General Teaching Council ban former Shildon teacher from classroom

Mark Walker

Mark Walker

First published in News by , Reporter (Sedgefield)

A TEACHER and British National Party activist was yesterday banned from the classroom after using school computers to send a vulnerable 16-year-old former pupil a sexually explicit message.

The General Teaching Council found that Mark Walker sent the girl emails while working at Sunnydale Community College, in Shildon, County Durham, in 2007.

A Professional Conduct Committee heard that in one email, he used language understood to mean that he wanted to have sex with the girl.

The committee found that after Mr Walker was suspended from the school, he contacted colleagues about the disciplinary process, resulting in a demonstration taking place outside the school.

During the demonstration, his supporters said he was a good teacher who did not take politics into the classroom.

However, the committee found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and banned him from teaching.

“Mr Walker refers to ‘one suspect email’. However, the committee has noted that the language used in several of the emails was highly inappropriate.”

Committee chairman Wayne Jones

Mr Walker, who stood as BNP candidate for Sedgefield, County Durham, in the 2010 General Election, was suspended by the school in March 2007 and dismissed in December 2008.

Committee chairman Wayne Jones said: “We have heard evidence that the pupil concerned was particularly vulnerable as she had psychological problems and that staff had been made aware of this in April 2006.

“Mr Walker admits that he engaged in an email exchange with the pupil concerned and that this exchange was inappropriate.

“Mr Walker refers to ‘one suspect email’. However, the committee has noted that the language used in several of the emails was highly inappropriate.”

Mr Jones said the committee also took into consideration that Mr Walker had told the girl he hoped she was deleting the emails which, he said, confirmed that he knew what he was doing was wrong.

Mr Walker of Rievaulx, Spennymoor, told The Northern Echo that he accepted his behaviour was inappropriate, but felt that he was being persecuted because of his political beliefs.

He said there were cases of teachers behaving worse than him but staying in the profession, and that he never taught the girl or had any physical contact with her.

Mr Walker has 28 days to appeal to the High Court, which he said he was considering.

Comments (82)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:24am Wed 2 Nov 11

Mel Wilson says...

No way - Mark Walker a pervert?!! Well I never.
You filthy pig, should be ashamed
No way - Mark Walker a pervert?!! Well I never. You filthy pig, should be ashamed Mel Wilson
  • Score: 1

10:02pm Wed 2 Nov 11

Mike Hartman says...

@ NSPCC Lad: Endgame

@ Grasshopper: Will you opt for Rule 45 should you be jailed in the near future?

@ Kevin Scott: Entertaining comment on Mark Walker. Keep it up!

@ Mr Tinks: You're as damaged as the Walkers
@ NSPCC Lad: Endgame @ Grasshopper: Will you opt for Rule 45 should you be jailed in the near future? @ Kevin Scott: Entertaining comment on Mark Walker. Keep it up! @ Mr Tinks: You're as damaged as the Walkers Mike Hartman
  • Score: 0

10:01am Thu 3 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

@ Pete Molloy - no comment?

lol - you've got to be well fick to think being a teacher using a school computer to proposition a 16yr old prior student is OK, right? ...but then, he also thinks the BNP is OK ;o)
@ Pete Molloy - no comment? lol - you've got to be well fick to think being a teacher using a school computer to proposition a 16yr old prior student is OK, right? ...but then, he also thinks the BNP is OK ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

10:42am Thu 3 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Oh dear, this is disgusting and I have a feeling that, with most of these cases, this is just the tip of a very sick iceberg...shame on you Walker
Oh dear, this is disgusting and I have a feeling that, with most of these cases, this is just the tip of a very sick iceberg...shame on you Walker antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Adam Walker says...

I think you will find the email went to a seventeen year old 'former' pupil so no law broken there. Many teachers keep in touch with former pupils. Some even marry them. This is nothing other than a witch hunt by common purpose trained puppets and members of the Labour Party. If we want to start pointing the finger why dont we take a look at the Labour25. It makes for far more interesting reading.
I think you will find the email went to a seventeen year old 'former' pupil so no law broken there. Many teachers keep in touch with former pupils. Some even marry them. This is nothing other than a witch hunt by common purpose trained puppets and members of the Labour Party. If we want to start pointing the finger why dont we take a look at the Labour25. It makes for far more interesting reading. Adam Walker
  • Score: 1

1:44pm Thu 3 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

I think its his moral's and judgement that are in question here despite, as you say, he has broken no laws.
I think its his moral's and judgement that are in question here despite, as you say, he has broken no laws. antihypocrisy
  • Score: -1

1:46pm Thu 3 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

If the reporting is mistaken you should challenge it directly, it clearly states "a vulnerable (and qualifies this) 16 year old.
If the reporting is mistaken you should challenge it directly, it clearly states "a vulnerable (and qualifies this) 16 year old. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Adam Walker wrote:
I think you will find the email went to a seventeen year old 'former' pupil so no law broken there. Many teachers keep in touch with former pupils. Some even marry them. This is nothing other than a witch hunt by common purpose trained puppets and members of the Labour Party. If we want to start pointing the finger why dont we take a look at the Labour25. It makes for far more interesting reading.
I think you'll find that the disciplinary inquiry at his tribunal for unfair dismissal revealed a large number of emails indicating a sexual relationship with this 17-year-old former pupil.
*
Legal or not, I see it as an abuse of his position of trust - I'm sure that you'd argue that you'd be happy for your 17yr old daughter to be sleeping with a 39yr old ex-teacher, right?
[quote][p][bold]Adam Walker[/bold] wrote: I think you will find the email went to a seventeen year old 'former' pupil so no law broken there. Many teachers keep in touch with former pupils. Some even marry them. This is nothing other than a witch hunt by common purpose trained puppets and members of the Labour Party. If we want to start pointing the finger why dont we take a look at the Labour25. It makes for far more interesting reading.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that the disciplinary inquiry at his tribunal for unfair dismissal revealed a large number of emails indicating a sexual relationship with this 17-year-old former pupil. * Legal or not, I see it as an abuse of his position of trust - I'm sure that you'd argue that you'd be happy for your 17yr old daughter to be sleeping with a 39yr old ex-teacher, right? Mooochas
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Adam Walker says...

Moochas.... I was at the tribunal and there were not a large number of emails indicating any sort of relationship at all. Mark Walker did not have a sexual relationship with any ex student. If he had, it would have been mentioned at the tribunal and it was not. Mark Walker received a letter from the Safguarding Authority which clearly stated that he was no risk to children. Strange that before any allegations were made, a meeting was held at the school by Unison during his suspension calling for him to be sacked because of his political beliefs. And this whole incident isnt politically motivated. Do you hear of meetings held in other places of work calling for people to be sacked for what they believe in? I ask you.... Who are the real Fascists?
Moochas.... I was at the tribunal and there were not a large number of emails indicating any sort of relationship at all. Mark Walker did not have a sexual relationship with any ex student. If he had, it would have been mentioned at the tribunal and it was not. Mark Walker received a letter from the Safguarding Authority which clearly stated that he was no risk to children. Strange that before any allegations were made, a meeting was held at the school by Unison during his suspension calling for him to be sacked because of his political beliefs. And this whole incident isnt politically motivated. Do you hear of meetings held in other places of work calling for people to be sacked for what they believe in? I ask you.... Who are the real Fascists? Adam Walker
  • Score: 2

5:34pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Mike Hartman says...

Come on Grasshopper, it's Game, Set and Match.

http://lancasteruaf.
blogspot.com/2011/11
/mark-walker-gtce-fi
ndings-and-report.ht
ml
Come on Grasshopper, it's Game, Set and Match. http://lancasteruaf. blogspot.com/2011/11 /mark-walker-gtce-fi ndings-and-report.ht ml Mike Hartman
  • Score: -1

5:57pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Lol - oh well, if you were there then that's that, isn't it? ;o)
*
I guess everyone else got it wrong, huh?
* http://www.thenorthe
rnecho.co.uk/news/50
40268.BNP_man_loses_
case_for_unfair_dism
issal/
Lol - oh well, if you were there then that's that, isn't it? ;o) * I guess everyone else got it wrong, huh? * http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/50 40268.BNP_man_loses_ case_for_unfair_dism issal/ Mooochas
  • Score: -1

6:54pm Thu 3 Nov 11

becx09 says...

i do not agree with his conduct but people are saying he is a danger to his students and this is only the tip of the iceberg, i am a former student of his could not fault his teaching skills or his CONDUCT, he had done wrong and he has admitted it, is it really nessasery to try and damage his name for acts he has not committed??!!
i do not agree with his conduct but people are saying he is a danger to his students and this is only the tip of the iceberg, i am a former student of his could not fault his teaching skills or his CONDUCT, he had done wrong and he has admitted it, is it really nessasery to try and damage his name for acts he has not committed??!! becx09
  • Score: 1

6:54pm Thu 3 Nov 11

becx09 says...

i do not agree with his conduct but people are saying he is a danger to his students and this is only the tip of the iceberg, i am a former student of his could not fault his teaching skills or his CONDUCT, he had done wrong and he has admitted it, is it really nessasery to try and damage his name for acts he has not committed??!!
i do not agree with his conduct but people are saying he is a danger to his students and this is only the tip of the iceberg, i am a former student of his could not fault his teaching skills or his CONDUCT, he had done wrong and he has admitted it, is it really nessasery to try and damage his name for acts he has not committed??!! becx09
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Thu 3 Nov 11

Traser1991 says...

Is that a veteran's pin in his lapel? Shame on him for what he has done and shame on him for the slur he puts onto the uniformed services.

Mr Walker - people do not send their children to school to be perved at by older males in authority! You are guilty of unprofessional behaviour - teachers should maintain a professional distance from their students at all times!

