© By Sophie Lewis | The Grooming Files | @sophielewiseditorial
Part 2 of 5: The Female Predators Series
Catherine Pearl abused her victim over “a period of years.”
She did so while serving as deputy head teacher at Didcot Girls’ School: a position with explicit safeguarding responsibilities.
Rebecca Joynes groomed and sexually abused a 15 year old boy, was arrested, suspended, and placed on bail.
While on bail for those offences, she targeted and abused a second 15 year old boy.
Both women operated in plain sight.
Both held positions specifically designed to protect children.
Both continued offending despite institutional oversight.
How?
Because the protective framing of women, particularly women in caregiving roles, doesn’t just create blind spots. It creates operational advantages for predators.
THE PROTECTIVE FRAMING: WHAT IT IS
Protective framing is the automatic, culturally embedded assumption that women, particularly in maternal or educational roles, are inherently safe.
It operates at three levels:
- Cultural: “Women don’t do that”
- Institutional: “She’s like a second mother to these children”
- Individual: “She couldn’t possibly…”
This isn’t conscious bias. It’s deeper than that.
It’s a set of assumptions so embedded they shape what we see, what we question, and what we report.
LEVEL 1: CULTURAL PROTECTIVE FRAMING
The “Women Don’t Do That” Default
When Rebecca Joynes took a 15 year old boy to the Trafford Centre and bought him a £345 designer belt before taking him home for sex, multiple people were involved in that transaction.
Shop assistants. Security guards. People in the shopping centre.
No one reported it.
Why?
Because a young woman buying an expensive gift for a teenage boy reads as:
- Generous girlfriend with younger partner (acceptable)
- Kind teacher helping struggling student (admirable)
- Big sister figure treating younger relative (sweet)
It doesn’t read as: grooming.
Now reverse the genders.
A 30 year old man taking a 15 year old girl shopping. Buying her expensive gifts. Taking her back to his flat.
That triggers immediate alarm.
Not because the behaviour is different.
Because the framing is different.
The Language Gap
Consider how we describe identical behaviour:
Male teacher + female student:
- “Predatory”
- “Grooming”
- “Sexual assault”
- “Rape”
Female teacher + male student:
- “Affair”
- “Relationship”
- “Inappropriate contact”
- “Sex romp”
The BBC coverage of Rebecca Joynes used appropriate terms: “sexual activity with a child,” “grooming,” “abuse of position of trust.”
But look at tabloid coverage of similar cases. Headlines often frame it as scandalous rather than predatory.
Language shapes perception.
Perception shapes response.
Response determines whether predators are stopped.
LEVEL 2: INSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIVE FRAMING
Catherine Pearl: Deputy Head Teacher
Pearl wasn’t just a teacher. She was deputy head at Didcot Girls’ School.
Her role included:
- Safeguarding oversight
- Staff supervision
- Policy implementation
- Pastoral care responsibility
She was the person responsible for preventing abuse.
And she was committing it.
Over a period of years.
Including on school premises.
How did that go undetected?
Because institutions operate on the same protective framing assumptions as the wider culture.
A female deputy head developing close relationships with vulnerable girls reads as:
- “She’s so dedicated”
- “She really cares about these students”
- “She goes above and beyond”
The exact behaviours that should trigger concern become evidence of dedication.
Rebecca Joynes: The Bail Period
After being arrested for sexual activity with Boy A, Joynes was:
- Suspended from her teaching position
- Placed on bail
- Subject to safeguarding restrictions
While on bail, she targeted Boy B.
This represents a catastrophic institutional failure.
But it’s also predictable within a protective framing context:
Because even when a female teacher is arrested for child sexual abuse, the default assumption remains: “This must be a misunderstanding.”
The protective framing is so powerful it survives an arrest.
A male teacher arrested for sexually abusing a student would face:
- Immediate community awareness
- Social isolation
- Intense scrutiny
- Difficulty accessing potential victims
Joynes was able to continue offending because the protective framing created operational space even after law enforcement intervention.
LEVEL 3: INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIVE FRAMING
“She Couldn’t Possibly…”
Victims of female sexual abuse face unique disclosure barriers.
For male victims:
When a teenage boy is sexually abused by a female teacher, cultural scripts tell him:
- “You’re lucky”
- “I wish my teacher had done that”
- “What are you complaining about?”
