Teacher struck off after he told student to buy 'sl**ty' underwearApril 26, 2021
Sixth-form music teacher, 37, is struck off after he told A-level student to buy ‘sl**ty’ underwear and signed off text messages with kisses
- Harry White ‘groomed’ girl in The Sixth Form College Farnborough, Hampshire
- Started when he cast the A-Level student in ‘risque’ part for a musical at school
- Asked if she watched porn and described sex scene from show House of Cards
- Also asked the girl if she performed sex acts on herself, misconduct panel heard
Harry White, 37, (pictured) ‘groomed’ the girl in The Sixth Form College Farnborough, Hampshire, after casting her in ‘risque’ part for a musical and writing her poetry
A sixth-form music teacher has been struck off after he told an A-Level student to buy ‘sl**ty’ underwear and signed off text messages with kisses.
Harry White, 37, ‘groomed’ the girl in The Sixth Form College Farnborough, Hampshire, after casting her in ‘risque’ part for a musical and writing her poetry.
He then asked her if she watched pornography and described a graphic scene from hit TV show House of Cards ‘in which an older 50 year old politician had performed a sexual act on a 19 year old girl’.
While giving her a lift in his car he asked the girl if she performed sex acts on herself and on a college music trip he described a sexual dream he had, a misconduct panel heard.
The hearing was told that after the girl left the college he gave her gifts – including a poem – and they had a Skype call during which he performed a sex act on himself.
After leaving college to go to university the girl – identified only as Pupil A – and her parents wrote to the college complaining about his conduct.
White, now aged 37, was suspended. An investigation was carried out which resulted in him being dismissed for gross misconduct.
Now, the Teaching Regulation Agency has ruled that Mr White represents a danger to pupils and banned him from teaching.
A virtual misconduct panel hearing – which Mr White did not attend – was told that his behaviour began after he cast the girl in a college musical.
It was said that he ‘told Pupil A told to buy ‘sl**ty’ underwear that pushed her cleavage ‘up as much as possible’ for the role.
He made a comment in front of students that Pupil A gave a ‘right show’ when the stitching on her dress came undone’.
The panel were shown text messages the pair had exchanged and noted that ‘Mr White introduced putting kisses (‘xxx’) at the end of his text messages’ and that Pupil A had been shocked.
The ruling added: ‘The panel noted there was contemporaneous evidence that Mr White had contacted Pupil A about matters of a sexual nature or of a flirtatious nature and concluded it was more likely than not that this had occurred.’
This included a message in which he described the dress she would wear in the musical, saying: ‘I’m sure it’ll look amazing.’
The ruling stated: ‘The dress had been a revealing red dress for, as Mr White describes, a “risqué” part in the musical.’
Later, while playing a game of ‘four questions’ she said he asked her if she had ‘ever watched porn’.
The ruling stated that after this: ‘Pupil A informed Pupil J [another student] that Mr White had described a graphic sex scene to Pupil A in the television series “House of Cards” in which an older 50 year old politician had performed a sexual act on a 19 year old girl.’
While giving her a lift in his car, the hearing was told he put his hand on the girl’s knee and asked her an inappropriate question.
The panel was also shown a text message the girl sent a fellow pupil in which she said: ‘I was gonna keep this to myself but on Thursday night he was quite drunk and there was point when he hugged me and we both slowly pulled away and I thought he was gonna kiss me.’
A virtual misconduct panel hearing – which Mr White did not attend – was told that his behaviour began after he cast the girl in a college musical in 2015 at The Sixth Form College Farnborough
On a subsequent music trip he described a sexual dream he had to Pupil A and held her hand.
He gave her a number of gifts, including ‘a photograph of Mr White and his family… a poem which Mr White had written for Pupil A’.
After she left the college, White kept in touch and the panel was told he asked her to send him ‘photographs of Pupil A in underwear’ and ‘create and/or tell pornographic stories’.
He was also said to have told her ‘carry on’ and ‘that’s hot’ while performing sex acts on himself.
The panel heard he performed a sex act in front of Pupil A on a Skype video call, ruling: ‘Having considered all the evidence and the compelling oral evidence of Pupil A, the panel considered it was more likely than not that [these allegations] had taken place.
‘The panel gave more weight to the evidence of Pupil A as they considered she was a more credible witness than Mr White.’
White had denied all the allegations of a sexual nature.
But the panel noted they found ‘Pupil A to be a compelling and credible witness’ while White did not attend and ‘there were a number of inconsistencies in his evidence’.
In White’s statement he said: ‘We may well have exchanged about 30 pictures. These were all in the context of friendship.
‘Pupil A went shopping for swimwear, and asked if I wanted to see what she had bought. Likewise she described some new underwear and we spoke about it in as [sic] underwhelming, practical way.
‘Any pictures she sent didn’t show anything that you wouldn’t see on an average beach.’
White later asked her to delete correspondence between them.
The panel ruled that White had brought the profession into disrepute, that his ‘continuous pattern of extensive behaviour [was] consistent with the characteristics of grooming’ and he should be barred from teaching ‘indefinitely’.
It stated: ‘The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr White amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell considerably short of the standards expected of the teaching profession.
‘The panel considered that Mr White’s actions were deliberate and calculated… Mr White was an experienced teacher who had extensive training in safeguarding and would have been fully aware that the conduct he embarked on was wholly inappropriate.
‘The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a number of findings including, serious sexual misconduct, which was sexually motivated, failure to act with integrity, failure to follow school policies and procedures, failure to observe proper boundaries with pupils, failure to take appropriate steps to safeguard wellbeing of pupils.’
Source: Read Full Article