Thankfully higher standards are expected from teachers than those of 'sex mad squaddies!'
Is that a veteran's pin in his lapel? Shame on him for what he has done and shame on him for the slur he puts onto the uniformed services. Mr Walker - people do not send their children to school to be perved at by older males in authority! You are guilty of unprofessional behaviour - teachers should maintain a professional distance from their students at all times! Thankfully higher standards are expected from teachers than those of 'sex mad squaddies!' Traser1991
  • Score: 2

9:03pm Thu 3 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

What he has committed is enough, as a Teacher, to ruin his reputation on this alone!
What he has committed is enough, as a Teacher, to ruin his reputation on this alone! antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Thu 3 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

There is something extremely worrying about a 39 year old man, let alone a Teacher, who this report says " sent a vulnerable 16-year-old former pupil a sexually explicit message".... and on a school PC, I mean what?? how can that ever be justified?. The real danger is not only that he did it but that he and his brother can see nothing wrong in that??
There is something extremely worrying about a 39 year old man, let alone a Teacher, who this report says " sent a vulnerable 16-year-old former pupil a sexually explicit message".... and on a school PC, I mean what?? how can that ever be justified?. The real danger is not only that he did it but that he and his brother can see nothing wrong in that?? antihypocrisy
  • Score: 2

10:36am Fri 4 Nov 11

Pete Molloy says...

If Mark's emails had sexually explicit contents in it to a 17 year old former pupil then why not reproduce those emails with the article? It would back up the claim, but no email was has been produced.

Did you notice the size of Mark's photo compaired to say, Raul Moat's when the echo produced it!
If Mark's emails had sexually explicit contents in it to a 17 year old former pupil then why not reproduce those emails with the article? It would back up the claim, but no email was has been produced. Did you notice the size of Mark's photo compaired to say, Raul Moat's when the echo produced it! Pete Molloy
  • Score: 1

10:46am Fri 4 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Pete Molloy wrote:
If Mark's emails had sexually explicit contents in it to a 17 year old former pupil then why not reproduce those emails with the article? It would back up the claim, but no email was has been produced.

Did you notice the size of Mark's photo compaired to say, Raul Moat's when the echo produced it!
Just because the email hasn't been printed doesn't mean to say it didn't exist PM, surely you can grasp that idea. Throughout every process Mr Walker has experienced he has been judged on evidence, not rumour and you personally not seeing it does not diminish its validity in any way! Seems to me any trouble that the BNP members get into is being brushed off a Politicly motivated which is a bit spineless really. Mr Walker you have had fair hearings throughout and you have been found out not vindicated. For goodness sake next you will be taking this higher claiming YOUR human rights have been denied? My thoughts are with this poor girl not Mr Walker.
[quote][p][bold]Pete Molloy[/bold] wrote: If Mark's emails had sexually explicit contents in it to a 17 year old former pupil then why not reproduce those emails with the article? It would back up the claim, but no email was has been produced. Did you notice the size of Mark's photo compaired to say, Raul Moat's when the echo produced it![/p][/quote]Just because the email hasn't been printed doesn't mean to say it didn't exist PM, surely you can grasp that idea. Throughout every process Mr Walker has experienced he has been judged on evidence, not rumour and you personally not seeing it does not diminish its validity in any way! Seems to me any trouble that the BNP members get into is being brushed off a Politicly motivated which is a bit spineless really. Mr Walker you have had fair hearings throughout and you have been found out not vindicated. For goodness sake next you will be taking this higher claiming YOUR human rights have been denied? My thoughts are with this poor girl not Mr Walker. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 1

11:00am Fri 4 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: -1

11:18am Fri 4 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Mooochas wrote:
Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
I can but try, in the hope a tiny bit of common sense will sink in.
[quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]I can but try, in the hope a tiny bit of common sense will sink in. antihypocrisy
  • Score: -1

12:30pm Fri 4 Nov 11

David Lacey says...

What a depressing pair you are. I have never voted Tory and despise Cameron. I vote UKIP and am proud to say so. The BNP are evem more nauseating than Labour, and that is saying something.
What a depressing pair you are. I have never voted Tory and despise Cameron. I vote UKIP and am proud to say so. The BNP are evem more nauseating than Labour, and that is saying something. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Fri 4 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

David Lacey wrote:
What a depressing pair you are. I have never voted Tory and despise Cameron. I vote UKIP and am proud to say so. The BNP are evem more nauseating than Labour, and that is saying something.
Lol - "We're not the Judean People's Front; we're the People's Front of Judea!" - ok, so you're a far right conservative; somewhere inbetween Tory and BNP ;o)
*
UKIP is like the acceptable face of the BNP - it's like what Sinn Féin is to the IRA. It's nothing to be proud of
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: What a depressing pair you are. I have never voted Tory and despise Cameron. I vote UKIP and am proud to say so. The BNP are evem more nauseating than Labour, and that is saying something.[/p][/quote]Lol - "We're not the Judean People's Front; we're the People's Front of Judea!" - ok, so you're a far right conservative; somewhere inbetween Tory and BNP ;o) * UKIP is like the acceptable face of the BNP - it's like what Sinn Féin is to the IRA. It's nothing to be proud of Mooochas
  • Score: 1

3:43pm Fri 4 Nov 11

Gnasher1 says...

If this alleged email had been sent from his private computer would it have affected his career? In my opinion it is a witch hunt because he's a member of the BNP.
If this alleged email had been sent from his private computer would it have affected his career? In my opinion it is a witch hunt because he's a member of the BNP. Gnasher1
  • Score: 1

4:15pm Fri 4 Nov 11

Pete Molloy says...

antihypocrisy wrote:
Pete Molloy wrote: If Mark's emails had sexually explicit contents in it to a 17 year old former pupil then why not reproduce those emails with the article? It would back up the claim, but no email was has been produced. Did you notice the size of Mark's photo compaired to say, Raul Moat's when the echo produced it!
Just because the email hasn't been printed doesn't mean to say it didn't exist PM, surely you can grasp that idea. Throughout every process Mr Walker has experienced he has been judged on evidence, not rumour and you personally not seeing it does not diminish its validity in any way! Seems to me any trouble that the BNP members get into is being brushed off a Politicly motivated which is a bit spineless really. Mr Walker you have had fair hearings throughout and you have been found out not vindicated. For goodness sake next you will be taking this higher claiming YOUR human rights have been denied? My thoughts are with this poor girl not Mr Walker.
With not seeing the email I can only go by what Mark has told me what was in it and nothîng was sexually explicit in it according to Mark.

If any anti-BNPers can provide me with the said email and prove me wrong, please do
[quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pete Molloy[/bold] wrote: If Mark's emails had sexually explicit contents in it to a 17 year old former pupil then why not reproduce those emails with the article? It would back up the claim, but no email was has been produced. Did you notice the size of Mark's photo compaired to say, Raul Moat's when the echo produced it![/p][/quote]Just because the email hasn't been printed doesn't mean to say it didn't exist PM, surely you can grasp that idea. Throughout every process Mr Walker has experienced he has been judged on evidence, not rumour and you personally not seeing it does not diminish its validity in any way! Seems to me any trouble that the BNP members get into is being brushed off a Politicly motivated which is a bit spineless really. Mr Walker you have had fair hearings throughout and you have been found out not vindicated. For goodness sake next you will be taking this higher claiming YOUR human rights have been denied? My thoughts are with this poor girl not Mr Walker.[/p][/quote]With not seeing the email I can only go by what Mark has told me what was in it and nothîng was sexually explicit in it according to Mark. If any anti-BNPers can provide me with the said email and prove me wrong, please do Pete Molloy
  • Score: 1

4:23pm Fri 4 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Im not anti-BNP, and I don't need to prove you wrong. It was Mark who needed to to do that with the relevant professional bodies and he failed to do that. They are the ones who saw the evidence and gave their findings. It makes no odds to me who accepts it as wrong, they are arguing with the wrong people. I am just happy this individual has been banned from Teaching children.
Im not anti-BNP, and I don't need to prove you wrong. It was Mark who needed to to do that with the relevant professional bodies and he failed to do that. They are the ones who saw the evidence and gave their findings. It makes no odds to me who accepts it as wrong, they are arguing with the wrong people. I am just happy this individual has been banned from Teaching children. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 1

5:44pm Fri 4 Nov 11

Dean M says...

Mooochas wrote:
Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points.
.
Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties.
.
I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.
[quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates. Dean M
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Fri 4 Nov 11

Dean M says...

Regarding this thread, who knows what the truth is?
.
If Unison did call a meeting to try and get him sacked for his political beliefs, then that is wrong in my view. Is it not also the case that the council involved the NSPCC in this? How many times has the council done this to a public employee over the years? I wonder....once?
.
Who knows, but I suspect his politics have played a large part in the authorities actions against him.
Regarding this thread, who knows what the truth is? . If Unison did call a meeting to try and get him sacked for his political beliefs, then that is wrong in my view. Is it not also the case that the council involved the NSPCC in this? How many times has the council done this to a public employee over the years? I wonder....once? . Who knows, but I suspect his politics have played a large part in the authorities actions against him. Dean M
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Fri 4 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.
Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself…
*
Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.[/p][/quote]Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Fri 4 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

"who knows what the truth is"..you just couldn't make it up!! Professional people are usually registered with their own particular Professional bodies that oversee standards of their members. I can think immediately of Doctors and Nurse as an example. Their role is to maintain professionalism and high standards that are expected of their members positions. The standards Committees which rule on their members are NOT kangaroo Courts, they do NOT have any Political axe to grind and anyone who is summoned to explain their behaviour has a right to Legal representation.If, DM, you don't know what the truth is now I'm afraid you never will.
"who knows what the truth is"..you just couldn't make it up!! Professional people are usually registered with their own particular Professional bodies that oversee standards of their members. I can think immediately of Doctors and Nurse as an example. Their role is to maintain professionalism and high standards that are expected of their members positions. The standards Committees which rule on their members are NOT kangaroo Courts, they do NOT have any Political axe to grind and anyone who is summoned to explain their behaviour has a right to Legal representation.If, DM, you don't know what the truth is now I'm afraid you never will. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

7:33pm Fri 4 Nov 11

DWilson says...

