Rachel Whitwell - Teacher's Pet

13 Jan 2010 08:27p.m.

hammer wrote:

slapper

14 Dec 2009 09:05p.m.

Chloe wrote:

we live in an age were the more part of the population are interested in personal gratification and no morals. somehow, we have mostly come to believe that morals are a waste of time and are outdated or perhaps just an empty hinderance. I have christian values and as a result my heart says that a womans intimate body is for her husband and not for all the world. steve crow seems to me a man who has lost this great treasure to money and lust. i hope there are people out there who recognise a slippery slope and relize that it will not stop here and it will not be ok when all is said and done. and TO YOU WOMEN! dont cast your pearls before swine. you are worth so much more. Chloe

14 Nov 2009 12:47a.m.

Ramlin77 wrote:

She appears to be very focused on what she wants, prompts to her! As a mother I have no problem if she were my kids teacher. She is a mother herself, my thoughts are as long as she does her job effectively there is no problem. The problem is the schools inability to separate a teachers personal life to his/her working life. What she does after hours like the kids is their business. Peter Lynn..........get a life!!!!!

13 Nov 2009 05:07p.m.

Richard Allen wrote:

It isn't correct that Steve Crow has made the only commercial adult film. I was in the first one made by Glitter Films which is a New Zealand adult production company. Actually they made JOHN the first gay adult film 100% made in New Zealand. JOHN was in the Berlin Porn Film Festival in 2008. Glitter Films have made other commerical adult films (but I wasn't in them cause the other have girls in.)

13 Nov 2009 03:29p.m.

Miss wrote:

I remain open-minded about each person's career choices. If people want to strip in front of a camera for a quick buck, then more power to them. Why not when the demand is definitely there? HOWEVER, there are certain careers that have always and should always adhere to a certain moral code. The Police force, teachers, medical professionals and lawyers just to name a few. I am not religious but do believe that we need to be to hold onto some values. For example, take someone who is convicted of drink-driving ONCE and then never touches a drop of alcohol for the rest of their life. If they wanted to join the Police force, they will not be accepted. Regardless of how long since their conviction, regardless of their ongoing lifestyle choices and regardless of whether they become the next Alcoholics Anonymous President. That person would simply need to accept that their past mistake will always haunt them. Your show disclosed details of cases where teachers have been caught red-handed and disallowed to continue teaching. That is great. One can't however then go on to say that they did something worse than I did, my evil is the lesser of the two, so I should be forgiven. So now I will cut to the chase. Rachel, if you want to make easy money, go for it. You have got the look that will get you that. If you want to be an inspiration to children, then do so with your daughter. I watched your show thinking I was going to hear some story about some hard-done-by solo mother who did what she had to do to get through a tough stage in your life. I was so disappointed to see that it appears to be just another Steve Crow publicity stunt. Steve, you have your parade and your legislation changes. You have gotten your way. Leave our kids out of it. Rachel, all the best to you but let's be honest, you are a poser. Keep up the nudity, it pays more anyway. You have made your choice so just live with it. Sorry NZ but her playground antics and cosy book-reading time didn't convince me.

13 Nov 2009 02:52p.m.

Jane Auckland wrote:

What a storm in a C cup. We need great teachers and I would imagine it would be a problem for her if she was teaching young teenage boys.....but she isn't. Go girl, you look great and keep learning from each experience.

13 Nov 2009 01:30p.m.

Lynda wrote:

I want good role models for my children. It wouldn't be good for children to know that there are nude photos out there of their teacher. It will drive a lot of them to try to look at them somehow, without their parents knowing, and the teacher would lose control of the class. Why do we walk around with clothes on anyway? One reason is to protect us from perverted people. We don't want our children going around thinking it is okay to strip! Regarding the other teachers mentioned on 60 minutes that did seriously wrong things - it seems to me that they should have been struck of the teacher's roll as well. Our teachers become heroes to some children, so they need to keep it clean and inspire our children to better things.

It seems to me that Rachel does have some regrets about her posing nude, otherwise why would she say she wouldn't do it again? Since she did it to "get back at her fiance," she probably wasn't thinking about what effect it would have on her teaching career. It seems to me that she is sad that she may not be able to teach again.

11 Nov 2009 10:46p.m.

Mr Rational wrote:

haha, did the reporter sound shocked that the 'rapist' "who worked as a teacher until his convictions were picked up, and only then was he struck off"? was he meant to be struck off before they knew of his convictions?

i think that getting and publishing nude pictures of yourself is inappropriate role-modeling for a teacher. however, this does not mean that i want her to be struck off. i think the shock of this whole incident will be deterrent enough for others who might be getting themselves into a similar position.

not being allowed to teach is the most severe punishment available to the teachers council and i really don't think they'll use it in this instance

11 Nov 2009 01:11p.m.

nita wrote:

I dont understand what is wrong, children wont be seeing pictures of her in the classroom, unless the parents leave the pictures laying around or give them access to the net and look at porn. we all know that porn is going to around for a long time
Why do teachers who sexually abuse children get away with it, and this teacher does not sexually touch or expose anything to the children. Just because she took her clothes off for a camera and had it on the internet does not mean that it is going to reflect on her teaching, if it did then she may need to be struck off.

11 Nov 2009 12:53p.m.

abg wrote:

I am an ECE teacher and man I am over the Ministry of Education bullocks. Here we have a teacher who is great at her job, is in it for the right reasons and is going to be lost because of some idiot who think he can play God and get rid of someone for whatever the complaint was he made up! Come on, her private life is exactly that...PRIVATE!!! There are teachers who do illegal things everyday and their superiors turn blind eyes and ignore it due to lack of staff...these naked photos aren't illegal and should never be of any significance in her role as a teacher. What is the problem exactly? If a random employee of telecom got drunk, crashed his car into parked cars on his way home would he lose his job? No, he would be dealt with by the courts (unless of course he wasn't caught) maybe he'd loose his licence for 6 months maybe a fine or community service but thats all....he wouldn't be sacked for his private affairs! It is simply ludicrous that this teacher could possibly be struck from teaching and all those 8 year old loose a good teacher because of having the need for money/attention whatever the reason! Man, it is 2010 people, not 210BC!!! Move forward,not backwards! Best of luck Rachel! Hopefully the teachers council get up on the right side of bed and make the right decision!