An employee of the Guilford area school district (SAD 4) has been arrested and charged with possession of child pornography, according to an email Friday morning from the district’s superintendent.
“I have been informed that an employee of the District was arrested and charged with possession of sexually explicit material,” Superintendent Kelly MacFadyen said in the the email.
“This individual will no longer be an employee in this district and is not allowed on campus,” MacFadyen said.
A copy of the email was posted to a community Facebook page Friday morning.
The Maine Wire will update this story when more information is available.
Just what we expect to find in our schools today.
Defense will probably be something like “thought the governor said it was ok”. Keep up the good work, one less democrat.
Every school employee needs regular drug and alcohol screening, psychological evaluation and forensics on all electronic devices.
The moment laptops were pushed into every classroom the sexual predators began to hack into children’s electronic
world, during classes, while the teachers were pretending to teach. That was just as effective to normalize sexual addiction as the Dare program in the schools effectively normalized drug addiction. We are living in the furnace and Satan is after our kiddos.
Why no name?
Protecting criminals?
Let me guess .
A “ male” teacher with naked pictures of little boys .
Ask the guys in Augusta : If “ he “ claims to be “ trans “ will that make it ok ?
Get um out of here !
I just started 3 weeks ago this web income system that my friend recommended to me and I’ve gotten 2 checks for a total of $9,200… this is the best decision I made in a long time! This extra b7655 cash has changed my life in so many ways, thank you!
Here is I started_______ tinyurl.com/homestar2?/7655
Mills will offer him a job in the state government!
Why does the Superintendent use the term “sexually explicit material” and not “child pornography” ? Also, why does this website claim that the individual was “arrested and charged with possession of child pornography” basing this claim “according to an email Friday morning from the district’s superintendent” when the email clearly does not mention “child pornography” ? Is “possession of sexually explicit material” even against the law ?