- “That’s every boy’s fantasy”
This isn’t support. It’s denial of victimisation.
The protective framing of women means his abuse is reframed as:
- Initiation
- Sexual education
- A gift
- Good fortune
He may not recognise it as abuse.
When he does, he may not be believed.
When he’s believed, the harm may be minimised.
For female victims:
When a teenage girl is abused by a female teacher, she faces different but equally powerful barriers.
The protective framing of women, particularly in same sex contexts, means:
- The abuse may not be recognised as sexual
- It may be framed as “mentoring” or “special friendship”
- There’s limited cultural language to describe female perpetrated sexual abuse of girls
- Reporting may require confronting both homophobic assumptions and protective framing simultaneously
Catherine Pearl’s victim showed “such bravery in coming forward” (Detective Constable Sarah Tibble, Thames Valley Police).
That bravery had to overcome:
- The authority differential (deputy head teacher)
- The trust relationship (safeguarding role)
- The protective framing (women don’t do that)
- The institutional investment in denial (reputational damage to school)
HOW PROTECTIVE FRAMING CREATES OPERATIONAL ADVANTAGES
Advantage 1: Access
Female teachers, youth workers, and caregivers have automatic, unsupervised access to children in ways male counterparts don’t.
A male teacher arranging one on one time with a student after hours triggers questions.
A female teacher doing the same reads as dedication.
This isn’t about banning female teachers from pastoral care.
It’s about recognising that predators exploit trust, and protective framing maximises trust.
Advantage 2: Normalisation of Physical Contact
Women in caregiving roles engage in physical contact that would raise immediate concerns if performed by men:
- Hugs
- Sitting close
- Physical comfort during emotional distress
- Casual touch
Most of this contact is entirely appropriate.
But predators exploit the grey areas.
They use culturally normalised behaviours to:
- Test boundaries
- Desensitise victims
- Create plausible deniability
The protective framing makes it harder to identify when contact crosses from appropriate to grooming.
Advantage 3: Institutional Protection
When concerns are raised about male teachers, institutions often respond swiftly (sometimes too swiftly, leading to false accusations being taken as fact before investigation).
When concerns are raised about female teachers, institutions often respond with:
- “Are you sure you’re not misunderstanding?”
- “She’s always been wonderful with students”
- “Could this be a personality conflict?”
- “Let’s not jump to conclusions”
The protective framing creates institutional hesitancy.
Hesitancy creates time.
Time creates more victims.
THE EVIDENCE: SENTENCING AS A PROXY FOR PROTECTIVE FRAMING
Sentencing data provides measurable evidence of protective framing in action.
Catherine Pearl:
- Deputy head teacher
- Abused position of trust
- Offending over “years”
- Impact described as “terrible”
- Sentence: 2 years 4 months
Rebecca Joynes:
- Teacher
- Two victims
- Continued offending while on bail
- Sentence: 6.5 years
Methodological note: Direct statistical comparison of sentences between male and female teachers convicted of similar offences requires systematic case by case analysis beyond the scope of this article. However, preliminary review of reported cases suggests substantial sentencing disparities that warrant further investigation. Analysis of Ministry of Justice sentencing data and comparative case studies will be addressed in Part 4 of this series.
The observable gap in these two female perpetrator cases alone raises questions:
When judges, juries, and the public view female offenders through a protective frame, the same behaviour may be seen as:
- Less predatory
- Less planned
- Less harmful
- More aberrational (“out of character”)
The protective framing follows defendants into the courtroom.
WHY THIS MATTERS FOR SAFEGUARDING
Recognition
If female predators don’t match our mental image of what predators look like, we won’t recognise warning signs:
- Excessive gift giving ✓ (Joynes: £345 belt)
- Boundary violations ✓ (Joynes: overnight stay)
- Isolation of victims ✓ (Both cases)
- Abuse of position ✓ (Both cases)
- Grooming behaviours ✓ (Both cases)
These are textbook predator behaviours.
We missed them because the perpetrators were women.
Response
Even when concerns are raised, protective framing slows institutional response:
- Reports are questioned more intensely
- Alternative explanations are sought first
- Benefit of the doubt extends longer
- Investigation thresholds are higher
Delay = more victims.
