B.C. teacher banned for viewing porn at school

[Almost Happy Housewife]

Now which one of you is it :neutral: :slap:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/03/29/bc-teacher-banned-porn.html

The B.C. College of Teachers has disciplined an Abbotsford teacher who admitted to viewing adult pornography on school computers and having inappropriate thoughts about students. Carl Williamson has been banned from getting teaching certification in the province for at least 20 years after a school security investigation at the Mennonite Educational Institute last year caught him looking at porn.


The Grade 6 teacher also admitted spending $8,000 on prostitutes and escorts, according to a conduct review decision by the college, the regulatory group for teachers. "Mr. Williamson acknowledged that he had inappropriate sexual thoughts about students between the ages of 12 and 18," the decision said.


It was not the first time Williamson has been reported for viewing porn on school computers. The college decided not to take action against him in May 2007.
The second conduct review yielded a different outcome, according to college spokesman Mykle Ludvigsen.


"In this case, unfortunately, obviously, there was a second case that came forward and then that was dealt with obviously in a different manner," Ludvigsen said.
Police investigated, but no charges were laid. Earlier this month, the college accepted an agreed statement of facts and imposed the teaching certificate prohibition.


The Mennonite Educational Institute's principal would not comment, except to say the incident has been "traumatic" for the school.


Williamson did not respond Tuesday to interview requests from the CBC.

 

[Heline B]

Mennonite huh........LOL.

Now I see where the 20year ban comes from.

 

[Khushbakht]

I don't know about the ban for viewing porn, but admitting he had thoughts about students?

How dumb is he?

I worked for a couple of companies who made you sign an agreement to not use the work computers for:
personal business
viewing adult oriented sites
downloading of anything without IT's permission (in writing).
Modification of the compter in any way shape or form, including software.

Any, all or some of the above could be terms for immediate dismissal.

 

[COD.warrior]

VERY !!!

 

[Joe Fish]

 

[The Other One]

This is an awful situation and I would not side with the teacher. I can't for the life of me understand why he disclosed his use of escorts or thoughts of young students with the exception of getting himself help. As for the use of school property to watch porn, he should have been fired, not suspended! His name placed on a red flag list with boards of education across Canada. He's not a sex offender but he is unscrupulous, and it's better to be safe. It's possible he discussed his use of escorts and thoughts as feelings of guilt. However, we have no room to error with our children.

In Canada, anyone that works or volunteers with children, seniors, disabled or animals must have:
1. CPIC check
2. Vulnerable Sector Search

The problem with these searches is they are obsolete and soon as you get them back, and many situations, it's only required once. As a volunteer coach, it has to be done bi-annually, if you switch leagues in the second year, you must get another search done. Let's say you coach three different sports, technically you need three checks that are good for two years. Sport Canada and all sport alliances have mandated this. If a prospective coach, volunteer refuses, they can't coach. It's similar that coaches/volunteers must achieve levels of coaching theory, technical, practical, each level goes more in-depth about child development and risk management from level 1-3. Level 4 & 5 becomes a university degree based on high level performance. As coaches at these levels are still required to provide checks and vulnerable sector checks.

I am not sure how teachers are dealt with, but it would be prudent to check bi-annually for the length of their career. In fact, day care, playground, early education, after school programs, bus drivers, lunch room workers, school administrative and cleaning staff, life-gaurds, any type of coach. It's for your safety just as much as the agencies, group, organization and its patrons.

I've coached sports for over 20 years, elite club basketball and coached both genders. My rules are simple, parents take your shifts for remaining at practise. If there is not 3 parents staying at practise, it's cancelled. When practise is over, that parent group must stay until the others have been picked up or carpooled. When practise is over, I leave, those parents stay with the kids.

During games, two designated parents will be in the locker room before the game, halftime and after the game. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE will I give a player (somone else's child) a ride to or from activities. Risk Management! The parents have always been great because I don't have a child participating, I coach to teach and train young athletes so they are prepared for the next level. Part of the first meeting players, parents, I say, "My time is important, please don't abuse or waste it" Never had a problem.

Situations like this teacher happen in other careers: Police, Fire, Medics, Nurses, Homecare, Group Homes, Youth Jails and Adult Jails. In my career, it has been more female employees having inappropriate relationships than men. You have to be in constant communication and sight of your co-workers to cover yourself from false statements.

I have a good friend that owns a large commercial roofing company and they get contracts at Universities, Colleges, High-Schools, Malls, etc, and it's a large family owned operation. They tell the roofers, if a pretty co-ed or group of them is walking around, you have 5 seconds to look, at 5 seconds you're staring and it's creepy (he fines them, sends them home and has fired a few).

I was at a manager's in-service training prior to it being put to all subordinates and the facilitators Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Social Workers, EAP practitioners all said that it's absolutely fine to admire attractiveness for a moment, but not glare, not stare, not follow, not touch, not take advantage of, not flirt and not hurt in anyway.

Think of your own children. Your daughter is starting high school and so are all her friends that you've known for years. One day you notice them by your pool and you place your hands on your face and say, "They're all growing up and out!" Lord help me! Subsequently, your strapping young athletic son is a sports hero, and your SO says, "Mrs Simpson offered Wilmer Vilderada a job, cutting grass, cleaning her pool, running some errands." Proud dad says, that great. Your SO says, "Well I'm concerned alittle because Mr. Simpson is 89 and living in a retirement community, and Mrs. Simpson is 29 (again) hot and lonely! You being the proud papa say, "It'll be good for the boy to use balls, I mean grow some balls. Then you say to your SO, "Well, I culd always go over work on Mrs. Simpson indoors and Vilmer can have her outdoors." Here SO, take the unlimited credit and go shopping for 6 hours and pick up some liquor and beer please. I think there's gonna be alot work in the Simpson house for the boy and I.

LMAO

 

[snowball45830]

Your last paragragh hoffman sums up what I've been preaching lately: the hypocrasy among the sexes. What is "applauded" for young men is "appalling" for young women. I'm not sure if you're being saracastic with it or not, but it only points out how distorted many's views on the subject are.

Take that recent "cop" incident for example, I don't think anyone had the balls to admit that if the cop was a 20 yr old female, no one would have an issue with it. I don't care, I believe in equality among the sexes: if it's a 20 yr old male/14 yr old female, 20 yr old female/14 yr old male, if one is acceptable, then both are.......