Bruce Siewerth. Want more? Internet searches are easy.

They define rape as penetration

Good news is she did seem to actually be punished with a sizable prison sentence (by uk standards)

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 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 of terms like WMD and many others, so I know I can be a handful.

I agree with you, my comment was meant to draw attention to the crappy law.

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.

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.

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

Do I look like I give a fuck what the law says? They were underage,

Blatantly, by the very next words.

Why not? The law is made up, you know.