A FEMALE teacher repeatedly had sex with a “vulnerable” 14-year-old pupil in her car while in an “unhealthy” relationship with her, a court heard.
Ellie Pattison, 29, allegedly became friends with the schoolgirl while teaching in a secondary school.
The teacher made her believe she had fallen “in love”, it was said.
Hove Crown Court heard Pattison twice had sex with the pupil in her car and in two of her friend’s homes.
She also allegedly repeatedly touched the teen and kissed her after they began meeting outside her school.
Sarah Lindop, prosecuting, said: "She abused her position of trust but also made the complainant, who was a vulnerable child, believe it was a real relationship and that she loved her.”
RAPED, not “have sex with”. A 29yo does not “have sex with” a 14yo. They RAPE or MOLEST them.
I hate that every fucking time this sort of story come up we have to have this same god damn discussion.
Rape has a legal definition in the country in which the office took place.
In the UK. Rape. Is defined differently. Than in the US.
It doesn’t make her actions any less wrong. It doesn’t make her any less criminally liable.
It just makes her not a rapist by UK definitions.
Everyone wants to jump on the “oh no the media is avoiding the use of the R word, I better scream it in the comments” bandwagon.
It’s not them choosing not to call it rape out of being PC. Its a different legal definition and thus not used.
Learn an ounce about the case and country that you posted about OP.
Get with the fuckin times then, UK. Your legal definition of rape sucks shit.
deleted by creator
👆 Imagine being this uneducated 😭
There’s a moral and common meaning, in addition to the legal one. Rape has existed longer than those laws.
and there’s a legal definition of libel. i guarantee the publisher cares a lot more about that definition.
Goddamn that was a hell of a retort. Well played
Your definition of what a word means aren’t universal across countries.
When you go to the pub and order chips in the US you get thinly sliced crispy chips. Use the same fucking word in the same context in the Uk, and you get what you would know as French fries.
Does that mean the Uk has not kept up with the times of “chips” morality? No of course not you fucking muppet.
It just means they have a word, that sounds the same as your word, but has a totally different meaning.
And as for morality, which is subjective by the way, and it predating English law… you would also be fucking wrong.
Legal definition of what did or did not constitute sexual crimes had definition before it was illegal to actually rape someone who was a slave, or a spouse, or a damn animal.
The law definition predated all those before your country fucking existed and defined its own legal codes that then were codified into terms you know today so colloquially.
That’s wrong though. A child of 14 can’t consent. If you don’t consent, it’s rape.
No, it doesn’t matter in the UK.
The legal definition of rape there requires penetration with a penis. Period.
No it doesn’t. It says that masculine gendered language applies to both. So a law that says “he” doesn’t only mean a man.
However the law in the UK about rape specifically says penis.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1
1Rape
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
©A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
Now, the gendered “he/his” in there doesn’t mean that only an identified man can rape. A trans woman that has not undergone bottom surgery can still commit rape, even though she would be penetrating another person with her penis.
A female without a penis cannot, because the law literally requires penetration with a penis.
What’s the law define as a penis?
Is there another definition of penis?
It does clarify that
3)References to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular, through gender reassignment surgery).
So a trans man with a surgically crafted penis would count as rape.
Anything else would be assault by penetration which is
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,
(b)the penetration is sexual,
©B does not consent to the penetration, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
A woman can commit assault by penetration if she were to digitally penetrate someone else, but not rape. Only penetration with a penis.
There’s also sexual assault which is
1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
©B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
In all of these “he” no longer means male only though. So you can replace “he” with “they”.
Rape still requires a penis, meaning only a male, trans woman prior to bottom surgery, and trans man after bottom surgery to create a penis can commit rape under UK law. Or some edge case that I’m sure exists in single digit numbers, where a woman that identifies as a female gets bottom surgery to get a penis.
Any gender can commit sexual assault or assault by penetration though, which carry the same penalty as rape.
I’m the UK you have to penetrate someone with a (your?) penis for it to be rape.
No. Laws were just written with male pronouns. It’s just a misconception.
Nope. The law specifically says penis.
I read the Wikipedia article, and it says it’s not enforced like that. I linked a government source to that effect. I just don’t care enough to argue about English rape laws.
Because there are other laws that have the same penalties and cover the other situations. It’s just one that gets called “rape”.
Assault by penetration covers what would be “rape by instrumentation” in the US. Forcibly inserting any object other than a penis into someone else.
