He argued during his defense that teachers should be able to keep their private lives and teaching lives separate.
Some interesting points worth discussing.....
He has a point but surely it was in his contract that he should not bring the school into disrepute so he's not got a leg to stand on IMO.
=======================================================
Whilst I appreciate that RailUK has a strong fanbase against the Daily Mail, I would be interested to know what some of you think about the context of this particular article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...unning-porn-website-facing-ban-classroom.html
Here's why there is a fanbase against the Daily Mail...
The bottom of the article suggests Birmingham as a place where it happened which is a half truth. Ilford or Essex at least should also be mentioned -
bias alert
Teacher who worked as stripper called 'Johnny Anglais' and ran porn website is facing ban from classroom
ran
a poor website. Poor grammar already
. Speaking of grammar the sentence is missing number - it should commence with "A".
It states later in the article that this was reported to a tribunal - it has not been proven - therefore we get the first of many
Citation Needed notices.
Respectable journalists need not be anonymous.
A sex education teacher led a double life as a porn star and stripper while employed at a secondary school, a tribunal has heard.
bias alert It needs to be make clear that the plaintiff is bringing this up. The porn star part is
Citation Needed since there is no proof that he was at the time.
Benedict Garrett, 31, is accused of raking in cash under the alias Johnny Anglais.
So the reporter gets anonymity to spew this vile mess but the defendant doesn't?
Citation Needed - we do not know if he's "raking it in".
In addition Raking in, when related to earnings is slang, not the place for a news article.
He also owned a website containing details of his work as a stripper, which could be freely viewed by pupils, a disciplinary hearing was told.
Citation Needed - no URL = no independent verification.
Still no word from the defence.
On the site, the former teacher who continues to work as a stripper, could be seen scantily clad and dressed as a fireman.
RIP innocent until proven guilty, always an alien concept to the Daily Mail though. However, this is a civil case so it can be let off here. Nonetheless I need a
bias alert here, it is the case in many professions that one is suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary action/tribunal. A stripper is also a legitimate occupation.
Alongside the pictures, he claims to be 'a man with a mission' - to 'unashamedly demonstrate the art of pleasure in the realms of fitness, sex and entertainment.'
What else would a stripper be? Also note how we've not been given the URL so we can verify this for ourselves?
He also describes how he has taught 'young people to be open-minded, respectful, tolerant of others' for the past four years.
The implication is that strippers have no morals which is absurd. It's the hallmark of a good teacher.
The General Teaching Council panel in Birmingham heard how Mr Garrett 'undertook work of a pornographic nature' and 'performed as a stripper in public place' while employed by at Beal High School, in Ilford, Essex, between January 1 2008 and July 16 2010.
Hurrah, some truth.
The tribunal was told how the former head of Personal, Social, Health and Economic education, also left inappropriate voicemail messages on the associate head teacher's telephone in July last year.
By the prosecution.
Still only one sentence for the defence --
bias alert
Further allegations centre on text message, email and Facebook communication with Year 10 students which, the committee was told, was inappropriate because it fell 'outside the boundaries of the professional teacher/student relationship.'
Innocent until proven guilty or until likely to be found guilty. This is a serious allegation the reply to which deserves the defence an opportunity to rebuke.
Mr Garrett, who represented himself at the hearing, told the panel how he would speak openly with students - some as young as 11 or 12 - about sexual matters.
'I was unembarrassed to talk about anything,' he said. 'I said 'if you ask me in an appropriate manner I will tell you.'
Fair enough. Children of that age are often curious, what we are not told is school policy but we are left with the implication that he is a peadophile.
Giving an example of an exchange with a year 7 pupil, he added: 'The student asked 'sir, what's a vibrator?' 'I told them what it was.'
So? The bloke was a sex education teacher. Same implication as above.
In an impassioned thirty-minute statement in his defence, he argued that teachers should be able to keep their professional and private lives separate.
'They may go out and get drunk off their faces,' he said. 'They are human and if they are doing it and it is legal that is their choice.'
He has a point, probably to protect himself from such a condescending article!
Insisting that they were obliged to live up to what he believes to be outdated standards, he added: 'I believe that if the General Teaching Council was to agree that what I did undermines public trust and confidence in the teaching profession, I believe that this is a symptom of what I call an immature national attitude to sex and viewing sex as a legitimate form of enjoyment and entertainment.'
And he insisted that schools should prepare children for the 'real world' and adapt to the increasing availability of pornography.
'It is not going anywhere,' he told the panel. 'Pornography is here to stay, the Internet is here to stay, social networking is here to stay.
'Being told that it's wrong, that it's immoral is not an appropriate response.'
Articulate and accurate - you can tell it's directly quoted!
Outside the hearing Mr Garrett, dressed in a dark suit and glasses, defended his work as a stripper and insisted he had not come to contest some of the claims made against him.
Claims made against him by tabloid induced anger of course (it's
never their own fault!)
'I am not here to deny the facts of the case,' he said.
'Teachers up and down the country are binge drinking, smoking and taking drugs, and just because they do it doesn't mean they are bad teachers.'
Citation Needed
He hit out at the British attitude towards sex, saying: 'We have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the EU, and the reason is that we are just not open about sex.
There are many reasons for teen pregnancy being high in the UK. He may or may not have a point.
'The habit is to shut it off and not talk about it. We have to prepare our students for the real world. Being naked is the most natural thing in the world. I don't see it as a damaging thing.
True, although IMO there are self-esteem issues regarding being naked.
'Would I be embarrassed if a parent or student saw me naked in one of my videos? 'It might put them off having sex if they saw me.'
That would be OTT.
While he admitted to overstepping the boundaries by making Facebook contact with students, he said there was no evidence to suggest this was of a 'sexual or romantic' nature.
Citation Needed.
Facebook is a nightmare for etiquette though, he'd have been better off not adding any of his students.
Mr Garrett has previously admitted working as a hard-core porn star before qualifying as a teacher.
bias alert. His past occupation would have been known and taken into account.
His dual identity was rumbled by pupils before he was suspended last July.
Rumbled? In a serious text? Gordon Bennett, I feel like I've lost 70 IQ points reading that and even got a bit angry so I can only imagine someone not as cynical as me becoming
