The ‘hero teacher’ who helped the student who attacked the knife was banned from class for making a video of the child’s bum

A “hero teacher” who once helped bring down a knife that attacked a student has been banned from class after recording footage of a child’s bum.

A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel heard David Stuss, a former teacher at Ridgewood High School in Stourbridge, reported to police after footage emerged of a child’s bum, who was described as “bending down to pick up an item”. ” was taken as.

Police investigated the 41-year-old, but the authorities decided not to take any further action.

Teenager who stabbed ex-girlfriend in Stourbridge gets 13 years in prison

It comes as Stuss was named as one of the heroes who brought down a knife-wielding man who attacked a student at the school gate in 2011.

Stalker Samuel Geiser-Tomlinson was sentenced to 13 years in prison after trying to kill his schoolgirl ex-girlfriend, Chloe West, in a frenzied knife attack.

A student named Stas as one of those heroes who brought down the knife and “jumped on it”.

He has now been banned from class indefinitely after the school sent him to the Teaching Regulation Agency after being told about footage recorded around November 2018.

Stuss was alleged to have taken a video of Child A while she was bending over, which “focused on her bottom”, was recorded without her consent, edited the video” who repeatedly shows the same image below of Child A” and was accused of his conduct to be “of a sexual nature or sexually motivated” by a Professional Conduct Panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency on 16 December.

Staus acknowledged that he was responsible for filming the initial footage that included Child A, but said it was taken in error and that he “did not focus on her bottom”. I acknowledge that any footage of Child A filmed would have been without his knowledge and consent.

He denied editing any footage and denied any sexual element in his works.

Giving evidence, Stuss said that he often inadvertently accidentally recorded footage, pocketed dials and broke or lost several other phones.

The panel observed that a lot of the footage does not appear to have been taken for any purpose.

Stay up to date with the latest information on the region with our Black Country email updates.

But he said Child A “appeared at the center of the footage” at some points. He continued: “From the beginning of the footage until 0:18, the footage shows Child A picking up an item, with a close-up below it.”

The panel held that the footage could not have been accidentally shot on a mobile phone camera. From the footage viewed by the panel, a person would have to hold the phone vertically, with a steady hand and point it directly at Child A continuously. In the panel’s view, it would be “highly improbable” that this may have happened by mistake.

So they found it to be proven that Stuss intentionally filmed child A from behind, and without the child’s knowledge or consent.

But the panel found that the TRA had failed to meet its burden of proof, showing that Stuss had edited any videos he had taken, and found that the allegation was not proven.

He continued: “In substantiating an allegation, the panel considered the only natural explanation for filming Child A from behind and for her own sexual gratification to focus below.

“As such, the Panel is satisfied that it is more likely that Mr. Stuss’s actions were not sexually motivated. Considering the purpose and context of the filming, which was to knowingly obtain footage of the floor of Child A, The panel concluded that the filming was also of a sexual nature.”

We send daily court and crime updates straight to your email inbox – sign up for them here

The panel was satisfied that Stuss’s conduct was “misconduct of a serious nature which was well below the standards expected of the profession”.

He noted that Stuss had a good past history and acknowledged that the incident appeared to be “out of character”.

The panel also noted that they “taken into account that Stuss was previously involved in an extremely serious incident at the school and had acted heroically after the knife attack and received police praise”.

He decided that the prohibition was “both proportionate and justified”, and was also concerned that Stuss was not able to display any remorse or insight into his behavior”.

John Knowles, who made the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State, said that the lack of insight meant that “there is some risk of repetition of this behavior, and it jeopardizes the future well-being of the students” and concluded that there is an injunction. proportionately and in the public interest.

Ridgewood High School has been asked for comment.

We send daily court and crime updates straight to your email inbox – sign up for them here