Then there’s Sexual Assault which would be this, and that one would be an excellent example of your source, because it is masculinely gendered as well, but applies to female offenders as well.
All three carry the same penalties so it just becomes a legal semantic argument rather than a practical argument.
It’s curious though how it’s only the cases of rape that the media collectively forgets their favourite word “allegedly”
Someone can always allegedly kill, allegedly assault, allegedly steal, but never allegedly rape. Even in the US or other cases where it meets the uk definition.
They used the word in the second paragraph.
It should be in the headline though.
I understand this, but can’t they say she “abused”, “committed a crime against”, “manipulated”, etc.? Those seem factual enough for journalism.
None. Of that. Is proven. In court.
All of those would have toALLEGE these things to have happened, and they need be based on the source of public data on the crime - the government prosecuting the case.
None of them can be printed on fucking hard copy before trial, without it being considered liable.
Jesus fuck. The next time you are arrested, if you didn’t commit the crime do you want someone to say you did it and have the whole world try to lynch you on the word of a news rag? No.
Further, if they did make those claims, it would be without proof and thus open them to civil proceedings, which they would quickly lose.
So yes it is fucking stupid to suggest a news organization print more words for crimes that they have no proof of to be sued into bankruptcy by all the subjects they write about.
I refer your uninformed opinion to the classic excerpt from A Man for All Seasons:
Sir Thomas More: Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper : Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More : Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
All that aside for a second… arguing about the technical definition of “rape” and how it applies in different contexts and jurisdictions is like explaining the difference between a pedophile, hebophile and ephebophile.
Outside of academic settings, it’s near impossible to have this argument without sounding like an apologist.
It’s applicable here because people are upset with the wording in the article. The article is written to reflect the facts of what the teacher is accused of Based on where they are, the teacher isn’t accused of rape, but something else. Journalists are required to use the proper terms for things like criminal charges
Seems like I just did.
She’s a grade A fucking scumbag.
She is also not being described incorrectly for a word that has different definitions depending where you physically live.
She will still be charged, rightly so.
Every person in the US who thinks their definition of a English word is universal however can’t toss their arms up and scream misuse when it’s in a different country with different definitions.
It’s like screaming about the word chips meaning one thing in the US and being pissed they gave you French fries in the UK.
Or *groomed and abused
This is the second story in the last week I’ve seen that a female school staff member “had a sexual relationship with” a student.
Curious choice of words, to say the least
I think the issue is that legally in most countries rape is defined as penetration with a penis.
So as abhorrent as this behaviour is, it’s abuse and certainly not a sexual relationship.
rape is defined as penetration with a penis
And legal and moral definitions aside, that’s what pops into most people’s minds when “rape” is talked about.
Ahh, if it were a man…
It would actually be rape then, in the UK.
By law a female cannot commit rape under UK law. It’s defined by penetration with a penis.
Wow. That’s crazy.
A man penetrating with his own penis. If not, it isn’t rape.
Try to find another source of news other than the Sun. It truly is tabloid garbage.
Yep don’t give these racist, xenophobic, rage-bait cocksuckers the clicks. It’s probably made up
No, the Metro is the daily mail in a clown mask.
Whats interesting is both articles make you believe the teacher was 29 and the student was 14 at the time of the event, but as soon as you dive into the article they reveal this happened when the teacher was actually 23. The intentional mis-leading from Metro makes it equally questionable to the Sun.
made the complainant believe it was a real relationship and that she loved her
They reiterate this point so many times that it makes me think the victim still believes, even now, that she’s in love with the teacher…
Is what I would’ve said, but then I went and read the article, and turns out I’m wrong.
Branding Pattison a “dh”, she accused the teacher of making her thinking something “that wasn’t even real”.
Anyone help me out with this one? Dickhate?
Domestic hoe.
“Hove Crown court heard that Pattison detonated a nuke twice in a nursing home. She also allegedly exploded a hamster with mentos, and wrote lewd poetry.”
What kind of reporting is this?
Well considering that they’re choosing to say had sex with a 14-year-old rather than what a logical person would call it which is rape, they wouldn’t have said designated a nuke twice in a nursing home, they would have said something like “had a once repeated moderately sized incendiary mishap”
It’s because in the UK, where this occurred, it legally is not rape.
You cannot commit rape if you don’t have a penis.
Eh, you can make rape legal for women but you can’t make it not rape.
Take a trip through this comment section and you’ll see just how vehemently people don’t want this to be be called rape.
oh we are really enthusiastic about rape and protecting rapists as a society
Where were these teachers when I went to school
