I dare say you saw the story yesterday about Benedict Garrett, good looking, hunky, talented young teacher, who was found guilty of ‘unacceptable professional conduct’.

Benedict’s crime was that he didn’t just stand in front of his class of year ten teenagers in a shirt and suit, teaching them sex education – he also, in his spare time, ‘unashamedly demonstrated the art of pleasure in the realms of fitness, sex and entertainment’.

Naturally we can’t have teachers going round telling impressionable young minds that sex is not all about getting shagged by five boys on the sopping wet floor of the local abandoned garage can we? Whatever is the world coming to when men such as Benedict can openly espouse the idea that sex might be sensual, a world of soft lighting, luxurious beds and beautiful people?

One of his young charges recognised Benedict when he was watching a ‘trailer for a porn movie’ – am I naïve to believe that the only place you would see a trailer for a porn movie would be at the start of another porn movie?

Still, ignore the circumstances, the game was up for young Benedict, no longer to be trusted to stand in front of vulnerable children in his suit and tie, now forced to recant his belief that he had done nothing illegal in order to continue his desire to be a ‘role model’ within a school community.

I have discovered a curious back story to the tale of Benedict Garrett, which appears to have been allowed to lie in silence, untroubled by the prurience of the main stream media.

At the same time that Benedict stood accused of being unfit to stand fully dressed behind a desk, merely talking to vulnerable pupils – another branch of Fabianista land, Hackney Social Services,  had judged him fit to share his home 24 hours a day with a vulnerable young man, taking charge of his upbringing. How very odd. Even odder that no one thought to mention this.

A local schoolboy had apparently been sent on what he believed was a two week stay to a Madrassa, one of the Islamic schools in Pakistan. Once there he discovered he had been signed up for a two YEAR stay.

Horrified, and not expecting any help from his family, he contacted his trusted teacher, who promptly paid his air fare, enabling him to return to England.

Benedict met the young boy at the airport and allowed him to stay at his home, where he remains to this day. An arrangement which is apparently sanctioned by Hackney Social Services. No reason why not, I am sure he is an admirable ‘foster parent’.

Benedict continues to work as a ‘naked butler’, ‘stripping policeman’ and adult film star.

Why would the General Teaching Council be more concerned about off-campus activity than Hackney Social Services? Is there really more possibility of perverting young minds during school-days with many other adults around than there is during evening, nights and week-ends at home? Is a higher standard of probity demanded of teachers than ‘foster parents’?

Why have the main stream media not mentioned these facts?

There is more than meets the eye to this story.

Engineer September 3, 2011 at 17:12

As the General Teaching Council are involved, it’s possible that Mr
Garrett’s sins are far worse than has been published. For example, it might
have come to light that he’s a secret Not-A-Guardian Reader (indrawn breath),
or even – horror of horrors – might have been heard to voice the opinion that
Free Schools might not be a bad idea. Such perversions are obviously of a far
greater magnitude than of being an erotic model in his time off, or even of
whipping his todger out in front of a class of giggling teenage girls (who are
almost bound to have seen it all before, anyway).

More seriously, I’m a great believer in the old saying with regard to sex –
what consenting adults get up to is their business and nobody else’s, but not
in front of the children and don’t frighten the horses. Given the amount of
sex education thrust down the throats of youngsters at school these days (pun
intended), part of that old saw is now redundant. Perhaps we should give
children their innocence back?

So far as I am aware, no horses were harmed in the making of this
comment.

gladiolys September 3, 2011 at 17:42

Disagree Mr Engineer. Sex education begins earlier in Europe, in a more
integrated fashion, and they have lower pregnancy rates than we do. Children
are curious anyway and by delaying sexual knowledge, it becomes more
mysterious, glamorous and doing it becomes more rebellious. Maybe we need to
make it (seem) more boring?

macheath September 3, 2011 at 18:01

Good point, Gladiolys, but one striking difference between the UK and
most of the rest of Europe is the social stigma still attached there to
under-age or unmarried pregnancy. In any case, the genie is firmly out of
the bottle these days thanks to modern communication technology and
carelessly indulgent parents.

These days, when Year 10 girls chatting happily in the schoool corridor
may well be comparing notes on internet porn or their boyfriends’ prowess
(I have overheard both, alas) and when many parents ignore or condone
under-age sex, what can the school do but ensure pupils have access to
adequate information about contraception and STDs?

Anna
Raccoon September 3, 2011 at
18:12

Waiting for lectures to start in Aberystwyth a few years ago, I heard
conversations that made my toes curl, and my heart went out to the poor
lads named and shamed, shared and bared, used and abused…….eye
opening!

Psychonaut99
September 3, 2011 at 16:39

Based on the small amount of info in the article, he also seems to be a
good egg, and exactly the sort of decent person you’d want teaching children
about being good to each other and stuff.

Joe Public September 3, 2011 at 16:11

Ah, a proper teacher, with ‘Practical’ experience of his subject.

He should be promoted, not persecuted.

macheath September
3, 2011 at 15:05

Once upon a time, in the high and far-off days before specialist teachers
like Mr Garrett, sex education was the preserve of the biology department, on
the understanding that such matters were best entrusted to the members of
staff already associated with nasty squishy things.

(Actually, the extent of such education in my Catholic school ran
more-or-less thus: “You’ll have heard about sexual intercourse, no doubt?
Well, ’tis a sin, so it is, and God is always watching, so you’d best be
leaving that sort of thing well alone!”)

Then came timetabled PSHE lessons for all and everyone in the staffroom was
press-ganged into service to deliver excruciating sessions on contraception,
STDs or ‘relationships’ to mixed groups of sniggering pupils – an experience
that ranks high on my list of ‘never-again!’ (actually I did the STD session
with a raucous sing-a-long of Tom Lehrer’s ‘I
Got It From Agnes’, but don’t tell the Head).

So actually I can’t see a problem here; Mr Garrett was hired to teach sex
education and – evidently – has relevant experience and knowledge*, and as a
bonus, spared his more reticent colleagues much embarrassment. The fact that
he has been allowed to continue fostering the boy suggests that the ruling is
no more than a sop to public opinion.