Wonder if all the BNP lot would be crying foul if it what has been reported thus far applied to an Asian, Black or Eastern European teacher. Somehow I think they would be typing out the paedo and deportation rhetoric before could write "I12FU"
Wonder if all the BNP lot would be crying foul if it what has been reported thus far applied to an Asian, Black or Eastern European teacher. Somehow I think they would be typing out the paedo and deportation rhetoric before could write "I12FU" DWilson
  • Score: 1

9:22pm Fri 4 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Any sort of decent person would admit they are wrong but then we aren't talking about any decent sort of person are we?
Any sort of decent person would admit they are wrong but then we aren't talking about any decent sort of person are we? antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

9:52am Sat 5 Nov 11

Melanie Stephenson says...

Can I remind people that this happened 5 years ago.
The former pupil in now in her twenties. Strange that she made no allegations and remained silent. She could have made a fortune IF she received 'sexually explicit' emails. Where are these emails? Everything else has been uncovered except the emails.
Prime Minister David Cameron and Education Secretary, Michael Gove have both said BNP teachers WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. How convenient for them!
Can I remind people that this happened 5 years ago. The former pupil in now in her twenties. Strange that she made no allegations and remained silent. She could have made a fortune IF she received 'sexually explicit' emails. Where are these emails? Everything else has been uncovered except the emails. Prime Minister David Cameron and Education Secretary, Michael Gove have both said BNP teachers WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. How convenient for them! Melanie Stephenson
  • Score: 0

10:15am Sat 5 Nov 11

Blankface says...

antihypocrisy wrote:
Any sort of decent person would admit they are wrong but then we aren't talking about any decent sort of person are we?
You are clearly judging this man on his political beliefs and you bloody well know it.
[quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: Any sort of decent person would admit they are wrong but then we aren't talking about any decent sort of person are we?[/p][/quote]You are clearly judging this man on his political beliefs and you bloody well know it. Blankface
  • Score: 0

11:12am Sat 5 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Blankface wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote:
Any sort of decent person would admit they are wrong but then we aren't talking about any decent sort of person are we?
You are clearly judging this man on his political beliefs and you bloody well know it.
Oh dear, I suspected this was coming from someone...for this poster and the tiny minority who feel the same, I am commenting on the facts that have been reported above.FACTS FACTS and FACTS. How blind are you to see that its the fact he was a Teacher sending this/these emails FULL STOP, his gender, race,religion or Political bias , for me, never comes into it.
[quote][p][bold]Blankface[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: Any sort of decent person would admit they are wrong but then we aren't talking about any decent sort of person are we?[/p][/quote]You are clearly judging this man on his political beliefs and you bloody well know it.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, I suspected this was coming from someone...for this poster and the tiny minority who feel the same, I am commenting on the facts that have been reported above.FACTS FACTS and FACTS. How blind are you to see that its the fact he was a Teacher sending this/these emails FULL STOP, his gender, race,religion or Political bias , for me, never comes into it. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Sat 5 Nov 11

Dean M says...

Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.
Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)
"Now run along and play with the other chickens."
.
That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart?
.
By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.
[quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.[/p][/quote]Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)[/p][/quote]"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly. Dean M
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Sat 5 Nov 11

Dean M says...

antihypocrisy wrote:
"who knows what the truth is"..you just couldn't make it up!! Professional people are usually registered with their own particular Professional bodies that oversee standards of their members. I can think immediately of Doctors and Nurse as an example. Their role is to maintain professionalism and high standards that are expected of their members positions. The standards Committees which rule on their members are NOT kangaroo Courts, they do NOT have any Political axe to grind and anyone who is summoned to explain their behaviour has a right to Legal representation.If, DM, you don't know what the truth is now I'm afraid you never will.
They have no political axe to grind? Are you sure about that? If a trade union is prepared to try and get someone sacked for their politics (which is totally outside their remit as a union) what makes you think these other organisations are always beyond reproach?
.
There is often examples of standards committees recommending dismissal (e.g. police, health etc) which are then appealed and overturned. Who knows whether Mr Walker will appeal or not, or whether there are cases of teachers who have behaved worse but still allowed to remain in the profession, or whether this mistake of his should result in the end of his teaching career; we shall see.
[quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: "who knows what the truth is"..you just couldn't make it up!! Professional people are usually registered with their own particular Professional bodies that oversee standards of their members. I can think immediately of Doctors and Nurse as an example. Their role is to maintain professionalism and high standards that are expected of their members positions. The standards Committees which rule on their members are NOT kangaroo Courts, they do NOT have any Political axe to grind and anyone who is summoned to explain their behaviour has a right to Legal representation.If, DM, you don't know what the truth is now I'm afraid you never will.[/p][/quote]They have no political axe to grind? Are you sure about that? If a trade union is prepared to try and get someone sacked for their politics (which is totally outside their remit as a union) what makes you think these other organisations are always beyond reproach? . There is often examples of standards committees recommending dismissal (e.g. police, health etc) which are then appealed and overturned. Who knows whether Mr Walker will appeal or not, or whether there are cases of teachers who have behaved worse but still allowed to remain in the profession, or whether this mistake of his should result in the end of his teaching career; we shall see. Dean M
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Sat 5 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

"mistake" think its more than that DM..."should result" it should and HAS.
"mistake" think its more than that DM..."should result" it should and HAS. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Sat 5 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

"Mr Jones said the committee also took into consideration that Mr Walker had told the girl he hoped she was deleting the emails which, he said, confirmed that he knew what he was doing was wrong"...hardly evidence of making a mistake is it.
"Mr Jones said the committee also took into consideration that Mr Walker had told the girl he hoped she was deleting the emails which, he said, confirmed that he knew what he was doing was wrong"...hardly evidence of making a mistake is it. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Sat 5 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

"Mr Jones said the committee also took into consideration that Mr Walker had told the girl he hoped she was deleting the emails which, he said, confirmed that he knew what he was doing was wrong"...hardly evidence of making a mistake is it?
"Mr Jones said the committee also took into consideration that Mr Walker had told the girl he hoped she was deleting the emails which, he said, confirmed that he knew what he was doing was wrong"...hardly evidence of making a mistake is it? antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Sat 5 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Melanie Stephenson wrote:
Can I remind people that this happened 5 years ago.
The former pupil in now in her twenties. Strange that she made no allegations and remained silent. She could have made a fortune IF she received 'sexually explicit' emails. Where are these emails? Everything else has been uncovered except the emails.
Prime Minister David Cameron and Education Secretary, Michael Gove have both said BNP teachers WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. How convenient for them!
Thats the funniest thing I have ever read...because she has been "silent", not gone to the national rags (assuming they would be interested of course) and made a fortune then this is proof that there were no emails?? Now then Melanie, why would your beloved Mr Walker ask this vulnerable 16yr old girl to ensure she deleted these emails?
[quote][p][bold]Melanie Stephenson[/bold] wrote: Can I remind people that this happened 5 years ago. The former pupil in now in her twenties. Strange that she made no allegations and remained silent. She could have made a fortune IF she received 'sexually explicit' emails. Where are these emails? Everything else has been uncovered except the emails. Prime Minister David Cameron and Education Secretary, Michael Gove have both said BNP teachers WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. How convenient for them![/p][/quote]Thats the funniest thing I have ever read...because she has been "silent", not gone to the national rags (assuming they would be interested of course) and made a fortune then this is proof that there were no emails?? Now then Melanie, why would your beloved Mr Walker ask this vulnerable 16yr old girl to ensure she deleted these emails? antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Sat 5 Nov 11

onlinereader says...

http://www.gtce.org.
uk/regulation/discip
linary_orders/

Visit there at the end of the month and you'll all be able to see exactly why he has been banned from teaching.
http://www.gtce.org. uk/regulation/discip linary_orders/ Visit there at the end of the month and you'll all be able to see exactly why he has been banned from teaching. onlinereader
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Sat 5 Nov 11

onlinereader says...

Personally I don't give two hoots what political party Mark Walker belongs too. But as a former teacher I can assure the readers of this email that Mr Walker would know that behaviour of this nature by a teacher who is in a position of trust is not acceptable with any child. He would also know that contact of this nature with any young person, is not acceptable until they have reached adulthood at the age of 18 years. This girl was 17 years and in the eyes of the law, still a minor.
Personally I don't give two hoots what political party Mark Walker belongs too. But as a former teacher I can assure the readers of this email that Mr Walker would know that behaviour of this nature by a teacher who is in a position of trust is not acceptable with any child. He would also know that contact of this nature with any young person, is not acceptable until they have reached adulthood at the age of 18 years. This girl was 17 years and in the eyes of the law, still a minor. onlinereader
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Sat 5 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.
Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)
"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.
You think I’m not being objective if I criticise Government policy – I think you’re just a sycophantic worshiper of Cameron and all things ‘blue’ – show us something ‘blue’ that you’ve disagreed with.
*
I point out a Government or Tory short-coming and you think you can justify it by pointing out a similar Labour occurrence. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
*
Lol - isn’t it amazing how two people can view the same thing yet have a completely different perspective? You think you’re engaging me in entertaining debate. I think you’re boring my tits off ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.[/p][/quote]Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)[/p][/quote]"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.[/p][/quote]You think I’m not being objective if I criticise Government policy – I think you’re just a sycophantic worshiper of Cameron and all things ‘blue’ – show us something ‘blue’ that you’ve disagreed with. * I point out a Government or Tory short-coming and you think you can justify it by pointing out a similar Labour occurrence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. * Lol - isn’t it amazing how two people can view the same thing yet have a completely different perspective? You think you’re engaging me in entertaining debate. I think you’re boring my tits off ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Sun 6 Nov 11

jordanc93 says...

