Teacher bought an ex students only fans?

Many live there full time and don’t have any other housing. Particularly if they have families. Or if they do have their own house, rent it out (so couldn’t use that as their postal address).

some have a second home and go there during the holidays. But for many, one of the attractions of working in a boarding school is free housing. It’s often an actual house (or apartment) separate from the main school building. Although if they’re a house master/ mistress that’s more likely to be in the main dormitory area.

Whilst I absolutely agree with your sentiments, and think this guy is a creep (and the girl not squeaky clean either), the issue is has a law or rule been broken-

Law- no, almost certainly not, on either side.

Rule- Private schools are not bound by the Teachers Standards document, so that won't come into play. The school will have it's internal contractural guidance.

The school will almost certainly have no rule against staying in touch with pupils, I've taught in 3 private schools, none had such a rule, in fact we routinely keep in touch with and see former pupils socially, they come round for a Pimms on a summers afternoon to let us know how they are getting on at uni etc..

The school will be reticent about letting the teacher go, if no law or contractural obligation was broken, as they will then be hit with a wrongful dismissal claim and ensuing negative publicity.

No safeguarding issue exists, its two adults.

Where does it he using the school address? To be honest, her being a sex worker who dresses up as a school girl at the age of 23 doesn't give her the right to filter her customers. He should not be reported. This is not a safeguarding matter.

Aaaaargh I do not know how many times I can say it is not about his thoughts! Please stop explaining to me that men have sexual urges, for Christ's sake. I am not an idiot.

Ok. I'll try again.

Yes, men (and women) have sexual fantasies of all kinds of natures. There will be men working in schools who fantasises about teenage girls, men fantasising about their colleagues, there are men who fantasise about incest, underage girls, there are men fantasising about dogs, there is no end to what is in people's heads - some of it odd, some of it unsettling, some of it enormously depraved. I get it. Whatever.

Sometimes those fantasies become actions. When someone having those fantasies translates it into action, that can be a problem. When they cross a boundary, it's an alarm signal.

Sometimes these boundaries cross a legal barrier - downloading images of child abuse or bestiality for example. Sometimes they cross a workplace barrier- sexually harassing the colleague they've been fantasising about maybe.

The boundary here is subscribing to a recently ex-pupil's sex site, making himself identifiable to her, using the school address - all exacerbated by the fact she's actually producing schoolgirl content. This is the problem. Not his thoughts - his actions.

Once a boundary is crossed, it becomes easier to cross the next one.

When people are in positions of power and trust, the bar is higher. Think about the Oxfam staff who hired sex workers in disaster zones for example. No doubt people here would argue 'they were buying a service that was being sold'. They were still sacked for gross misconduct.

A teacher is buying schoolgirl themed sexual content from a pupil he taught four years ago. His behaviour is a problem. He is potentially a safeguarding risk. Not because of his urges or his private thoughts but because his behaviour has crossed a boundary, the moment he put his name and payment details in.

There is a huge difference between "social media contact" and purchasing content, I'm assuming he has had no contact with the woman in question, so that is mute.

However, it would seem he has used a schools address as a billing address, that may constitute a breach, but then again, her sharing the data, which is payment information, even with her friend is a GDPR issue.

It's a private school presumably, and it's worth noting that private schools are not bound by the "teachers standards" regulations that state schools have to adhere to. A private school won't want any fuss, nor will they want to oust a teacher if they don't have to, especially if they get good results and ousting them could result in a wrongful dismissal case. No law has been broken, he has given the address as a payment address, which is confidential data, it can't bring the schools name into disrepute as it can't legally be shared.

My advice is to get MN to remove that screen shot, redacted or not, we know its a boarding school with college in the name, already too much info you don't have the right to share.

Its then entirely up to your friend if she reports to the school or not, or indeed just returns his fee and blocks him.

However, any action she takes should not involve the sharing of the payment data as that is an offence.

