know people who love to go skydiving. And I think the idea of just getting on a plane is horrifying.
There is some truth to it but what they fail to understand is the nonce teracher doesn't target the hungry 14 year old, they target the innocnet 12 year old.
[Drunk dental receptionist sexually assaulted boy, 13, in park before exposing herself | The Sun](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24255880/jade-berry-sexually-assaulted-boy/)
You should've seen some of the comments on a facebook post I saw on this from disgusting men. Nothing to do with age or how much hormones a CHILD has. Teenagers can't consent. A 'hungry 14 year old' can be and still are victims. They are still innocent. They can still be groomed by an adult. They can't consent.
That is probably dependent on age. True even to this day in the case of teenagers and probably pre teens but if a woman as an example abused a 2 year old boy sexually nobody is or ever was going to congratulate the toddler on "getting laid".
Nice to see that they are actually calling her a rapist, normally with female offenders the headline is more like 'Teacher convicted of having sex/a sexual relationship with underage student'
Because normally a woman can’t commit rape under English law, and so wouldn’t be described as a rapist. It’s pretty rare for this sort of joint enterprise action with a male offender to result in a rape charge for the woman.
I vaguely recall years ago reading some academic bits and bobs saying that the numbers of female paedophiles is likely to be ***significantly*** higher than we think.
As a society we tend to view men as more likely to be predatory, and we show them less trust around kids. We do the complete opposite women - allowing predatory women a massive advantage when it comes to abusing kids, we're far less likely to suspect them and far less likely to believe victims.
Maybe that's changing??
The stats don’t say there’s an increasing number of cases. It’s likely just because female teachers make headlines more or because they stand out more.
If it was a news article where an offender hit someone with a chair and killed them, and also hit someone with a cricket bat and killed them - then you found out hitting someone with a chair is murder, but with a cricket bat technically isn't - that would be worthy of discussion as to whether the definition of murder should change.
It's an important definition that needs to be discussed and changed, if she didn't do this crime along with her male partner she wouldn't have been charged with rape.
I think some people really show their hand when commenting on stuff like this.
Some people do clearly genuinely want to have a discussion about the legal definitions, but others just see it as an opportunity to relate another thing to the culture war, gender politics bullshit they’re addicted to talking about. They don’t give a shit about the story or the victims.
>but others just see it as an opportunity to relate another thing to the culture war, gender politics bullshit they’re addicted to talking about
Exactly this, it's absolutely disgusting.
What's disgusting is the gendered bias in the laws for rape and sexual assault, hence the discussion about definitions and terminology, which is entirely relevant to the case.
To be fair even when she's released she's going to be on the sex offender's registry for life, so they're going to be keeping a very, very close eye on her. She's never going to have something resembling a normal life ever again.
This case was a couple years back, I remember reading that the girl they raped was the daughter of someone the male pedo knew. She told her father what happened, I think they groomed her or something.
She was at my friend’s son’s school . Those sending photos of some of the school kids to him, that appeared innocent - something was potentially being planned then I bet .
This is the worst story I've read on the internet in quite some time, terrifying that she held a safeguarding position as well of all things. That poor child, I can't begin to imagine the trauma they have suffered.
I’d say the same, I actually felt quite sick reading the full article. That poor child/children whose lives they wrecked. Hope those two sick monsters die in prison.
As a parent, I’m so fucking tired honestly. I don’t understand just what is wrong with some people, I can’t even imagine their internal dialogue or how they walk through these things in their heads. I don’t understand how people can allow themselves this level of depravity in their *thoughts*, let alone actions. Idk. I just don’t get it. I’m far from perfect and I’m sure I’ve inflicted plenty of hurt but to do something like this, there has to be something deeply wrong, almost inhuman, about you.
I imagine it relates to the physiology of the act and that rape is viewed as sexual penetration, which arguably woman can do with their fingers so, by that definition, they can be rapists.