Adam Walker wrote:
I think you will find the email went to a seventeen year old 'former' pupil so no law broken there. Many teachers keep in touch with former pupils. Some even marry them. This is nothing other than a witch hunt by common purpose trained puppets and members of the Labour Party. If we want to start pointing the finger why dont we take a look at the Labour25. It makes for far more interesting reading.
under the children act of 1989 and 2004 a person is classed as a child until they are 18. He clear breached his position of trust and yes teachers and students keep in contact but they keep it to a proffessional level not a sexual one. He would have also sent the emails knowing full well they were monitired and a copy of all them stored, as this a legal requirment under the data protection act for establishments to keep a full record of all information exchanged within there IT systems. He shouldn't use his political party to cover up the truth. If the school hadn't taken action, Durham Local Education Authority would have done in the end. All staff are made aware of the what the IT resources are used for and what policy are in place upon joining the establishment, as well as being told that all activity is logged.
[quote][p][bold]Adam Walker[/bold] wrote: I think you will find the email went to a seventeen year old 'former' pupil so no law broken there. Many teachers keep in touch with former pupils. Some even marry them. This is nothing other than a witch hunt by common purpose trained puppets and members of the Labour Party. If we want to start pointing the finger why dont we take a look at the Labour25. It makes for far more interesting reading.[/p][/quote]under the children act of 1989 and 2004 a person is classed as a child until they are 18. He clear breached his position of trust and yes teachers and students keep in contact but they keep it to a proffessional level not a sexual one. He would have also sent the emails knowing full well they were monitired and a copy of all them stored, as this a legal requirment under the data protection act for establishments to keep a full record of all information exchanged within there IT systems. He shouldn't use his political party to cover up the truth. If the school hadn't taken action, Durham Local Education Authority would have done in the end. All staff are made aware of the what the IT resources are used for and what policy are in place upon joining the establishment, as well as being told that all activity is logged. jordanc93
  • Score: 0

1:02am Mon 7 Nov 11

funksoul201181 says...

dnt care bout his political leanings, but anyone in that positon who thinks its ok to email pupils with sexual content shud be banned, hes not sorry he did it hes sorry he got caught
dnt care bout his political leanings, but anyone in that positon who thinks its ok to email pupils with sexual content shud be banned, hes not sorry he did it hes sorry he got caught funksoul201181
  • Score: 0

10:49am Mon 7 Nov 11

BrianBarber86 says...

I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far !
I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far ! BrianBarber86
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Mon 7 Nov 11

Dean M says...

Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.
Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)
"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.
You think I’m not being objective if I criticise Government policy – I think you’re just a sycophantic worshiper of Cameron and all things ‘blue’ – show us something ‘blue’ that you’ve disagreed with. * I point out a Government or Tory short-coming and you think you can justify it by pointing out a similar Labour occurrence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. * Lol - isn’t it amazing how two people can view the same thing yet have a completely different perspective? You think you’re engaging me in entertaining debate. I think you’re boring my tits off ;o)
Not sure how trying to associate UKIP with the BNP is 'pointing out a Tory or government shortcoming.' Only in your mind.
.
You're wrong to tell me what I think. And I don't care what you think.
.
I wonder what your response will be? Anyone would think this was a debate. Or a forum.
[quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.[/p][/quote]Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)[/p][/quote]"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.[/p][/quote]You think I’m not being objective if I criticise Government policy – I think you’re just a sycophantic worshiper of Cameron and all things ‘blue’ – show us something ‘blue’ that you’ve disagreed with. * I point out a Government or Tory short-coming and you think you can justify it by pointing out a similar Labour occurrence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. * Lol - isn’t it amazing how two people can view the same thing yet have a completely different perspective? You think you’re engaging me in entertaining debate. I think you’re boring my tits off ;o)[/p][/quote]Not sure how trying to associate UKIP with the BNP is 'pointing out a Tory or government shortcoming.' Only in your mind. . You're wrong to tell me what I think. And I don't care what you think. . I wonder what your response will be? Anyone would think this was a debate. Or a forum. Dean M
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Mon 7 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

BrianBarber86 wrote:
I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far !
How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.
[quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far ![/p][/quote]How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 1

5:45pm Mon 7 Nov 11

Melanie Stephenson says...

Oh I see, so the only people that get to see the emails are the the GTC and the witness (his head teacher). The very ones who wanted rid of him. How convenient. If he wasn't involved with the BNP none of this would have happened. The Unison staff invite to the 'let's gang up and get rid of the BNP teacher' meeting proves this.
Oh I see, so the only people that get to see the emails are the the GTC and the witness (his head teacher). The very ones who wanted rid of him. How convenient. If he wasn't involved with the BNP none of this would have happened. The Unison staff invite to the 'let's gang up and get rid of the BNP teacher' meeting proves this. Melanie Stephenson
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Mon 7 Nov 11

Dean M says...

onlinereader wrote:
Personally I don't give two hoots what political party Mark Walker belongs too. But as a former teacher I can assure the readers of this email that Mr Walker would know that behaviour of this nature by a teacher who is in a position of trust is not acceptable with any child. He would also know that contact of this nature with any young person, is not acceptable until they have reached adulthood at the age of 18 years. This girl was 17 years and in the eyes of the law, still a minor.
But 17 is nearly 18!
.
Seriously though, your point is a fair one, as the line has to be drawn somewhere. But if no physical relationship occurred then I just question whether it is right that his career should be ended, given the age of the girl. It is right that disciplinary action should have been taken against him, but has his politics played a part in the severity of the sentence?
[quote][p][bold]onlinereader[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't give two hoots what political party Mark Walker belongs too. But as a former teacher I can assure the readers of this email that Mr Walker would know that behaviour of this nature by a teacher who is in a position of trust is not acceptable with any child. He would also know that contact of this nature with any young person, is not acceptable until they have reached adulthood at the age of 18 years. This girl was 17 years and in the eyes of the law, still a minor.[/p][/quote]But 17 is nearly 18! . Seriously though, your point is a fair one, as the line has to be drawn somewhere. But if no physical relationship occurred then I just question whether it is right that his career should be ended, given the age of the girl. It is right that disciplinary action should have been taken against him, but has his politics played a part in the severity of the sentence? Dean M
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Mon 7 Nov 11

BrianBarber86 says...

antihypocrisy wrote:
BrianBarber86 wrote:
I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far !
How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.
r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong
[quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far ![/p][/quote]How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.[/p][/quote]r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong BrianBarber86
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Mon 7 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

BrianBarber86 wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote:
BrianBarber86 wrote:
I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far !
How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.
r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong
Thanks for the insult BB but it matters not what you think as he is BANNED from the classroom for good! Attitudes like yours and other BNP followers give others like you free rein to commit whatever misdeeds you like and give the excuse "we're victimised for our beliefs", get over yourselves!
[quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far ![/p][/quote]How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.[/p][/quote]r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong[/p][/quote]Thanks for the insult BB but it matters not what you think as he is BANNED from the classroom for good! Attitudes like yours and other BNP followers give others like you free rein to commit whatever misdeeds you like and give the excuse "we're victimised for our beliefs", get over yourselves! antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Mon 7 Nov 11

Melanie Stephenson says...

Just like the media, Northern Echo included, you are not interested in the truth are you. He is NOT banned for good but for 2 years. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?

http://www.democracy
forum.co.uk/attachme
nts/bnp/3833d1320244
386-mark-walker-bann
ed-classroom-unison_
letter.jpg
Just like the media, Northern Echo included, you are not interested in the truth are you. He is NOT banned for good but for 2 years. But why let the truth get in the way of a good story? http://www.democracy forum.co.uk/attachme nts/bnp/3833d1320244 386-mark-walker-bann ed-classroom-unison_ letter.jpg Melanie Stephenson
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Mon 7 Nov 11

CTRILEY says...

Mr Walker "said there were cases of teachers behaving worse than him but staying in the profession".

This is true at the school I attended there was a drama teacher who was transferred to my after having a sexual relationship with a pupil. There was a female P.E. teacher who was caught on a number of occassions by pupils having sex with other teachers.

A female geography teacher used to date former pupils. A male English teacher transferred to a Darlington school after his interest in child photography was revealed. Whilst the ony teacher to be prosecuted for anything was a male woodwork teacher who was caught stealing money to fund his gambling.
Mr Walker "said there were cases of teachers behaving worse than him but staying in the profession". This is true at the school I attended there was a drama teacher who was transferred to my after having a sexual relationship with a pupil. There was a female P.E. teacher who was caught on a number of occassions by pupils having sex with other teachers. A female geography teacher used to date former pupils. A male English teacher transferred to a Darlington school after his interest in child photography was revealed. Whilst the ony teacher to be prosecuted for anything was a male woodwork teacher who was caught stealing money to fund his gambling. CTRILEY
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Mon 7 Nov 11

jordanc93 says...

BrianBarber86 wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote:
BrianBarber86 wrote:
I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far !
How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.
r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong
The GTC is independent to the school and the people on the board will have never met mr walker before, so it's hard to believe that they could have wanted rid of someone they had never even met!! In regards to the emails they will most likely never be disclosed, as they are protected by the data protection act and the school can only disclose them by law to legal officials. The emails will all exists as it is a legal requirement for schools to archive all emails sent and received by staff and students using a school email account. In reality the emails are real just, non of will get to see them due to legal reasons.
[quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far ![/p][/quote]How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.[/p][/quote]r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong[/p][/quote]The GTC is independent to the school and the people on the board will have never met mr walker before, so it's hard to believe that they could have wanted rid of someone they had never even met!! In regards to the emails they will most likely never be disclosed, as they are protected by the data protection act and the school can only disclose them by law to legal officials. The emails will all exists as it is a legal requirement for schools to archive all emails sent and received by staff and students using a school email account. In reality the emails are real just, non of will get to see them due to legal reasons. jordanc93
  • Score: 0

12:38am Tue 8 Nov 11

funksoul201181 says...

