to be angry the headmistress let the teacher continue working when under investigation for porn?

[GrumpyWhenWoken]

One of the teachers locally was accused and charged with having 300+ pornographic photographs of a category 5 (whatever that means) on his computer. He tragically, for his family, hanged himself before the court case. We have found out today that it was because of the court case and the images on his computer. He was a widely respected and loved teacher, however he was allowed to continue working at the school whilst this investigation was ongoing. We are all shocked to find out the reason for his suicide (having got over the shock of it at the time).

Are we to now question the head teacher's judgement on everything now? He didn't teach my child, but if he had I would be furious.

Please don't question the decision of the head teacher. Her hands are tied by the Governors. Ultimately, it will have been their decision or that of the local authority. If you need to direct your anger at someone, it's them.

Someone is most definately accountable, but it won't be the head teacher.

Maureen I hear what you're saying, but the governors don't appear to have been kept in the loop (having spoken to them) this is not their decision. In this day and age if a member of staff in direct contact with children is charged with having extreme images of children, they should be suspended as a teacher surely?

I take it you are referring to child pornography. I think Cat 5 is pretty serious, so I would be fuming too, tbh.

Agree with MML however, this decision would not have been made by the head teacher.

You need to direct your anger further up the tree.

I dont even think the Governors would be able to make a decision like this.

Not sure who it would be, the LEA maybe, or teachers professional body.

I don't know what the categories mean - I'll google them I think. The awful thing is that all the mums and children were so upset when he committed suicide and no-one could work out why as he was so lovely and loved, and now this is such a shock and perhaps a question on our faith in the people we trust.

So emotions are running high on this one.

Category five is the most serious. Really sick stuff. I don't understand how he could have remained in post. Was this recently?

A person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty.
This man may have claimed that the images on the computer were not put there by him/that it wasn;t his computer/all sorts. It is not impossible that the images were put there by someone other than him (in a wide, general sense, don';t know the man or the OP or his computer but it's not totally impossible to plant things on a person's computer).

There is, also, a difference between looking at pictures and doing actual harm to individuals (aside from the viewpoint that viewing images of children being harmed is morally indefensible in that it creates a demand for such images). Whoever decided not to sack him may have felt (rightly or wrongly) that he was not a danger to his pupils. He may not have been a danger to his pupils.

Sounds like a horrid situation. Can't believe the Governors know nothing though. I am very shocked at that.

How about the Child protection team? There should be one in every school. There has to be. You need to dig deeper.

SGB, whilst I agree he may not have been a danger to his pupils, I would still not have been comfortable with someone who is of the mindset that children are a turn on teaching in a classroom (that is, of course, assuming he was guilty). Whoever made this decision must have realised that most parents would share this view.

Surely he should have been removed as a precaution until the case was heard.

Er.......innocent until proved guilty, but viewing images means a person consented to see images in which a crime WAS committed to obtain them, so solidgold is wide of the mark here: such a person is complicit in a criminal act by viewing.

However, the images may have been put on his computer, so one can't assume he was "of this mind set".

Message withdrawn

A friend of mine (obviously no longer) was imprisoned three years ago for the same. He was also a primary school teacher, fab with the children (never touched any of them) and the parents loved him, as did I . He was removed from the school the second it all broke.

There is no way on earth he would have been allowed to remain and I'm stunned that 'your' chap was. With that number of images on your computer innocent doesn't come info it.

As a long term school governor I suggest the person you should contact is the Chair of Governors. You can be quite certain that they would have been in the loop!

He should have been suspended (possibly on full pay) till the matter was resolved.
Definitely shouldn't have remained in post.

I agree with bloss, this just doesn't add up and I think that you have been misinformed.

I'm not mis-informed link

you mean abusive images not porn

sorry the use of the word porn annoys me

cateogry five shows torture and bestiality

Sorry, no you are certainly not misinformed but I'm very shocked at the decision that was made.

It seems that there was a significant doubt over whether the images were put on the computer by the teacher or his son but the decision made still seems a bizarre one. I would complain to both the council and the police tbh.

Perhaps they thought that the images were put on the computer by the son.

id have presumed suspencion in the mean time non?

but these offenders can be kind an caring in certain areas of their lives.. liek an adulteror who is a good dad..

I can't imagine if you were innocent and worked with children that you would take your life in order to allow your son to continue with a depraved will to view images of sexual abuse of children?

And I agree with SueFley that use of phrase pornography in such cases is wrong.