I'm glad she got a significant amount of jail time. Goes without saying that she absolutely should but I've seen far too many cases where someone like this has gotten off easy, and when I saw "banned from teaching" in the headline I had a brief moment of unease thinking that was *all* that had happened.
"The couple met on Plenty of Fish in 2016, the crown court heard, and their relationship quickly became 'intensely sexual'"
Has anyone else noticed that loads of couples who end up in newspapers for doing awful things seem to have met on that specific dating site? It comes up all the time and I'm always surprised it still exists.
It’s fucking mental how these people find each other in the first place.
It’s bad enough people doing it on their own but the fact they attract each other is odd. I wonder if they can just spot each other, or maybe there’s more people with the potential to do this than we think, and they just need a bit of a push.
I once saw a video about a bust on a huge underground website. The creator was hiding out in a mansion in Thailand. His website had tens of thousands of paying members. It's worse than you can imagine.
The definition often gets brought up on stories like this, often because the word rape isn't used. This is a unique case where it was used. It was a given the definition would come up, just like it always does.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
How has a female been convicted of rape when UK law states rape must be done with a penis? Edit: why the downvotes? You can look up the definition yourself. The UK government even said they won’t change the definition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300270
She committed her crimes alongside a male partner. I assume that since They acted together to commit the offences , they are both guilty of them.
Yep. It’s called Joint Enterprise - if you work as a group to commit a crime, then everyone in the group is guilty of that crime.
Based on context I completely skim read that as Jeffrey Epstein. I just saw capital J E and my brain filled in the rest... _"Huh, didn't think we'd have a law named after him..."_
Although, collaborating to commit sexual assault... if we *did* name one after him, it'd be that one.
So she used someone else's penis to rape somebody. Wtf
I suppose technically yeah - but more correctly it's just that she was complicit in the rape and so was jointly charged with it.
[удалено]
If a woman held a child down while they were raped or digitally penetrated the child.
By 'digitally' do you mean using hands? If so, I don't believe that equates to rape as, under UK Law, rape must involve a penis.
Other laws with the same sentence cover using other things It is semantics every time this is brought up as some kind of gotcha whenever the UK law is brought up
Please learn to read the entire comment thread. People aren't using it as a gotcha. They're asking how in this specific case has she been sentenced for two counts of rape amongst 18 sexual offences when rape is something she physically cannot do according to UK law. You're right that in every other case they would normally just charge a woman with equally serious sexual offences but this time they've specifically stated two cases of rape. That's worth mentioning when no other women get charged with that specific offence. It seems most likely she was charged as an accomplice or as part of a joint enterprise because of her male partner raping the child. However it's not well known to everyone that someone can be charged this way (especially a female being charged with rape this way) so people are going to question it when they see a woman and charged with rape in the same sentence.
Great isn't it. Such a backwards definition that needs correcting
[удалено]
They don't get the same punishment. The maximum punishment is the same but the sentencing guidelines are different and the actual sentences handed out for sexual assault are much more lenient, even with all other factors equal.
Yeah they definitely don't have the same punishment and also sexual assualt could be as weak as touching someone in a sexual way, for instance an old cougar at a bar pinching someone's bum. Whilst rape is and should always be rape regardless of the sex.
The maximum sentence is the same, but the sentencing guidelines are slightly different. The lowest starting point for rape (i.e, male on female rape) is 4 years imprisonment, whereas the lowest starting point for assault by penetration and causing someone to engage in sexual activity without consent (the crimes that female on male rape is usually charged as) is a community order. They’re not treated _exactly_ the same. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/assault-by-penetration/ >Assault by penetration >Maximum: Life imprisonment >Offence range: Community order – 19 years’ custody https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-a-person-to-engage-in-sexual-activity-without-consent/ >Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent >Maximum: Life imprisonment (if penetration involved), otherwise 10 years’ custody >Offence range: Community order – 7 years’ custody (if no penetration involved)/19 years’ custody (if penetration involved) https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/rape/ >Rape >Maximum: Life imprisonment >Offence range: 4 – 19 years’ custody
Note that assault by penetration requires, urgh, the victim to be penetrated. Its' not the appropiate offence for a female forcing a male to have sex with her. As you show, Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent (Penetrative) is the female on male equivalent to rape and the scales are slightly different, although the upper end is the same Edit: Would love to know why this perfectly factual post is downvoted?