CTRILEY wrote:
Mr Walker "said there were cases of teachers behaving worse than him but staying in the profession". This is true at the school I attended there was a drama teacher who was transferred to my after having a sexual relationship with a pupil. There was a female P.E. teacher who was caught on a number of occassions by pupils having sex with other teachers. A female geography teacher used to date former pupils. A male English teacher transferred to a Darlington school after his interest in child photography was revealed. Whilst the ony teacher to be prosecuted for anything was a male woodwork teacher who was caught stealing money to fund his gambling.
if this is the case it sounds like they used him as an example however just cos others got away with stuff, doesnt mean he shouldnt, it means the others should have. his bnp status probably ment he got a harsher sentence but it doesnt condone what he did. like it says in reports he asked her to delete the messages etc. he knew what he was doing was wrong. other teachers shud be punished similarly if they doing same
[quote][p][bold]CTRILEY[/bold] wrote: Mr Walker "said there were cases of teachers behaving worse than him but staying in the profession". This is true at the school I attended there was a drama teacher who was transferred to my after having a sexual relationship with a pupil. There was a female P.E. teacher who was caught on a number of occassions by pupils having sex with other teachers. A female geography teacher used to date former pupils. A male English teacher transferred to a Darlington school after his interest in child photography was revealed. Whilst the ony teacher to be prosecuted for anything was a male woodwork teacher who was caught stealing money to fund his gambling.[/p][/quote]if this is the case it sounds like they used him as an example however just cos others got away with stuff, doesnt mean he shouldnt, it means the others should have. his bnp status probably ment he got a harsher sentence but it doesnt condone what he did. like it says in reports he asked her to delete the messages etc. he knew what he was doing was wrong. other teachers shud be punished similarly if they doing same funksoul201181
  • Score: 0

7:55am Tue 8 Nov 11

Pete Molloy says...

jordanc93 wrote:
BrianBarber86 wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote:
BrianBarber86 wrote: I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far !
How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.
r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong
The GTC is independent to the school and the people on the board will have never met mr walker before, so it's hard to believe that they could have wanted rid of someone they had never even met!! In regards to the emails they will most likely never be disclosed, as they are protected by the data protection act and the school can only disclose them by law to legal officials. The emails will all exists as it is a legal requirement for schools to archive all emails sent and received by staff and students using a school email account. In reality the emails are real just, non of will get to see them due to legal reasons.
The GTC is independent from the school, but it doesn't stop them having a political agenda.


Take Mark's brother, Adam for example, who had Judy Moorhouse removed from the panel of his hearing because of her known anti-BNP campaining.
[quote][p][bold]jordanc93[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BrianBarber86[/bold] wrote: I was a pupil at the named school and to be honest a lot of teachers were accused of a lot of things (not Mark) but also female members and if he did send e-mails can we not see them for the case to be put to rest ??? the answer is no because they wanted him out... but he was probably one of the better teachers in that school by far ![/p][/quote]How many more time does it need saying??? "we" don't need to see the email because its nothing to do with the public. The email was produced to the people who matter and who are charged with the task of judging his Professional competence (or clearly lack of), end of! The case has been put to rest, its the followers of this "man" who blame everyone else BUT him for his situation.[/p][/quote]r u deluded??? if you got arrested and the only person who seen you do it was I dont know... someone you didnt like (for whatever reason),would you like to take the blame even if you did/didnt do it??? and as for the ppl who needed to see it, well they are the very ppl that wanted him out and as for being 1 of his followers... believe me we didnt always c eye to eye if he is guilty then fine but tbh I dont think he is.I think victimisation comes into it thru political beliefs. which u dimwit is also wrong[/p][/quote]The GTC is independent to the school and the people on the board will have never met mr walker before, so it's hard to believe that they could have wanted rid of someone they had never even met!! In regards to the emails they will most likely never be disclosed, as they are protected by the data protection act and the school can only disclose them by law to legal officials. The emails will all exists as it is a legal requirement for schools to archive all emails sent and received by staff and students using a school email account. In reality the emails are real just, non of will get to see them due to legal reasons.[/p][/quote]The GTC is independent from the school, but it doesn't stop them having a political agenda. Take Mark's brother, Adam for example, who had Judy Moorhouse removed from the panel of his hearing because of her known anti-BNP campaining. Pete Molloy
  • Score: 0

9:38am Tue 8 Nov 11

Dean M says...

But surely this 'Judy Moorhouse' is likely to have still discussed the case with other members of the panel? Both before, and perhaps after, being removed?
But surely this 'Judy Moorhouse' is likely to have still discussed the case with other members of the panel? Both before, and perhaps after, being removed? Dean M
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Pete Molloy says...

Dean M wrote:
But surely this 'Judy Moorhouse' is likely to have still discussed the case with other members of the panel? Both before, and perhaps after, being removed?
She well may have done, but with the education establishment so anti-BNP how do we know the emails have not been construde for the GTC's own motives?
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: But surely this 'Judy Moorhouse' is likely to have still discussed the case with other members of the panel? Both before, and perhaps after, being removed?[/p][/quote]She well may have done, but with the education establishment so anti-BNP how do we know the emails have not been construde for the GTC's own motives? Pete Molloy
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)
Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.
Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)
"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.
You think I’m not being objective if I criticise Government policy – I think you’re just a sycophantic worshiper of Cameron and all things ‘blue’ – show us something ‘blue’ that you’ve disagreed with. * I point out a Government or Tory short-coming and you think you can justify it by pointing out a similar Labour occurrence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. * Lol - isn’t it amazing how two people can view the same thing yet have a completely different perspective? You think you’re engaging me in entertaining debate. I think you’re boring my tits off ;o)
Not sure how trying to associate UKIP with the BNP is 'pointing out a Tory or government shortcoming.' Only in your mind.
.
You're wrong to tell me what I think. And I don't care what you think.
.
I wonder what your response will be? Anyone would think this was a debate. Or a forum.
"Not sure how trying to associate UKIP with the BNP is 'pointing out a Tory or government shortcoming."
.
.
Lol – Dean’s still confused. Still failing to grasp the obvious. Still boring. Still way out of his depth ;o)
*
He’s like a small child in arm bands desperately clinging on ‘in the deep end’ surrounded by a tell-tale purple cloud whilst crying for his Mummy.
*
Dean’s reply will no doubt be more of the same “You’re wrong. I’ll have you know that I haven’t been swimming in years …and it’s always Daddy I want.” ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Lol - Pete Molloy is as blindly BNP as Dean M, David Lacey and Jolly Roger are Tory. It's pointless trying to point out the lack of objectivity - they just don't get it ;o)[/p][/quote]Although you do keep trying; but you're just never able to support your constant anti-Tory rants and insults with any sensible or reasonable points. . Sinn Fein was regarded as the political wing of the IRA. The BNP and UKIP are two completely separate, independent political parties. . I can see why those who view politics through red spectacles, such as yourself, try this nonsense on - par for the Labour course to attack everyone who doesn't agree - but a bit of honesty would be welcome in these debates.[/p][/quote]Lol! Whatever Dean - if I want to know your opinion I'll grab a copy of the Tory manifesto. Don’t try to put me in the binds of a sycophantic worship of a political party like you – I can think for myself… * Again, you're unable to grasp what’s being said and head off into taking things literally and splitting hairs ;o) …and it’s still not a debate, I’ve nothing that requires your attention, thanks. Now run along and play with the other chickens ;o)[/p][/quote]"Now run along and play with the other chickens." . That's more like your usual standard mooochas; you just can't help the daftness can you sweetheart? . By the way, Kinnock agreed and supported Thatcher all the way in the 80s. If you disagree, you're just 'splitting hairs'. lolly.[/p][/quote]You think I’m not being objective if I criticise Government policy – I think you’re just a sycophantic worshiper of Cameron and all things ‘blue’ – show us something ‘blue’ that you’ve disagreed with. * I point out a Government or Tory short-coming and you think you can justify it by pointing out a similar Labour occurrence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. * Lol - isn’t it amazing how two people can view the same thing yet have a completely different perspective? You think you’re engaging me in entertaining debate. I think you’re boring my tits off ;o)[/p][/quote]Not sure how trying to associate UKIP with the BNP is 'pointing out a Tory or government shortcoming.' Only in your mind. . You're wrong to tell me what I think. And I don't care what you think. . I wonder what your response will be? Anyone would think this was a debate. Or a forum.[/p][/quote]"Not sure how trying to associate UKIP with the BNP is 'pointing out a Tory or government shortcoming." . . Lol – Dean’s still confused. Still failing to grasp the obvious. Still boring. Still way out of his depth ;o) * He’s like a small child in arm bands desperately clinging on ‘in the deep end’ surrounded by a tell-tale purple cloud whilst crying for his Mummy. * Dean’s reply will no doubt be more of the same “You’re wrong. I’ll have you know that I haven’t been swimming in years …and it’s always Daddy I want.” ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Ahhh, the age-old tale of boy-meets-girl and the complications which ensue. Wait. I mean man meets girl. No. Teacher meets pupil. Hold on, I mean almost 40yr old meets almost adult.
*
There's an unusual amount of pro-BNP visitors to this local rag’s story and whilst they may have convinced a few weak-minded dullards, I'm still not buying it.
Ahhh, the age-old tale of boy-meets-girl and the complications which ensue. Wait. I mean man meets girl. No. Teacher meets pupil. Hold on, I mean almost 40yr old meets almost adult. * There's an unusual amount of pro-BNP visitors to this local rag’s story and whilst they may have convinced a few weak-minded dullards, I'm still not buying it. Mooochas
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

onlinereader wrote:
http://www.gtce.org.

uk/regulation/discip

linary_orders/

Visit there at the end of the month and you'll all be able to see exactly why he has been banned from teaching.
Following this link it would seem the only thing he's received that many others haven't is media coverage, which may further damage his BNP-stained image.
*
...and blind support in his futile efforts.
[quote][p][bold]onlinereader[/bold] wrote: http://www.gtce.org. uk/regulation/discip linary_orders/ Visit there at the end of the month and you'll all be able to see exactly why he has been banned from teaching.[/p][/quote]Following this link it would seem the only thing he's received that many others haven't is media coverage, which may further damage his BNP-stained image. * ...and blind support in his futile efforts. Mooochas
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Tue 8 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

For those blinkered symperthisers , you really need to look at the facts, after all the Teachers Council did!Seems to me BNP members are saying they can behave any way they wish, after all, they can't be accountable as it would be a witch-hunt.Absurd beyond belief.
For those blinkered symperthisers , you really need to look at the facts, after all the Teachers Council did!Seems to me BNP members are saying they can behave any way they wish, after all, they can't be accountable as it would be a witch-hunt.Absurd beyond belief. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 1

5:14pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Dean M says...

