A disgraced Wokingham teacher who was given a two-year suspended jail sentence for child porn offences has now been banned from the country’s classrooms for life.

Gordon Waterson, 34, who taught at Ludgrove School was given the suspended sentence along with an order that he carry out 180 hours of unpaid work after admitting at Reading Crown Court in March last year making and distributing indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children.

Now a lifetime ban has been imposed on him on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education. The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) disciplinary panel that heard the case was told that in addition to the suspended sentence and the unpaid work order Waterson was also ordered to register with the police for a period of 10 years, and a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years was imposed.

In their findings, the panel said that Waterson’s conduct “ran counter to what should have been at the very core of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children.”

They said the seriousness of the offending behavior that led to the conviction was relevant to Waterson’s ongoing suitability to teach.

They said that Waterson had shown “some limited insight into his actions” but they said they considered that in view of his convictions, a ban on him being allowed to teach was both “proportionate and appropriate.”

In some cases when bans are imposed on teachers the way is left open to them to seek to have the ban lifted after a set period. But in this case, the panel took the view that the ban should be a permanent one without provisions for it to be reviewed later.

Agreeing with the panel’s findings and imposing the ban on behalf of the Education Secretary, TRA decision maker, David Oatley, said the findings against Waterson were “particularly serious” and that while his actions did not appear to involve a pupil or colleague at Ludgrove School he had accessed and distributed images of children between the ages of two and 12.

He said that in his view the “lack of full insight” shown by Waterson meant that “there was some risk of repetition of this behaviour” which put at risk the future wellbeing of pupils.

He said : “In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.”

And he said he took the view that for this to happen the ban had to be one that was permanent with no provision for it to be reviewed later.

It is open to Waterson to mount a High Court challenge to the ban.