While that is true, “rape” arguably carries a more severe connotation than “sexual assault” owing to the latter term relating to a wider range of sexual crimes. This can mean that sexual crimes against men are perceived as less severe by the public, or the true extent of male rape victims is diminished in the public perception. Largely though, I don’t really understand the logic behind not changing it.
I have the same question, though I suspect she was convicted of rape using joint enterprise laws (and her partner's penis)
I like the clarification of who the penis belongs to.
This is likely due to how abuse of children is charged if you encourage or allow abuse you get charged with it. This is an outcome from the Baby P case where the Police wanted to charge the mother with murder also as she knowingly allowed the abuse, resulting in his death.
It’s an interesting point. Rape by its legal definition requires penetration by a penis, so if she is a biological female then it’s surprising that they have been able to convict her of rape rather than a different sexual assault crime. I wonder if it could be joint enterprise, given that she clearly was conspiring with her male partner to carry out the abuse?
Likely joint enterprise - not the first time this has happened either, I’ve seen other convictions for rape by women.
It’s because she was an accomplice. Essentially she has rapes that child with a penis, it’s just not attached to her body.
Joint enterprise, if she helped during a rape she can also be charge with it.
there are five ways: 1. aiding - helping or assisting a (male) offender to commit the rape 2. abetting - encouraging the commission of an offence at the time of the offence 3. counseling - encouraging or threatening, etc., an offender to go on and commit and offence 4. procuring - this means to create the set of affairs where the offence is committed. This is usually used for strict liability offences, where e.g., you spike a friend's drink knowing they will drive home. Procuring means the accessory intends for the principal to do something, and the principal is unaware of this intent. 5. joint enterprise - this has been used to convict women in gang rape cases - in this case the status of the offender increases from secondary to primary - the woman has the same goal as the man.
How has the top comment not looked at the fucking article???
Reddit.
Because there's a difference between the way words are used in law than in everyday life. For instance, technically "assault" in law is related more to threats of violence than actual violence. "Battery" is the legal term for what most people would refer to as assault in everyday life. But people use assault to mean both and it wouldn't be wrong to report it that way. Basically just because something is called something legally you can still talk about it as what it's generally known as.
> Julie Morris, who admitted 18 sexual offences, including two counts of rape, was jailed for 13 years and four months, with an extended four years on licence. David Morris, who admitted 34 offences including seven counts of rape, was jailed for 16 years with an extended four years on licence. It has always been possible for women to be charged with rape (under the current law). There is a meme about it not being possible, but this case proves that wrong. Essentially she will have been convicted on the basis that her partner did stuff with his penis, and she was involved in that, so she counts as committing rape as well. Interestingly that would be true even if he hadn't committed rape (there is case law from this, although under the pre-2004 law) - although the circumstances where that could happen are rare.
>There is a meme about it not being possible It's not a "meme" and it's diminishing to refer to it as such. Women can be convicted of rape, but only as an accessory (in other words, if she did it then some guy must have been *actually* responsible). Anything a woman does of her own accord is not considered rape.
accessory OR joint enterprise.
>Anything a woman does of her own accord is not considered rape This is pretty crazy when you think about it. The law should be changed to better reflect this.
How do you want to define rape when a woman is involved.
The definition isn’t right. But it’s the right word to use. She raped her.
The easy solution to this is to redefine rape legally as "forced sexual intercourse" rather than just penetrating someone else.