Yes. Exactly. The rules are there to stop the urges translating into actions. The degree to which most men would have these urges is debatable- but I think we can assume even the ‘good guys’ are having quite a few…

The safeguards stop those urges going anywhere.

But, by the same token, if the rule is ‘no social media contact for 4 years’ and those four years have elapsed… then Mr Creep has adhered rigidly to that rule. If it’s 5 years or 6 years - well, there’s a breach.

Look, I’m not on the creep’s side. I’m just saying that the rules protect both sides. It’s a hard line. If Mr Creep pushes right up to that line but stays on the right side, no amount of ‘yes, but I can’t bear having someone with those sort of thoughts working in a school’ will help.

Men do have those sorts of thoughts. That’s why the rules are there.

She’s being paid 🤷🏻‍♀️

Can't she just block him. Surely it's up to her who she chooses as her "fans".

Sure they have an interest in young women, but no most teachers wouldn't sign up to a former pupil's sex site in these circumstances. Again, it's his behaviour - his actions here - that is the problem, not what's in his head.

She has shared his personal data with you.

That alone is illegal.

So not only has she told you, she's also sent you his name, address and bank details?
Your friend is not squeaky clean here OP.

No normal, reasonable teacher would ever do this

You see, I think this is where you’re wrong. Plenty of adult men (teachers, plumbers, solicitors, bus drivers - anyone in fact!) have a sexual interest in young adult women, even 22 year olds. Even ex-students.

That’s why the robust safeguards are there. I can remember a blind eye being turned to male teachers flirting with sixth formers in the 90s. Sometimes it went further. A line did tend to be drawn if the teachers actually slept with their students- but it was a thing.

What I’m saying is that men do have these tendencies. And the rules have to be really clear because of this. So if he’s not actually breaching a clear, enforceable rule, there’s nothing to be done. The rules have to be robust precisely because men do want to push right up against them.

Signing up to a four-years-gone ex-pupil's erotic (sometimes schoolgirl-themed!) website as a live-in boarding school teacher is absolutely is not the same as hiring an ex-pupil to service your boiler. Sex work is not identical to other work. People can pretend it is, but it is not - that's a whole other huge topic of conversation.

People bleating on and on that he's entitled to buy her services need to raise their expectations of men and teachers. No normal, reasonable teacher would ever do this; any colleagues would be appalled to learn it and the parents paying to send their children to this boarding school would be rightly up in arms to know what he's done.

A school with robust safeguarding policies and a good DSL would absolutely act on this.

Him using the school address would make it easy for the school to act - this will be a breach of his contract.

I don't know about the privacy aspect but it's pretty bleak if a man's right to privacy overrides the safety of the girls he teaches.

A lot of the defence of this creep for pages insisted that he probably didn't recognise her, it was all coincidence, no one could say he has a thing for schoolgirls, this isn't deliberate etc etc. All of that is blown out the water, plus it turns out he's living alongside students and he's using the school address but still people can find reasons to excuse him. It's inexplicable to me that anyone would prefer to defend a man like this than uphold the right of girls to be safe in school, or that anyone would be happy to have this creep in the same classroom as their own daughters.

I don't want to Google Daily Star page 3 girls! But if it did end in 2019, how does that work OP?

Your friend is on very thin ice OP, she needs to stop screenshotting personal data for a start.

If you report this to school and they take action against him, then he is quite likely to take legal action against her.

At the end of the day, she is a business, and he is a customer. He has an expectation of privacy and if this is breached and causes him significant distress or loss of earning, it could get very expensive for your friend.

I've googled it

Daily Star

My understanding is that the Daily Star stopped publishing images of topless glamour models in 2019, when your friend would have been about 17.

Only fans is gross, she’s gross and he’s gross.

it’s all gross.

but if she’s entitled to sell it, and she’s an adult, then he’s entitled to buy it as an adult And it’s no one else’s business.

I’m sure he’s not the only person she knows who’s watching her!

how would she know if her own relatives, friends or friends partners, friends of friends, work colleagues, neighbours, are paying to watch her or other peoples daughters get their bits out for money?