Mooochas wrote:
Ahhh, the age-old tale of boy-meets-girl and the complications which ensue. Wait. I mean man meets girl. No. Teacher meets pupil. Hold on, I mean almost 40yr old meets almost adult. * There's an unusual amount of pro-BNP visitors to this local rag’s story and whilst they may have convinced a few weak-minded dullards, I'm still not buying it.
Welcome back to the 'debate' - I knew you'd just have to reply. So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?
.
;o) lolly ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Ahhh, the age-old tale of boy-meets-girl and the complications which ensue. Wait. I mean man meets girl. No. Teacher meets pupil. Hold on, I mean almost 40yr old meets almost adult. * There's an unusual amount of pro-BNP visitors to this local rag’s story and whilst they may have convinced a few weak-minded dullards, I'm still not buying it.[/p][/quote]Welcome back to the 'debate' - I knew you'd just have to reply. So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then? . ;o) lolly ;o) Dean M
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Pete Winstanley says...

I wonder if we can knock this on the head once and for all?
.
Mark Walker was not sacked because of the emails, nor because he was a member of the BNP, but because of his sickness record. Following the NSPCC investigation, he was invited to a number of hearings to put his side of the story, but did not attend because he was ill – depressed or stressed. Eventually, having followed all the correct procedures, the school dismissed him because he had been off sick for too long.
.
He then took his case to an Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge, Andrew Buchanan, said his illness was triggered by his own actions – “If he had not acted in the way that he did towards that former pupil, he would not have had reason to be stressed and anxious and he would not have become ill.” He said Mark’s “culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100 per cent” and that “he was the author of his own unfortunate illness”.
.
The GTC has now agreed with the NSPCC and the tribunal judge that the emails were “highly inappropriate,” and that “there is sufficient evidence from the emails and from previous matters concerning his professional conduct to conclude that Mr Walker’s behaviour has resulted in his conduct being less than one would expect of a teacher placed in a position of trust.”
.
No-one, so far, has revealed the content of those emails except Mark’s erstwhile ally, Kevin Scott, former North East Organiser for the BNP, who now runs a website which he has ironically titled “Civil Liberty.” Great sense of humour for a fascist! This is what he wrote on the website:
.
“Patrick Harrington and Civil Liberty director, Kevin Scott, agreed that Mark Walker should have his day in court in order to clear his name. As a result, Civil Liberty agreed to partially fund Mark Walker's case after he was dismissed from his teaching job for his sickness record in December 2008.

At the subsequent Employment Tribunal in Newcastle, the sexually explicit emails were read to the court and despite Pat Harrington's best efforts to expose the duplicity and connivance of the school authorities, trade unions and local council in Mark Walker's persecution, the case was lost. At the end of one of the emails, Mark Walker, a married man with a young daughter who appears on BNP publicity material as a contented family man, had written: "I love to f u c k!"

Later, Kevin Scott was asked by Patrick Harrington to give evidence on behalf of Mark Walker at a GTC hearing which would determine his future as a teacher. Kevin Scott declined.

Civil Liberty stands by its campaign to protect Mark Walker's right to free association and free speech, but withdrew its support once the Employment Tribunal was lost earlier this year.”
.
I have always argued that Mark was innocent until proven guilty. He has now been comprehensively proven guilty. I have also argued that we do not need this sort of scandal to expose the BNP for what it is – a racist, neo-Nazi organisation.
.
BNP supporters who try to defend Mark are doing him no favours. The suggestion that the school, the NSPCC, the GTC and the Employment Tribunal judge are all part of a politically- motivated “witch-hunt” is frankly ludicrous.
.
I personally find Mark’s conduct revolting and creepy, and I am glad he can no longer teach. But, as he has always said, he has not broken the law. Should he not now be left to fade quietly into obscurity, and pick up the pieces of his life?
I wonder if we can knock this on the head once and for all? . Mark Walker was not sacked because of the emails, nor because he was a member of the BNP, but because of his sickness record. Following the NSPCC investigation, he was invited to a number of hearings to put his side of the story, but did not attend because he was ill – depressed or stressed. Eventually, having followed all the correct procedures, the school dismissed him because he had been off sick for too long. . He then took his case to an Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge, Andrew Buchanan, said his illness was triggered by his own actions – “If he had not acted in the way that he did towards that former pupil, he would not have had reason to be stressed and anxious and he would not have become ill.” He said Mark’s “culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100 per cent” and that “he was the author of his own unfortunate illness”. . The GTC has now agreed with the NSPCC and the tribunal judge that the emails were “highly inappropriate,” and that “there is sufficient evidence from the emails and from previous matters concerning his professional conduct to conclude that Mr Walker’s behaviour has resulted in his conduct being less than one would expect of a teacher placed in a position of trust.” . No-one, so far, has revealed the content of those emails except Mark’s erstwhile ally, Kevin Scott, former North East Organiser for the BNP, who now runs a website which he has ironically titled “Civil Liberty.” Great sense of humour for a fascist! This is what he wrote on the website: . “Patrick Harrington and Civil Liberty director, Kevin Scott, agreed that Mark Walker should have his day in court in order to clear his name. As a result, Civil Liberty agreed to partially fund Mark Walker's case after he was dismissed from his teaching job for his sickness record in December 2008. At the subsequent Employment Tribunal in Newcastle, the sexually explicit emails were read to the court and despite Pat Harrington's best efforts to expose the duplicity and connivance of the school authorities, trade unions and local council in Mark Walker's persecution, the case was lost. At the end of one of the emails, Mark Walker, a married man with a young daughter who appears on BNP publicity material as a contented family man, had written: "I love to f u c k!" Later, Kevin Scott was asked by Patrick Harrington to give evidence on behalf of Mark Walker at a GTC hearing which would determine his future as a teacher. Kevin Scott declined. Civil Liberty stands by its campaign to protect Mark Walker's right to free association and free speech, but withdrew its support once the Employment Tribunal was lost earlier this year.” . I have always argued that Mark was innocent until proven guilty. He has now been comprehensively proven guilty. I have also argued that we do not need this sort of scandal to expose the BNP for what it is – a racist, neo-Nazi organisation. . BNP supporters who try to defend Mark are doing him no favours. The suggestion that the school, the NSPCC, the GTC and the Employment Tribunal judge are all part of a politically- motivated “witch-hunt” is frankly ludicrous. . I personally find Mark’s conduct revolting and creepy, and I am glad he can no longer teach. But, as he has always said, he has not broken the law. Should he not now be left to fade quietly into obscurity, and pick up the pieces of his life? Pete Winstanley
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote:
Ahhh, the age-old tale of boy-meets-girl and the complications which ensue. Wait. I mean man meets girl. No. Teacher meets pupil. Hold on, I mean almost 40yr old meets almost adult. * There's an unusual amount of pro-BNP visitors to this local rag’s story and whilst they may have convinced a few weak-minded dullards, I'm still not buying it.
Welcome back to the 'debate' - I knew you'd just have to reply. So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?
.
;o) lolly ;o)
FFS, can everyone STOP using emoticons and LOLs all the time – I just can’t stand it (and they’re definitely not in the rules that I made up ;o)
*
Just because you finally managed to avoid my ‘bare trap’ at the 50th time of asking, does not now qualify you as worthy. You still have much to learn and you remain devoid of objectivity. Now jog on and play with one of your ‘blue blinkered’ or new-found BNP buddies ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: Ahhh, the age-old tale of boy-meets-girl and the complications which ensue. Wait. I mean man meets girl. No. Teacher meets pupil. Hold on, I mean almost 40yr old meets almost adult. * There's an unusual amount of pro-BNP visitors to this local rag’s story and whilst they may have convinced a few weak-minded dullards, I'm still not buying it.[/p][/quote]Welcome back to the 'debate' - I knew you'd just have to reply. So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then? . ;o) lolly ;o)[/p][/quote]FFS, can everyone STOP using emoticons and LOLs all the time – I just can’t stand it (and they’re definitely not in the rules that I made up ;o) * Just because you finally managed to avoid my ‘bare trap’ at the 50th time of asking, does not now qualify you as worthy. You still have much to learn and you remain devoid of objectivity. Now jog on and play with one of your ‘blue blinkered’ or new-found BNP buddies ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Tue 8 Nov 11

antihypocrisy says...

Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit.

Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.
Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family. antihypocrisy
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Tue 8 Nov 11

Dean M says...

antihypocrisy wrote:
Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.
Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish.
.
By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon.
.
Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head.
.
Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.
[quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish. . By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon. . Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head. . Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny. Dean M
  • Score: 0

2:50am Wed 9 Nov 11

jordanc93 says...

Pete Winstanley wrote:
I wonder if we can knock this on the head once and for all?
.
Mark Walker was not sacked because of the emails, nor because he was a member of the BNP, but because of his sickness record. Following the NSPCC investigation, he was invited to a number of hearings to put his side of the story, but did not attend because he was ill – depressed or stressed. Eventually, having followed all the correct procedures, the school dismissed him because he had been off sick for too long.
.
He then took his case to an Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge, Andrew Buchanan, said his illness was triggered by his own actions – “If he had not acted in the way that he did towards that former pupil, he would not have had reason to be stressed and anxious and he would not have become ill.” He said Mark’s “culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100 per cent” and that “he was the author of his own unfortunate illness”.
.
The GTC has now agreed with the NSPCC and the tribunal judge that the emails were “highly inappropriate,” and that “there is sufficient evidence from the emails and from previous matters concerning his professional conduct to conclude that Mr Walker’s behaviour has resulted in his conduct being less than one would expect of a teacher placed in a position of trust.”
.
No-one, so far, has revealed the content of those emails except Mark’s erstwhile ally, Kevin Scott, former North East Organiser for the BNP, who now runs a website which he has ironically titled “Civil Liberty.” Great sense of humour for a fascist! This is what he wrote on the website:
.
“Patrick Harrington and Civil Liberty director, Kevin Scott, agreed that Mark Walker should have his day in court in order to clear his name. As a result, Civil Liberty agreed to partially fund Mark Walker's case after he was dismissed from his teaching job for his sickness record in December 2008.

At the subsequent Employment Tribunal in Newcastle, the sexually explicit emails were read to the court and despite Pat Harrington's best efforts to expose the duplicity and connivance of the school authorities, trade unions and local council in Mark Walker's persecution, the case was lost. At the end of one of the emails, Mark Walker, a married man with a young daughter who appears on BNP publicity material as a contented family man, had written: "I love to f u c k!"