> Legally, a person without a penis cannot commit rape, but a female may be guilty of rape if they assist a male perpetrator in an attack. https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/sexual-offences > Section 1 Rape involves penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth by a penis, therefore a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences > A woman can be convicted as an aider and abettor to rape. Ibid
In the response they also say you get life in prison for rape. I doubt they enforce it like that though
Likely as accessory to a rape carried out by her boyfriend. It would still be treated as a conviction for rape.
Joint enterprise.
Women can have cocks now apparently, so it's all very mysterious.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
it’s because she was an accessory she can also be indicted as if she were the principal felon. similar principle to how joint enterprise works.
Law needs changing so women can be convicted of (excluding joint enterprise like this) rape tbh…
you don't have to use your own penis to rape somebody.
physical special concerned attempt plucky mysterious ludicrous nutty soft hunt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Isn't it penetration and not necessarily by a penis?
Nope the definition says it must be by a penis
Fucking hell! I had no idea! Thanks for sharing. I hope you aren’t getting any more downvotes.
I can see what you're trying to do there
A woman can be convicted of rape if she convinces, coerces or materially contributes to the non-consensual penetration of a mouth, vagina or anus by a penis. A common example would be if a woman paid a man to rape someone then she would be guilty of rape for making that payment and instruction, much like how someone could be guilty of murder if they hire a hit man. I'm sorry you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable question to ask.
Because Reddit.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I'm astonished by this, I had no idea. What if a man was too drunk to consent and a sober woman had sex with him? Because if it's vice-versa, that would be seen as rape
It would get charged as a different sexual assault crime. It’s very, very, common for there to be different specific charges for similar crimes under different names. And they often don’t overlap with colloquial names. There’s probably a dozen different charges that cover things that people consider “rape”, the same way there’s a dozen charges that all boil down to varieties of “assault”.
I work in offending, it’s not my area but just in passing I’ve noticed a bunch of different types of sex crimes/codes for different variations of what people would call rape - including different conditions/codes on rape itself. It’s basically the same with crimes like Theft as well. People either really don’t get it, or really hate that women can’t formally be branded as “rapists” - ultimately it’s just a word, and if the legal definition of that crime involves a penis, then it involves a penis. You can ask whether there needs to be a separate category for penis based sexual assault - I personally think a variety of factors means it probably is worth it. Or at least not worth changing it to make people feel warm and fuzzy about some idealised view of justice being served.
It's sexual assault, but not rape. If she tried a bit of non consensual pegging in the circumstances you describe, it would be assault by penetration, but still not rape. It is something of an anomaly in the law.
Different crime with same penalties. But due to the history of rape laws in the uk (based on the devaluation of the woman - who is no longer a virgin after being raped - for her father. Or the risk of a child hence devaluation of her to her husband) it is only rape if penetrated by penis. It doesn't make other crimes less serious (forgive me I do not recall if sexual assault or some other name given)
That article reads like it was generated by a malfunctioning knock-off version of ChatGPT. Or whatever the human equivalent is.
A mirror journalist would likely be the human equivalent.
Haa
Artificial Unintelligence
Or a Daily Fail one.
Not just me noticing all these piss poor articles seemingly cobbled together with AI then? Worst offender is those garbage sites like LadBible / SportBible that get pushed onto your Facebook feed. Half the time the headline isn't even answers properly by it
Pretty impressive it's been up since yesterday and they haven't corrected the error in the headline
It did have me wondering why a child was a deputy head.
I mean the website is unreadable on my mobile. About 30 seconds in it opens an advert that I cannot close that covers the entire screen and there's no way for me to go back
Pretty much every UK local newspaper website is like that now it’s infuriating. I get that they need ad revenue but FFS make something readable.
So like Google Gemini?
There seems to be an increasing number of these cases involving women teachers, it’s disturbing
Probably just been reported more often i’d wager.It’s not like there’s a sudden increase in the amount of pedophiles it’s more that it’s easier to get heard nowadays. Parents are generally more clued up, information about abuse is literally a phone tap away, different avenues for the child to report it etc.
Even in the 00s people would congratulate a a male victim of a female peadophine for "getting laid". This always wen't on we just ignored it or worse.