Prevention
Safeguarding training typically focuses on male predators:
- “Warning signs to watch for in male staff”
- “How male coaches might groom athletes”
- “Boundary violations by male teachers”
We need gender neutral safeguarding frameworks that recognise:
- Predators come in all genders
- Protective framing creates blind spots
- Warning signs are about behaviour, not gender
- Trust is what predators exploit, regardless of who holds it
THE DIDCOT GIRLS’ SCHOOL RESPONSE: A CASE STUDY IN PROTECTIVE FRAMING
After Catherine Pearl’s sentencing on 24 January 2025, Didcot Girls’ School deleted social media posts featuring Pearl from a 2019 assembly.
This happened on 27 January 2025: three days after sentencing.
Those posts had been public for 6 years.
They were only removed after a convicted child sex offender appeared in them.
What does this tell us?
That even after:
- Police investigation (2023)
- Arrest (August 2023)
- Charging (October 2024)
- Guilty plea (November 2024)
- Sentencing (January 2025)
…the school maintained public content celebrating Pearl until after she was convicted and sentenced.
This is protective framing in institutional action.
The desire to preserve institutional reputation and avoid confronting the reality of female perpetration delayed even basic reputational management.
BREAKING THE FRAME
Acknowledging protective framing doesn’t mean:
- Viewing all female teachers with suspicion
- Removing women from caregiving roles
- Assuming women are as likely to offend as men (they’re not)
It means:
- Recognising that predators exploit whatever trust structures exist
- Implementing gender neutral safeguarding that focuses on behaviour, not demographics
- Training staff to recognise warning signs regardless of perpetrator gender
- Taking reports seriously regardless of who is accused
- Ensuring institutional responses aren’t delayed by cultural assumptions
Catherine Pearl abused her victim for years while serving as deputy head.
Rebecca Joynes continued offending while on bail.
The protective framing didn’t protect children.
It protected predators.
WHAT COMES NEXT
In Part 3, we’ll examine how female predators adapt their tactics based on victim gender: why the grooming of male victims looks different from the grooming of female victims, and what this tells us about predator sophistication.
In Part 4, we’ll investigate the sentencing gap in depth: comparing sentences across cases and analysing what judicial language reveals about protective framing in courtrooms.
In Part 5, we’ll examine prevention: what Catherine Pearl and Rebecca Joynes teach us about recognition, response, and breaking the cycle of invisibility.
The protective framing of women isn’t inevitable.
It’s a cultural choice.
And we can choose differently.
SOURCES & VERIFICATION
All facts in this article are drawn from:
Catherine Pearl case:
- BBC News, 27 January 2025
- BBC News, 30 July 2025
- Court of Appeal judgement, July 2025
- Thames Valley Police statements
Rebecca Joynes case:
- Crown Prosecution Service press release, 4 July 2024
- Manchester Crown Court proceedings, May 2024
Research on protective framing:
- Academic literature on gender bias in sex offence perception
- Sentencing data from Ministry of Justice
- Comparative analysis of media coverage (methodology: content analysis of BBC, Guardian, Telegraph coverage 2020–2025)
RESOURCES & SUPPORT
If you’ve been affected by the issues in this article:
Stop It Now UK – Confidential helpline for preventing child sexual abuse
https://www.stopitnow.org.uk
NAPAC – Support for adult survivors of childhood abuse
https://napac.org.uk
Survivors UK – Support for male survivors
https://www.survivorsuk.org
The Survivors Trust – Specialist support services
https://www.thesurvivorstrust.org
If a child is at immediate risk:
UK: Call 999 (emergency) or 101 (non-emergency)
ABOUT THIS RESEARCH
This article is based exclusively on publicly available court documents, official statements from the Crown Prosecution Service and police forces, verified media reporting from established news outlets (BBC, official court reporters), and Court of Appeal judgements. All case details are matters of public record.
Sophie Lewis is a final year BA (Hons) Social Sciences student specialising in criminology and forensic psychology at the Open University, and an NUJ accredited investigative journalist. She operates The Grooming Files, an independent research platform documenting predator behaviour patterns and institutional safeguarding failures.
Contact: sophie.editorial@outlook.com
Read the full Female Predators series:
- Part 1: The Invisible Predator
- Part 2: The Protective Framing Problem (you are here)
- Part 3: Different Victims, Different Tactics (coming next)
- Part 4: The Sentencing Gap
- Part 5: Breaking the Pattern
This is survivor led, evidence based journalism. If this work matters to you, share it.
Sophie
The Grooming Files 
Leave a comment