[michael21]

https://news.sky.com/story/teacher-a...-film-11517350

She going to jail

[montblanc]

she's full of ****e

[Crimson Dynamo]

And all the holidays

[michael21]

The kid must have sh it parents

[bots]

she doesnt appear to be entirely stable

[michael21]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

she doesnt appear to be entirely stable

I agree she should not be allowed near kids

[Oliver_W]

Even if she didn't have any sexual contact with him, the fact she provably spoke to him multiple times via phone shows she's not suitable to work with kids - yes, be chatty and cordial to those without friends, let them eat lunch in the class if you're in there and they're lonely etc, but to think of them as actual friends is just weird. Even if she's found 'innocent' she should be barred from working with children, in my opinion.
I think she's guilty as hell, and manipulated a vulnerable child.

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Even if she didn't have any sexual contact with him, the fact she provably spoke to him multiple times via phone shows she's not suitable to work with kids - yes, be chatty and cordial to those without friends, let them eat lunch in the class if you're in there and they're lonely etc, but to think of them as actual friends is just weird. Even if she's found 'innocent' she should be barred from working with children, in my opinion.
I think she's guilty as hell, and manipulated a vulnerable child.

She had no friends

Good she evil

[Livia]

Originally Posted by michael21

She had no friends

Good she evil

I miss the OLD serious debates.

[Redway]

Originally Posted by michael21

She had no friends

Good she evil

LMAO.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Even if she didn't have any sexual contact with him, the fact she provably spoke to him multiple times via phone shows she's not suitable to work with kids - yes, be chatty and cordial to those without friends, let them eat lunch in the class if you're in there and they're lonely etc, but to think of them as actual friends is just weird. Even if she's found 'innocent' she should be barred from working with children, in my opinion.
I think she's guilty as hell, and manipulated a vulnerable child.

No one is ever found "innocent". And that's quite a skill, Oliver, to be able to reach a verdict based on so little.

If she is found not guilty, what legislation are you going to use to stop her working with kids?

Better wait till the trial is over.

[Livia]

I'm worried about the course all this is taking. The trial isn't even over and you've all made up your mind she's either weird or guilty or both.

Hope no one on here is ever wrongly arrested.

[michael21]

Originally Posted by Livia

I'm worried about the course all this is taking. The trial isn't even over and you've all made up your mind she's either weird or guilty or both.

Hope no one on here is ever wrongly arrested.

Getting arrested is one thing going to count mean the cps must have evidences if not then it would of been chuck out

[Livia]

Originally Posted by michael21

Getting arrested is one thing going to count mean the cps must have evidences if not then it would of been chuck out

You understand that you're innocent until a court proves you guilty, right?

[Crimson Dynamo]

"During the seven months after the school trip there were 339 contacts between the two on the boy's mobile phone, which consisted of 295 text messages, 23 calls, 13 calls that went straight to answer phone and eight multimedia messages."

whether she shagged him or not

that is unacceptable

[Livia]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"During the seven months after the school trip there were 339 contacts between the two on the boy's mobile phone, which consisted of 295 text messages, 23 calls, 13 calls that went straight to answer phone and eight multimedia messages."

whether she shagged him or not

that is unacceptable

What was the nature of the texts? Until we know, I couldn't comment.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Livia

What was the nature of the texts? Until we know, I couldn't comment.

Doesn't matter. There are boundaries in place for adults who work with children, and whatever the content of the texts, be it flirting or merely talking about Emmerdale, it's inappropriate.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Doesn't matter. There are boundaries in place for adults who work with children, and whatever the content of the texts, be it flirting or merely talking about Emmerdale, it's inappropriate.

Exactly. Also, teachers, I'm sure are aware of all this, if they were texting about some sort of a problem he was having, I'm pretty sure she would have had to make someone aware of the contact between them, her principal or someone. Just so it's all being noted and is above board

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Exactly. Also, teachers, I'm sure are aware of all this, if they were texting about some sort of a problem he was having, I'm pretty sure she would have had to make someone aware of the contact between them, her principal or someone. Just so it's all being noted and is above board

Even then it wouldn't be allowed and she'd be advised to keep the contact during school hours, at school and verbal. Not this personal exchange of phone numbers.

Most schools now, the teachers aren't even allowed to add the parents on Facebook/Twitter, never mind the kids. Which is fair enough, it can get in the way of the professional boundaries.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Doesn't matter. There are boundaries in place for adults who work with children, and whatever the content of the texts, be it flirting or merely talking about Emmerdale, it's inappropriate.

Niamh said she would be worried if it was one of her kids. The trouble is, not all mothers are like Niamh; if they were, I'd have nothing more to say.

What if the texts weren't discussing school nor soaps... what if he was saying, "I want to kill myself"? or "My father is abusing me and I'm afraid to speak to anyone officially". We don't know the context of any of this.

I'm not saying this woman is innocent, I'm saying none of us can come to a conclusion on so little evidence. So I'll be interested to hear more about it and eventually know the verdict.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

What if the texts weren't discussing school nor soaps... what if he was saying, "I want to kill myself"? or "My father is abusing me and I'm afraid to speak to anyone officially". We don't know the context of any of this.

There are procedures for things like this and there would be a record of her discussing this with a senior colleague at the school, surely?

Thing is, such discussions about things like that would have had to have started in school and face-to-face before the exchange of numbers. No professional teacher's response to a child confiding in them about suicidal thoughts or abuse at home would be to give them their personal mobile number. There is no context for it to be appropriate for a teacher to give a child their personal contact information.

Unless said characters are main characters in Waterloo Road that is.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Livia

Niamh said she would be worried if it was one of her kids. The trouble is, not all mothers are like Niamh; if they were, I'd have nothing more to say.

What if the texts weren't discussing school nor soaps... what if he was saying, "I want to kill myself"? or "My father is abusing me and I'm afraid to speak to anyone officially". We don't know the context of any of this.

If a teacher has any reason to believe a pupil is in danger or being abused, they are obligated to go straight to the school's safeguarding officer, who is either trained to handle the situation, or knows which member of staff or external agency to refer to.
What a teacher should not do is try to handle the situation themselves, especially over electronic messages outside of the school.

ETA: and no, a pupil saying "my dad touches me, but don't tell anyone" does not mean the teacher can keep it secret. Any kind of abuse or threat to personal safety is to be reported immediately to the safeguarding officer. A teacher trying to sort out the issue themself or even discussing it with the pupil shows they don't know what they are doing, and risks escalating the situation.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

What was the nature of the texts? Until we know, I couldn't comment.

Tbh, the nature of the texts doesn't matter. It's not appropriate for a teacher to have such personal contact with a pupil. One of the more obvious reasons being protecting herself from such accusations as this. Calling the pupil a "friend" is overstepping the boundaries of a teacher/pupil relationship.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Tbh, the nature of the texts doesn't matter. It's not appropriate for a teacher to have such personal contact with a pupil. One of the more obvious reasons being protecting herself from such accusations as this. Calling the pupil a "friend" is overstepping the boundaries of a teacher/pupil relationship.

See my post above, Marshy x

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

"During the seven months after the school trip there were 339 contacts between the two on the boy's mobile phone, which consisted of 295 text messages, 23 calls, 13 calls that went straight to answer phone and eight multimedia messages."

whether she shagged him or not

that is unacceptable

Yeah have to agree with that. I would be out for her blood if that was my son. It's particularly bad when it's a teacher, you're supposed to feel like your kids are safe when they're at school