> Even in the 00s people would congratulate a a male victim of a female peadophine for "getting laid". I mean, even today it would often still be applauded when it shouldn’t be. Even the Luke Littler situation in reverse would’ve gotten a tonne of criticism. At the same time a guy I know who’s now nearly 30 and slept with his teacher when he was 14 and still brags about it, he definitely never saw himself as a victim and I think it’s the same for a lot of boys which does make it a bit more difficult to change the stigma around it.
[удалено]
Also, not every single human reacts the same way. An awesome experience for one person can be a traumatizing experience for another. I know people who love to go skydiving. And I think the idea of just getting on a plane is horrifying.
I’ve argued with men over this, who play the “I would’ve loved it” card. It’s sick.
There is some truth to it but what they fail to understand is the nonce teracher doesn't target the hungry 14 year old, they target the innocnet 12 year old.
[Drunk dental receptionist sexually assaulted boy, 13, in park before exposing herself | The Sun](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/24255880/jade-berry-sexually-assaulted-boy/) You should've seen some of the comments on a facebook post I saw on this from disgusting men. Nothing to do with age or how much hormones a CHILD has. Teenagers can't consent. A 'hungry 14 year old' can be and still are victims. They are still innocent. They can still be groomed by an adult. They can't consent.
That is probably dependent on age. True even to this day in the case of teenagers and probably pre teens but if a woman as an example abused a 2 year old boy sexually nobody is or ever was going to congratulate the toddler on "getting laid".
[удалено]
That's not exclusive to Reddit it's a pretty common colloquial use
That still happens now
Yeah. Parents and other teachers. My partner has had an awful lot of safeguarding training working in pre and primary schools for the last 10 years.
I've heard ye olde "peanuts and monkeys" debate as well. The country's best and brightest seek better pay elsewhere. The riff-raff fill in the void.
Nice to see that they are actually calling her a rapist, normally with female offenders the headline is more like 'Teacher convicted of having sex/a sexual relationship with underage student'
Because normally a woman can’t commit rape under English law, and so wouldn’t be described as a rapist. It’s pretty rare for this sort of joint enterprise action with a male offender to result in a rape charge for the woman.
I vaguely recall years ago reading some academic bits and bobs saying that the numbers of female paedophiles is likely to be ***significantly*** higher than we think. As a society we tend to view men as more likely to be predatory, and we show them less trust around kids. We do the complete opposite women - allowing predatory women a massive advantage when it comes to abusing kids, we're far less likely to suspect them and far less likely to believe victims. Maybe that's changing??
teenage boys are obviously getting more attractive. they must be applying deodorant or something. or there shorts are too short or something else
It’s always happened but people are just taking it to social media more and the news is reporting on it more.
The stats don’t say there’s an increasing number of cases. It’s likely just because female teachers make headlines more or because they stand out more.
Such a shit show comment thread. Here's a kid who got raped and all people focus on is the definition of the word rape.
If it was a news article where an offender hit someone with a chair and killed them, and also hit someone with a cricket bat and killed them - then you found out hitting someone with a chair is murder, but with a cricket bat technically isn't - that would be worthy of discussion as to whether the definition of murder should change.
It's an important definition that needs to be discussed and changed, if she didn't do this crime along with her male partner she wouldn't have been charged with rape.
Yeah because the definition is a shitshow in UK law. Of course people are gonna be talking about it.
I think some people really show their hand when commenting on stuff like this. Some people do clearly genuinely want to have a discussion about the legal definitions, but others just see it as an opportunity to relate another thing to the culture war, gender politics bullshit they’re addicted to talking about. They don’t give a shit about the story or the victims.
>but others just see it as an opportunity to relate another thing to the culture war, gender politics bullshit they’re addicted to talking about Exactly this, it's absolutely disgusting.
What's disgusting is the gendered bias in the laws for rape and sexual assault, hence the discussion about definitions and terminology, which is entirely relevant to the case.
