Teacher bought an ex students only fans?

[ShyPearlMoose]

My friend has an x rated members website and has just told me that our old science teacher from secondary school has bought it! The same teacher that there were always dodgy rumours about him being a creep.

Is this worth mentioning to the school or is that over dramatic? It's really weird but she's 22 now and hasn't been at the school for 4 years.
Thoughts?

I've googled it

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

She has shared his personal data with you.

That alone is illegal.

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.

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

She’s being paid 🤷🏻‍♀️

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don’t know why you’re getting so animated.

It’s you who doesn’t seem to understand.

If he has crossed a clearly-defined boundary, it’s a problem. But that’s what is not clear. Have you not seen the discussion about that on this very thread?

You’ve decided that paying for this service is crossing a line. Not everyone agrees or can point to a law or policy that proves that. Can you?

In the absence of any concrete evidence that it’s an offence for him to purchase this service, the only justification for your alleged line-crossing is that his behaviour is unpleasant/pervy/predatory. Whilst that might indeed be very true, it’s not illegal.

As a pp had suggested, giving the school address might be the misstep that proves his undoing. Not his perviness.

I think at this point you might be deliberately misunderstanding me.

I was initially objecting to the cries of ‘I wouldn’t want a man with those fantasies anywhere near my kids’. As I’ve pointed out, if men with those fantasies stick to the rules, you’ve no grounds to object. Some pp will go off on a tangent about how disgusting he is etc etc, losing sight of the fact that it’s irrelevant.

They'd be hit by worse publicity if he did go on to groom or abuse a current pupil and it came out that the school had ignored a warning sign like this. Can you imagine the headlines? A boarding school teacher contacting ex-pupils for the schoolgirl-related sex content, allowed to keep his access to girls under his care?

The issue is whether you think his subscription to this woman's site makes him a more likely offender and I'd argue yes- on the basis that he already has a reputation and that his actions so far demonstrate a worrying lack of judgement and poor grasp of boundaries, and that sexual offenders do follow a pattern of escalation so there is potential for him to go further. My reasoning here is that I believe he sought her out deliberately and that he identified himself to her on purpose which is disturbing behavior - of course I understand I cannot prove this. Women and girls suffer all the time because so much predatory sexual behavior is hard to provide solid evidence for, and we live in a society that values men's reputations way above women's safety.

You can argue that this isn't an indicator of future behavior, and I accept the possibility that he may just be unsavoury, stupid and impulsive but not a physical threat. However, I wouldn't want to gamble teenage girls' safety on that.

My reasoning here is that I believe he sought her out deliberately and that he identified himself to her on purpose which is disturbing behaviour

And this is pure conjecture.

The school may agree with you if this was raised with then. But it’s a judgement call (unless you can cite the policy that’s eluding us all).

Some pp have been taking the spurious line that ‘well, even if it isn’t a direct breach, it’s yucky and he can’t be in a classroom’. I was merely pointing out that that’s not a useful line of reasoning given that being attracted to scantily clad young women is fairly widespread for men. You can’t touch them for it unless they break a rule.

I think I might have to leave it by saying, before I go enjoy the sunshine and the bank holiday:

I worked with a teacher that everyone knew was creepy. Mr X always stands a bit too close, he says things that make me uncomfortable, he's on the line but never crossing it. Everyone knew. But he wasn’t in breach of any clear, enforceable policy. He wasn’t breaking any laws. So what can you do?

It took two 16 year old girls getting the courage to come forward together with provable reports of his grooming and inappropriate contact with them before he was sacked and reported to the teaching regulators. That's the way it goes, I understand. But I think of those girls still, and how we all let them down. And I think of my own daughters and how I don't want them to be the sacrificial lambs that mean a known predator finally gets his comeuppance because by then the damage is done.

And this was a man who was 'just' a bit inappropriate. I consider - and I think a lot of teachers and parents would also consider - this man's behaviour (his behaviour! Not his thoughts!) to be a lot more damning than that.

Fully agree

I'd add that perhaps this has more to do with the OPs friend than the teacher, whist she was making a living visually prostituting herself online to abstract men that was fine.

Now she has the situation where it is not abstract, it is someone she knows who is viewing and presumably pleasuring themselves to her content. Perhaps that person has told others what she does.

It wouldn't of mattered who it was, its the fact that the man is known to her that is her issue - it's brought home the reality of what she does, she realises it's not just easy money.

Just a thought

It’s a bit pot, kettle.
I’m sure he’s not the only teacher knocking one out.

Of course, the most important thing here is to shift the focus from his morality to hers. Never mind about him, let's examine her behaviour and motivations instead, like always.

Have a nice bank holiday weekend, everyone, there is no agreement to be reached here so it's become rather pointless I think.

How do you know he 'looked her up'? He might have just come across her (no pun intended)!

Yup. Confirmed by Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_More_Page_3