Later, Kevin Scott was asked by Patrick Harrington to give evidence on behalf of Mark Walker at a GTC hearing which would determine his future as a teacher. Kevin Scott declined.

Civil Liberty stands by its campaign to protect Mark Walker's right to free association and free speech, but withdrew its support once the Employment Tribunal was lost earlier this year.”
.
I have always argued that Mark was innocent until proven guilty. He has now been comprehensively proven guilty. I have also argued that we do not need this sort of scandal to expose the BNP for what it is – a racist, neo-Nazi organisation.
.
BNP supporters who try to defend Mark are doing him no favours. The suggestion that the school, the NSPCC, the GTC and the Employment Tribunal judge are all part of a politically- motivated “witch-hunt” is frankly ludicrous.
.
I personally find Mark’s conduct revolting and creepy, and I am glad he can no longer teach. But, as he has always said, he has not broken the law. Should he not now be left to fade quietly into obscurity, and pick up the pieces of his life?
You seem to have forgot to mention the fact that the school had asked mark to show evidence that he was ill in the form of a sick note and he refused to. So no wonder they sacked him!. They do legal have every right to ask for evidence of sickness when you are off for a long period of time and he simply refused to give them it. So it's his own fault he got the sack in the end.
[quote][p][bold]Pete Winstanley[/bold] wrote: I wonder if we can knock this on the head once and for all? . Mark Walker was not sacked because of the emails, nor because he was a member of the BNP, but because of his sickness record. Following the NSPCC investigation, he was invited to a number of hearings to put his side of the story, but did not attend because he was ill – depressed or stressed. Eventually, having followed all the correct procedures, the school dismissed him because he had been off sick for too long. . He then took his case to an Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge, Andrew Buchanan, said his illness was triggered by his own actions – “If he had not acted in the way that he did towards that former pupil, he would not have had reason to be stressed and anxious and he would not have become ill.” He said Mark’s “culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100 per cent” and that “he was the author of his own unfortunate illness”. . The GTC has now agreed with the NSPCC and the tribunal judge that the emails were “highly inappropriate,” and that “there is sufficient evidence from the emails and from previous matters concerning his professional conduct to conclude that Mr Walker’s behaviour has resulted in his conduct being less than one would expect of a teacher placed in a position of trust.” . No-one, so far, has revealed the content of those emails except Mark’s erstwhile ally, Kevin Scott, former North East Organiser for the BNP, who now runs a website which he has ironically titled “Civil Liberty.” Great sense of humour for a fascist! This is what he wrote on the website: . “Patrick Harrington and Civil Liberty director, Kevin Scott, agreed that Mark Walker should have his day in court in order to clear his name. As a result, Civil Liberty agreed to partially fund Mark Walker's case after he was dismissed from his teaching job for his sickness record in December 2008. At the subsequent Employment Tribunal in Newcastle, the sexually explicit emails were read to the court and despite Pat Harrington's best efforts to expose the duplicity and connivance of the school authorities, trade unions and local council in Mark Walker's persecution, the case was lost. At the end of one of the emails, Mark Walker, a married man with a young daughter who appears on BNP publicity material as a contented family man, had written: "I love to f u c k!" Later, Kevin Scott was asked by Patrick Harrington to give evidence on behalf of Mark Walker at a GTC hearing which would determine his future as a teacher. Kevin Scott declined. Civil Liberty stands by its campaign to protect Mark Walker's right to free association and free speech, but withdrew its support once the Employment Tribunal was lost earlier this year.” . I have always argued that Mark was innocent until proven guilty. He has now been comprehensively proven guilty. I have also argued that we do not need this sort of scandal to expose the BNP for what it is – a racist, neo-Nazi organisation. . BNP supporters who try to defend Mark are doing him no favours. The suggestion that the school, the NSPCC, the GTC and the Employment Tribunal judge are all part of a politically- motivated “witch-hunt” is frankly ludicrous. . I personally find Mark’s conduct revolting and creepy, and I am glad he can no longer teach. But, as he has always said, he has not broken the law. Should he not now be left to fade quietly into obscurity, and pick up the pieces of his life?[/p][/quote]You seem to have forgot to mention the fact that the school had asked mark to show evidence that he was ill in the form of a sick note and he refused to. So no wonder they sacked him!. They do legal have every right to ask for evidence of sickness when you are off for a long period of time and he simply refused to give them it. So it's his own fault he got the sack in the end. jordanc93
  • Score: 0

2:50am Wed 9 Nov 11

jordanc93 says...

Pete Winstanley wrote:
I wonder if we can knock this on the head once and for all?
.
Mark Walker was not sacked because of the emails, nor because he was a member of the BNP, but because of his sickness record. Following the NSPCC investigation, he was invited to a number of hearings to put his side of the story, but did not attend because he was ill – depressed or stressed. Eventually, having followed all the correct procedures, the school dismissed him because he had been off sick for too long.
.
He then took his case to an Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge, Andrew Buchanan, said his illness was triggered by his own actions – “If he had not acted in the way that he did towards that former pupil, he would not have had reason to be stressed and anxious and he would not have become ill.” He said Mark’s “culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100 per cent” and that “he was the author of his own unfortunate illness”.
.
The GTC has now agreed with the NSPCC and the tribunal judge that the emails were “highly inappropriate,” and that “there is sufficient evidence from the emails and from previous matters concerning his professional conduct to conclude that Mr Walker’s behaviour has resulted in his conduct being less than one would expect of a teacher placed in a position of trust.”
.
No-one, so far, has revealed the content of those emails except Mark’s erstwhile ally, Kevin Scott, former North East Organiser for the BNP, who now runs a website which he has ironically titled “Civil Liberty.” Great sense of humour for a fascist! This is what he wrote on the website:
.
“Patrick Harrington and Civil Liberty director, Kevin Scott, agreed that Mark Walker should have his day in court in order to clear his name. As a result, Civil Liberty agreed to partially fund Mark Walker's case after he was dismissed from his teaching job for his sickness record in December 2008.

At the subsequent Employment Tribunal in Newcastle, the sexually explicit emails were read to the court and despite Pat Harrington's best efforts to expose the duplicity and connivance of the school authorities, trade unions and local council in Mark Walker's persecution, the case was lost. At the end of one of the emails, Mark Walker, a married man with a young daughter who appears on BNP publicity material as a contented family man, had written: "I love to f u c k!"

Later, Kevin Scott was asked by Patrick Harrington to give evidence on behalf of Mark Walker at a GTC hearing which would determine his future as a teacher. Kevin Scott declined.

Civil Liberty stands by its campaign to protect Mark Walker's right to free association and free speech, but withdrew its support once the Employment Tribunal was lost earlier this year.”
.
I have always argued that Mark was innocent until proven guilty. He has now been comprehensively proven guilty. I have also argued that we do not need this sort of scandal to expose the BNP for what it is – a racist, neo-Nazi organisation.
.
BNP supporters who try to defend Mark are doing him no favours. The suggestion that the school, the NSPCC, the GTC and the Employment Tribunal judge are all part of a politically- motivated “witch-hunt” is frankly ludicrous.
.
I personally find Mark’s conduct revolting and creepy, and I am glad he can no longer teach. But, as he has always said, he has not broken the law. Should he not now be left to fade quietly into obscurity, and pick up the pieces of his life?
You seem to have forgot to mention the fact that the school had asked mark to show evidence that he was ill in the form of a sick note and he refused to. So no wonder they sacked him!. They do legal have every right to ask for evidence of sickness when you are off for a long period of time and he simply refused to give them it. So it's his own fault he got the sack in the end.
[quote][p][bold]Pete Winstanley[/bold] wrote: I wonder if we can knock this on the head once and for all? . Mark Walker was not sacked because of the emails, nor because he was a member of the BNP, but because of his sickness record. Following the NSPCC investigation, he was invited to a number of hearings to put his side of the story, but did not attend because he was ill – depressed or stressed. Eventually, having followed all the correct procedures, the school dismissed him because he had been off sick for too long. . He then took his case to an Employment Tribunal. The presiding judge, Andrew Buchanan, said his illness was triggered by his own actions – “If he had not acted in the way that he did towards that former pupil, he would not have had reason to be stressed and anxious and he would not have become ill.” He said Mark’s “culpable and blameworthy conduct contributed to his dismissal to the extent of 100 per cent” and that “he was the author of his own unfortunate illness”. . The GTC has now agreed with the NSPCC and the tribunal judge that the emails were “highly inappropriate,” and that “there is sufficient evidence from the emails and from previous matters concerning his professional conduct to conclude that Mr Walker’s behaviour has resulted in his conduct being less than one would expect of a teacher placed in a position of trust.” . No-one, so far, has revealed the content of those emails except Mark’s erstwhile ally, Kevin Scott, former North East Organiser for the BNP, who now runs a website which he has ironically titled “Civil Liberty.” Great sense of humour for a fascist! This is what he wrote on the website: . “Patrick Harrington and Civil Liberty director, Kevin Scott, agreed that Mark Walker should have his day in court in order to clear his name. As a result, Civil Liberty agreed to partially fund Mark Walker's case after he was dismissed from his teaching job for his sickness record in December 2008. At the subsequent Employment Tribunal in Newcastle, the sexually explicit emails were read to the court and despite Pat Harrington's best efforts to expose the duplicity and connivance of the school authorities, trade unions and local council in Mark Walker's persecution, the case was lost. At the end of one of the emails, Mark Walker, a married man with a young daughter who appears on BNP publicity material as a contented family man, had written: "I love to f u c k!" Later, Kevin Scott was asked by Patrick Harrington to give evidence on behalf of Mark Walker at a GTC hearing which would determine his future as a teacher. Kevin Scott declined. Civil Liberty stands by its campaign to protect Mark Walker's right to free association and free speech, but withdrew its support once the Employment Tribunal was lost earlier this year.” . I have always argued that Mark was innocent until proven guilty. He has now been comprehensively proven guilty. I have also argued that we do not need this sort of scandal to expose the BNP for what it is – a racist, neo-Nazi organisation. . BNP supporters who try to defend Mark are doing him no favours. The suggestion that the school, the NSPCC, the GTC and the Employment Tribunal judge are all part of a politically- motivated “witch-hunt” is frankly ludicrous. . I personally find Mark’s conduct revolting and creepy, and I am glad he can no longer teach. But, as he has always said, he has not broken the law. Should he not now be left to fade quietly into obscurity, and pick up the pieces of his life?[/p][/quote]You seem to have forgot to mention the fact that the school had asked mark to show evidence that he was ill in the form of a sick note and he refused to. So no wonder they sacked him!. They do legal have every right to ask for evidence of sickness when you are off for a long period of time and he simply refused to give them it. So it's his own fault he got the sack in the end. jordanc93
  • Score: 0

11:41am Wed 9 Nov 11

house fly says...

