A former Head of Computing at Dane Court Grammar School has been barred from teaching young people for life after sending sexually inappropriate messages to a pupil, offering to buy her drugs and admitting he had been addicted to Ketamine for two years.
Shane Lycett taught at the school in Broadstairs between 2017 and 2024.
However, on 7 March 2024, concerns were raised by two sixth form pupils that Mr Lycett had been watching a pupil’s online platform in exchange for money and made a number of comments about her appearance, accepted a Facebook friend request, messaged her to say he would buy her a ‘ticket of 6 cocaine’ and that when she was 18, they should go out drinking alone. He also referred to her as a ‘TILF’ (Teens I’d like to f***)
On 18 March 2024, Mr Lycett was interviewed by the police under caution, but no further action was taken by the police due to insufficient evidence.
Following a disciplinary interview on 28 March 2024 where Mr Lycett maintained he was not the author of the messages, Mr Lycett requested a second meeting which took place on the same day. During this meeting Mr Lycett declared he had been addicted to Ketamine for the past two years, reporting that on average that he takes the drug every other day.
He said this allegedly clouded his judgement and resulted in a ‘K Hole’, and therefore he could not remember sending the messages but he believed the inappropriate online content was from him.
A teacher misconduct panel saw evidence including a statement, and screenshots, from the pupil. When she questioned the author of the messages, asking ‘is that you Shane?’, he responded ‘Yes but shh, no-one is meant to know…’
In the pupil’s statement they said that in around July 2023: “He started talking about a staff night out to Gadds Brewery and said that he was really drunk’.
‘On my birthday he said that he would buy me a ticket of cocaine. I said no thanks. Then he said when I’m 18, we should go out drinking. Just us two.’
‘‘He said, ‘I’m going to Dreamland to do pills with this weekend,’ that he was ‘Stoned all the time’ messaged ‘You f*cking TILF’ and “I’ll send the drugs… I get my best shit from ex-student” plus ‘Getting picked and mix drugs…3 for 100 and a bag of md or pills.’
The pupil told police and a social worker that Mr Lycett’s behaviour made her uncomfortable.
The disciplinary panel concluded the messages were sexually motivated and agreed: “The content of the messages Mr Lycett sent (were) disturbing, in particular the fact that he normalised swearing and taking drugs and used sexualised language towards a pupil at the school.”
The panel also noted Mr Lycett’s comments in a school interview conducted on 28 March 2024. Mr Lycett admitted to having a ‘crippling addiction to ketamine’ over the previous two years and that he had taken it most days.
The panel found that the following offences were relevant: sexual communication with a child; possession (including for personal use) and/or possession with intent to supply…any class A drugs; and possession with intent to supply another person…any class B drugs.
They also noted the lack of insight and remorse on the part of Mr Lycett, other than his acknowledgment of his addiction problems.
The prohibition order means Shane Lycett is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England and will not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.
This is awful.
Can’t the police charge him with trying to procur drugs for a 16/17 year old or something? Would love to see this turd locked up.
Being addicted to drugs is no excuse whatsoever. What a scumbag!!!
Only saving grace is that with that much Special K for that long, he likely now needs a urine bag.
The path of ruination and stupidity never fails to find another idiot to walk down it.
mate shane lycett get ur act together i used to think u were tuff but then look what happened. disappointed and u RUINED my day and future prospects… grrr…
What’s that in English?
He’s patently an idiot. However the reference to him paying to access a pupils online platform is vague enough to possibly suggest there was a sexual nature to the content, plus he accepted a facebook friend request, so the request had been sent by the pupil.
Which might suggest there was degree of knowing involvement by that pupil, that it was 2 other pupils that brought things to the attention of the authorities rather than the pupil further muddies the water.
He was effectively barred for having extremely poor judgment both in terms of his messages and choice of recreational pursuits , full disclosure of the pupils online platform and all the messages between tham may have revealed a very different story.
As someone having been in a position of authority and power , his behaviour is never acceptable and being barred from teaching totally fitting. But he’s not committed a criminal offence it would seem.
“not committed a criminal offence” by offering a child drugs?
Given the evidence is in writing other messages were admitted as being his, you have to assume that it’s not an offence as otherwise why was he not charged? Lots of people say lots of things that if they actually did them would be illegal , but as yet thinking and voicing such thoughts is rarely enough to get you charged. Plus of course we don’t know what other messages were sent by either party involved.
You took pictures of women in various states of undress in public and published them in books, should you be prosecuted for something along the lines of a public decency offence? I don’t think you should but it’s an obvious comparison
It is not actually illegal to be naked in public, but it IS illegal to “cause offence” by being naked. Daft, but true.
hiya, i thought id respond as i know a bit more about this situation than just the news, there were no messages from the student to the teacher, only the teacher to the student. the teacher purposely visited the online platform of the student, and all of the interactions on this platform would have been documented and accessed by the police. no criminal charges will be faced due to “insufficient evidence”, however, the student did not entice the teacher nor was the situation entrapment in any form.
The article clearly states that he “ accepted” a facebook friend request, so the pupil must have had a degree of interraction.
That in itself was wrong. Teachers should NEVER be social media “friends” with pupils, immaterial of who sent the request.
Quite agree, another reason for his removal from the teaching . However my point was that , anons, assertions are factually incorrect and there was , at least to a small degree, interraction