Derbyshire teacher offered to rate subscribers’ penises on OnlyFans page, disciplinary panel heard

Leanne Wilson – who taught at Holbrook School for Autism for eight years before her resignation in May 2023 – set up the account under the alias Sophie Palmer. On the profile page – discovered by a colleague via Instagram – Ms Wilson could be seen in he underwear in “sexually provocative” poses.

Among services offered were photographs via direct messaging, “ratings” featuring a picture of an aubergine emoji signifying a penis, selling underwear and the opportunity for subscribers to control her vibrator remotely.

Wilson claimed she had set up the account in April 2022 at a time when she was “extremely unwell” and had used content that was “copied and pasted” from another account – meaning she had not actually intended to provide some of the services that were advertised.

She told the panel she had interacted with only a “small number” of subscribers – admitting to sending images, but these had always been of her wearing underwear.

A report into the disciplinary hearing detailed how on May 15, 2025 a colleague saw “inappropriate” pictures of Wilson on an Instagram account under the Sophie Palmer alias containing a link to the OnlyFans account which the school identified as belonging to the teacher.

Following her suspension on May 16, Wilson resigned 10 days later. Though the panel noted the embarrassing mistake constituted a “serious departure from personal and professional conduct” it found Wilson had also demonstrated a “high degree” of insight over her conduct.

The report read: “In her evidence, Ms Wilson also expressed regret and remorse for what she had done which the panel found to be genuine.” Panellists also had regard to glowing testimonials from parents – one of whom described her as an “inspiring, motivational and passionate teacher” who would be “a huge loss to the special needs community”.

Considering whether a future teaching ban should be imposed, the panel concluded that publication of its findings “would be sufficient” and that a prohibition order was “not proportionate or in the public interest”.