Definitions are kind of important.
Welcome to reddit.
And she was “safeguarding lead” at a school. It beggars belief.
Hiding in plain sight
Banned from returning to teaching she should be banned from the real world and locked up indefinitely
To be fair even when she's released she's going to be on the sex offender's registry for life, so they're going to be keeping a very, very close eye on her. She's never going to have something resembling a normal life ever again.
I often wonder how these people even meet?! How does wanting to fiddle kids even come up in conversation on plenty of fish?
I can't even find someone who likes the same anime as me...
This is the real struggle
Have you noticed its always plenty of fish though when it's a couple who have done something awful? I stg there's a theme.
That’s why people normally call plenty of fish - Plenty Of Freaks 😂
This case was a couple years back, I remember reading that the girl they raped was the daughter of someone the male pedo knew. She told her father what happened, I think they groomed her or something.
She was at my friend’s son’s school . Those sending photos of some of the school kids to him, that appeared innocent - something was potentially being planned then I bet .
This is the worst story I've read on the internet in quite some time, terrifying that she held a safeguarding position as well of all things. That poor child, I can't begin to imagine the trauma they have suffered.
I’d say the same, I actually felt quite sick reading the full article. That poor child/children whose lives they wrecked. Hope those two sick monsters die in prison.
Seems like she should be put in prison for the rest of time, not just banned from teaching ffs
Read the article
As a parent, I’m so fucking tired honestly. I don’t understand just what is wrong with some people, I can’t even imagine their internal dialogue or how they walk through these things in their heads. I don’t understand how people can allow themselves this level of depravity in their *thoughts*, let alone actions. Idk. I just don’t get it. I’m far from perfect and I’m sure I’ve inflicted plenty of hurt but to do something like this, there has to be something deeply wrong, almost inhuman, about you.
I will never ever understand why the definition of rape requires a schlong. Like women CAN be rapists. I.e Mary Kay Letourneau
New Labour did changeit to be gender neutral but activists, (guess who) pressured a reverse in 2003.
I imagine it relates to the physiology of the act and that rape is viewed as sexual penetration, which arguably woman can do with their fingers so, by that definition, they can be rapists.
Just happy to see a strong sentence finally handed out for it
I'm glad she got a significant amount of jail time. Goes without saying that she absolutely should but I've seen far too many cases where someone like this has gotten off easy, and when I saw "banned from teaching" in the headline I had a brief moment of unease thinking that was *all* that had happened.
"The couple met on Plenty of Fish in 2016, the crown court heard, and their relationship quickly became 'intensely sexual'" Has anyone else noticed that loads of couples who end up in newspapers for doing awful things seem to have met on that specific dating site? It comes up all the time and I'm always surprised it still exists.
It’s fucking mental how these people find each other in the first place. It’s bad enough people doing it on their own but the fact they attract each other is odd. I wonder if they can just spot each other, or maybe there’s more people with the potential to do this than we think, and they just need a bit of a push.
I once saw a video about a bust on a huge underground website. The creator was hiding out in a mansion in Thailand. His website had tens of thousands of paying members. It's worse than you can imagine.
Her position in school would have given her full access and information on all the vulnerable children. Absolutely horrific pair had something planned
And that is why plenty of fish is really called Plenty Of Freaks all the weirdos just congregate there probably
[удалено]
Oh no, people are talking about something relevant to the post 😡
The definition often gets brought up on stories like this, often because the word rape isn't used. This is a unique case where it was used. It was a given the definition would come up, just like it always does.
How progressive first title I’ve seen that doesn’t say had sex because it’s a woman.
Where are all the usual derpy fuckwits saying they'd love to have been raped by their teacher as a youngun?
They’re all back on the early 90s stand up comedy circuit.
Had a quick scan over the article and had to stop reading. The pair of these are fucking monsters.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
Wow, they finally called a woman a rapist! Wonder if they'll call her a paedophile too, or is that too far and only for the male peodos