Take away the name and politics you are then left with a teacher who sent inappropriate e-mails to a pupil at the school. Pete W has given a good pre-amble eg independant NSPCC report and the circumstances around his sacking. How many parents would want their teenage daughters to be taught by this teacher. The GTC was right in their judgement, however he can appeal.
Take away the name and politics you are then left with a teacher who sent inappropriate e-mails to a pupil at the school. Pete W has given a good pre-amble eg independant NSPCC report and the circumstances around his sacking. How many parents would want their teenage daughters to be taught by this teacher. The GTC was right in their judgement, however he can appeal. house fly
  • Score: 0

11:43am Wed 9 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Dean M wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote:
Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.
Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish.
.
By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon.
.
Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head.
.
Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.
Lol - Dean M - "So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?"
*
'those few' - you're such an idiot. You’re so arrogant that you assume everyone else is as gullible as you having fallen for the pathetic BNP mitigation.
*
No, I'd venture that 'most of us' are still not buying it - not since the start. Why don't you try and pretend that you weren't a complete mug in the first place - your usual denial nonsense ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish. . By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon. . Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head. . Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.[/p][/quote]Lol - Dean M - "So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?" * 'those few' - you're such an idiot. You’re so arrogant that you assume everyone else is as gullible as you having fallen for the pathetic BNP mitigation. * No, I'd venture that 'most of us' are still not buying it - not since the start. Why don't you try and pretend that you weren't a complete mug in the first place - your usual denial nonsense ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

11:55am Wed 9 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Pete Molloy wrote:
Dean M wrote:
But surely this 'Judy Moorhouse' is likely to have still discussed the case with other members of the panel? Both before, and perhaps after, being removed?
She well may have done, but with the education establishment so anti-BNP how do we know the emails have not been construde for the GTC's own motives?
Lol - a brace of morons ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Pete Molloy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: But surely this 'Judy Moorhouse' is likely to have still discussed the case with other members of the panel? Both before, and perhaps after, being removed?[/p][/quote]She well may have done, but with the education establishment so anti-BNP how do we know the emails have not been construde for the GTC's own motives?[/p][/quote]Lol - a brace of morons ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Wed 9 Nov 11

Dean M says...

Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote: Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.
Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish. . By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon. . Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head. . Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.
Lol - Dean M - "So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?" * 'those few' - you're such an idiot. You’re so arrogant that you assume everyone else is as gullible as you having fallen for the pathetic BNP mitigation. * No, I'd venture that 'most of us' are still not buying it - not since the start. Why don't you try and pretend that you weren't a complete mug in the first place - your usual denial nonsense ;o)
Yep, as expected, the same old 'you're an idiot' moronic chant. Funny.
.
You click 'quote' and then refer to a sentence that isn't there. Clever.
.
I see my 'You're one of those few...' comment went right over your head, sweetheart. And you start waffling on about 'most of us' blah, blah.
.
Really, mooochas, you should read things properly, and you must try harder.
[quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish. . By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon. . Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head. . Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.[/p][/quote]Lol - Dean M - "So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?" * 'those few' - you're such an idiot. You’re so arrogant that you assume everyone else is as gullible as you having fallen for the pathetic BNP mitigation. * No, I'd venture that 'most of us' are still not buying it - not since the start. Why don't you try and pretend that you weren't a complete mug in the first place - your usual denial nonsense ;o)[/p][/quote]Yep, as expected, the same old 'you're an idiot' moronic chant. Funny. . You click 'quote' and then refer to a sentence that isn't there. Clever. . I see my 'You're one of those few...' comment went right over your head, sweetheart. And you start waffling on about 'most of us' blah, blah. . Really, mooochas, you should read things properly, and you must try harder. Dean M
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Wed 9 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

Dean M wrote:
Mooochas wrote:
Dean M wrote:
antihypocrisy wrote: Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.
Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish. . By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon. . Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head. . Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.
Lol - Dean M - "So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?" * 'those few' - you're such an idiot. You’re so arrogant that you assume everyone else is as gullible as you having fallen for the pathetic BNP mitigation. * No, I'd venture that 'most of us' are still not buying it - not since the start. Why don't you try and pretend that you weren't a complete mug in the first place - your usual denial nonsense ;o)
Yep, as expected, the same old 'you're an idiot' moronic chant. Funny.
.
You click 'quote' and then refer to a sentence that isn't there. Clever.
.
I see my 'You're one of those few...' comment went right over your head, sweetheart. And you start waffling on about 'most of us' blah, blah.
.
Really, mooochas, you should read things properly, and you must try harder.
Lol - more denial. More hair-splitting. The additional quoted drivel was added on purpose, you idiot ;o)
*
But, I meant, I meant... of course you did. That's why you were kissing up to your BNP friends suggesting that Judy Moorhouse may have corrupted the jury and perverted the outcome of the hearing.
*
'try harder'? you should try less - you're fooling nobody ;o)
[quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mooochas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dean M[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]antihypocrisy[/bold] wrote: Almost an interesting debate, just the usual childish games by troll...get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend why don't you instead of deliberately trying to mar the debate with childish games It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit. Peter Winstanly has, for me, summed it up exactly and, as my last comment, I would like to express my sympathy to this creeps wife and family.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, oh dear. Talks about childish games and then says 'get yourself out for a change and try and find a friend' and 'It must be awfully lonely in your little bedsit'. How childish. . By the way, listen to your new girlfriend, this is not a 'debate' (or a forum) it's a comments section. Abuse may be on its way to you very soon. . Mooochas. No...stop. Listen to Pete W, it's time to stop stalking and knock this one on the head. . Go on then, reply. The same reply. Several times over. It's funny.[/p][/quote]Lol - Dean M - "So you're one of those few that aren't buying it then?" * 'those few' - you're such an idiot. You’re so arrogant that you assume everyone else is as gullible as you having fallen for the pathetic BNP mitigation. * No, I'd venture that 'most of us' are still not buying it - not since the start. Why don't you try and pretend that you weren't a complete mug in the first place - your usual denial nonsense ;o)[/p][/quote]Yep, as expected, the same old 'you're an idiot' moronic chant. Funny. . You click 'quote' and then refer to a sentence that isn't there. Clever. . I see my 'You're one of those few...' comment went right over your head, sweetheart. And you start waffling on about 'most of us' blah, blah. . Really, mooochas, you should read things properly, and you must try harder.[/p][/quote]Lol - more denial. More hair-splitting. The additional quoted drivel was added on purpose, you idiot ;o) * But, I meant, I meant... of course you did. That's why you were kissing up to your BNP friends suggesting that Judy Moorhouse may have corrupted the jury and perverted the outcome of the hearing. * 'try harder'? you should try less - you're fooling nobody ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Wed 9 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

What? - no more excuses? ...I doubt it'll last
*
Whatever. I'm done with this thread and with you ...again ;o)
*
Have fun talking to yourself ;o)
What? - no more excuses? ...I doubt it'll last * Whatever. I'm done with this thread and with you ...again ;o) * Have fun talking to yourself ;o) Mooochas
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Wed 9 Nov 11

Dean M says...

What - disappointed that I didn't reply as quickly as you'd like? So now you're done with the thread. Diddums.
.
You're still unable to read, 'cos there's no denial from me in my last comment. You make it up as you go along. 'The additional quoted drivel...' yeah, yeah, of course it was.
.
You obviously still haven't 'got' my 'one of those few' comment, so you come out, as usual, with a load of other nonsense to try and cover yourself. It's only yourself you're fooling, daft girl.
What - disappointed that I didn't reply as quickly as you'd like? So now you're done with the thread. Diddums. . You're still unable to read, 'cos there's no denial from me in my last comment. You make it up as you go along. 'The additional quoted drivel...' yeah, yeah, of course it was. . You obviously still haven't 'got' my 'one of those few' comment, so you come out, as usual, with a load of other nonsense to try and cover yourself. It's only yourself you're fooling, daft girl. Dean M
  • Score: 0

7:58pm Wed 9 Nov 11

Pete Winstanley says...

Will you two children stop squabbling this instant, and go to bed!!
Will you two children stop squabbling this instant, and go to bed!! Pete Winstanley
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Wed 9 Nov 11

Drit Drit says...

Samantha Fox was 16 when she first appeared on page 3 of The Sun. Any man who says he wouldn't respond to an email from her (not that it was invented then) is either a liar or a homosexual. Please don't twist about him grooming this 16/17 (depending which Echo article you read) year old former pupil because he never taught her and never even met up with her. That's probably why he is only banned for 2 years. Another important fact omitted from the above article.
Samantha Fox was 16 when she first appeared on page 3 of The Sun. Any man who says he wouldn't respond to an email from her (not that it was invented then) is either a liar or a homosexual. Please don't twist about him grooming this 16/17 (depending which Echo article you read) year old former pupil because he never taught her and never even met up with her. That's probably why he is only banned for 2 years. Another important fact omitted from the above article. Drit Drit
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Thu 10 Nov 11

house fly says...

If what drit drat says is true, he is only banned for 2 years, what school would employ him as a teacher?
If what drit drat says is true, he is only banned for 2 years, what school would employ him as a teacher? house fly
  • Score: 0

11:10pm Thu 10 Nov 11

house fly says...

Sorry drit drit hit the wrong key
Sorry drit drit hit the wrong key house fly
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Mon 14 Nov 11

Mooochas says...

http://www.gtce.org.
uk/regulation/discip
linary_orders/225592
/
http://www.gtce.org. uk/regulation/discip linary_orders/225592 / Mooochas
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree